|
Post by caskur on Mar 9, 2013 23:07:40 GMT 10
then it is irrefutable that Judaism is a corruption of Zoroastrianism and not real. You claim to hold no Dogma. Yet, you're just as rigid and stubborn with your beliefs as any Dogmatists. Yeah... answer that Buzz.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 9, 2013 23:53:52 GMT 10
I'm pretty sure that between Adam's creation and Moses there are 2 thousand years... in that 2 thousand years, there was always a faithful God fearing man. Most of the time man-unkind acted like crazed debauched maniacs.. The truth about God was relayed verbally by the ancient Israelite. And the reason why religion was similar is because they ALL were from the same family... I don't know why Buzz thinks he has stumbled on some new idea. none of that is real you are deluded all buildings uncovered relate back to the Mesopotamian area and there are no human structures older than that... That is where civilization started... there is nothing delusional about that.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 3:57:45 GMT 10
Biblical legends that are today found in Judaism, Christianity, Islam and Mandeanism share some overlapping consistency with ancient Mesopotamian myths, in particular the Creation story, the Garden of Eden, The Great Flood, Tower of Babel and figures such as Nimrod and Lilith (the Assyrian Lilitu). In addition the story of Moses' origins shares a similarity with that of Sargon of Akkad, and the Ten Commandments mirror Assyrian-Babylonian legal codes to some degree.
These legends stand earlier than the exile, and the Hebrew contact with the Zoroastrians, by more than 2000 years.
Consider all this, and then tell me where the influence comes from.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 13:15:16 GMT 10
It is irrefutable that Judaism is a corruption of Zoroastrianism. You've spelled 'refutable', wrong.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 13:16:55 GMT 10
I'm pretty sure that between Adam's creation and Moses there are 2 thousand years... in that 2 thousand years, there was always a faithful God fearing man. Most of the time man-unkind acted like crazed debauched maniacs.. The truth about God was relayed verbally by the ancient Israelite. And the reason why religion was similar is because they ALL were from the same family... I don't know why Buzz thinks he has stumbled on some new idea. There was no Creation, and no Adam, and certainly no Moses. 2,000 years? Wow you are seriously deluded because nothing in the first 5 books of the OT, has any veracity whatsoever. There is no god, and Judaism is a Post Exilic religion and nothing other than a corruption of Zoroastrianism. There is no truth in the Bible whatsoever - it is irrelevant and absurd as well as obscene - as are all those that believe it. You might have a case there, if it were they not ALSO recorded in the earliest Mesopotamian manuscripts.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 13:18:49 GMT 10
it is irrefutable ir·ref·u·ta·ble /ˌirəˈfyo͞otəbəl/ Adjective Impossible to deny or disprove. Synonyms irrefragable - incontrovertible - incontestable Yep, but it doesn't fit with the concept you are trying to apply it to.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 13:40:13 GMT 10
Uh No. Consider this carefully, Buzz. The Hebrews didn't exist as a tribe, until the time of Jacob.
...What were they BEFORE that?
Even if you don't want to accept that, the stories in the Pentateuch obviously pre-exists the Babylonian exile. So that shoots a hole in your already-leaking zoroastrian boat. --Grab a pail, or start swimming.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 13:56:24 GMT 10
And yet there it is, affirmed by the Mesopotamians. That must REALLY piss you off, eh? To have another culture agree with the OT's testimony, and have the tenacity to predate your "Persian exile theory", and everything.
Guess your book is due for a rewrite.
Whether you like it or not. It's ANOTHER testimony that affirms the writings in the OT. The more accounts that exist, the greater the likelihood it occurred.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 14:01:58 GMT 10
hardly "my" theory - it is the opinion of experts Experts can be wrong, and often are.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 14:05:40 GMT 10
the Mesopotamians believed myths not reality and the fact they made their way into the OT just shows how people will believe anything. So do you affirm the OT accounts, (Whether thought to be true or no--is irrelevent) pre-exist the exile, yes or no? If so, then the dating proves the Zoroastrians were NOT an influence on Judaism. If not, then you need to explain why the accounts found in the Pentateuch exists 2000 years prior to the exile it was 'supposed' to have been influenced by. Put up, or shut up.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 14:10:05 GMT 10
you are wrong - that is for sure and certain - and you ignore all the overwhelming evidence and all you do is devalue and invalidate and you are just so grandiose Don’t waste your time trying to win an argument with a narcissist because you never will. Not only are they always right, but you are always wrong. So what are you saying, Buzz? Are you affirming then that I am right, and you are wrong? Have YOU conceded that you are wrong? -If not, I guess that makes you a narcissist.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 14:13:14 GMT 10
Now you aren't making any sense. You are saying the teachings of the Hebrews existed PRIOR to the exile, and yet the exile was the influence that inspired the teaching of the Hebrews.
