tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post5137164337716752993..comments2023-10-26T05:38:40.356-07:00Comments on Dead Ryks Underground: Worshipers of an evil god.Rykhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comBlogger46125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-47181299259834102032009-06-19T17:33:28.398-07:002009-06-19T17:33:28.398-07:00@JD
I will have to do a bit of reading. On the su...@JD<br /><br />I will have to do a bit of reading. On the subject and currently lack the time. I am not overly committed to the mithraist connection but I do not feel it has been dismissed. It would have to be proven that mithraism predated the writing of the gospels and I don't believe this is the case. It was popular in the first century which may be slightly later than the writing of the gospels by some accounts. However the initial creation of the religion is contemporary with even the earlier dates by which the gospels are said to have been written. By 60 AD it had attracted the attention of the Romans and its origin is decades older than that. Putting it squarely contemporary to the gospels. Of course the early church fathers accused the mithraists of being the ones doing the copying and I can not discredit this entirely.<br /><br />I think it is probably true that as contemporaries and rivals the two mythologies were heavily influenced by one another. At the time both were popular among the Romans who were in the market for a more disciplined and authoritarian brand of religion and both Christianity and the mysteries of Mithras were competing for the role.<br /><br />Constantine, who sponsored the council of Nicea which selected the gospels for the Bible and founded the formal Christian religion worshipped both Christ and Mythras apparently interchangeably. It was Constantine that directed and controlled the creation of