Which is it?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 14:48:35 GMT 10
the OT was written in the Persian Period from older stories and Zoroastrian concepts 1. The Jahwist (or J) - was written c 950 BCE. 2. The Elohist (or E) - was written c 850 BCE. 3. The Deuteronomist was written c 650-621 BCE. Dating specifically from the time of King Josiah of Judah as well as Joshua and most of the subsequent books up to 2 Kings. Only the Levitical laws were written at the time of the exile.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 15:08:38 GMT 10
That's what modern scholarship teaches.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 10, 2013 22:27:19 GMT 10
No reference to Zoroaster appears in any cuneiform inscriptions, but you believe he existed; and yet even though there are literally hundreds of historical documents confirming the existence of Christ, you reject that outright?
Makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 11, 2013 4:42:36 GMT 10
As for "Christ" which means "the oiled" there is no evidence that he ever existed No evidence? You have eyewitness accounts written within the time of the events in question, and you say 'no evidence'?
|
|
|
Post by Occam's Spork on Mar 11, 2013 10:21:55 GMT 10
j The Gospels are not eye witness accounts, and no first century writer or historian mentions Jesus or any part of that story. Wrong. Suppose someone wrote a book in 1980 describing your hometown. In the book, the author correctly describes your town's politicians, it's unique laws and penal codes, the local industry, local weather patterns, local slang, the towns roads and geography, it's unusual topography, local houses of worship, area hotels, town statues and sculptures, the depth of the water in the town harbor and numerous other unique details about your town that year. Would you think he actually there, or not? Argument from silence. Historians were only interested in political affairs, they wouldn't have been interested in a ragtag band, or the Hebrew's issues with them. The "one hour" comment certainly allows for a lot of room for listening/watching disciples, and it is unreasonable to assume that in the first moment of that hour after the command of Jesus the disciples went straight to sleep. They would have struggled to stay awake--but would have eventually fallen asleep due to sadness; and in each of the three incidences of prayer, there would have been period of alertness/attention prior to be yet again overcome with fatigue, allowing time for observation and overhearing.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 11, 2013 12:41:40 GMT 10
I don't believe you, Buzz. You're not "done" with anybody. You keep declaring that you're "done" with people, only to return to repeat the declaration. You keep on proclaiming your "truth". But unlike in St John's Gospel which states that the truth shall set you free, you give the impression of somebody in chains - a slave to your own sloganeering. You're not "done" with this religion board until one day you implode in a giant dummy spit and flounce off in a huff.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 11, 2013 13:06:15 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 11, 2013 13:27:03 GMT 10
Call that a dummy spit? This is a dummy spit ... Wimp ...
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 11, 2013 13:39:20 GMT 10
I think he's funny... he has you pegged nicely and hung out to dry.
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 11, 2013 14:23:52 GMT 10
says the biggest sponger on the planet!
|
|
|
Post by jody on Mar 11, 2013 14:36:53 GMT 10
why oh why do some people take things sooo personally.....these are all words on a screen for petes sake.
|
|
|
Post by pim on Mar 11, 2013 15:12:22 GMT 10
But nobody believes you when you talk like that, Buzz. If you really do have "more important things to do" then don't let us keep you from doing them! And if you find interacting with us a waste of your time, then your course is clear!
You keep saying these things and you keep on coming back and saying them again ...
Nobody can stop you from saying them, Buzz, and neither should we. But just because you keep coming back to repeat the mantra doesn't mean that you're going to be believed ...
|
|
|
Post by caskur on Mar 11, 2013 16:26:06 GMT 10
Hmm, I wonder what percentage of the 3,000 + posts have been "I'm done with you" style posts? Histrionic personality disorder perhaps? Is that a woman's disease? It's hard to keep up with all the new psycho labels.
|
|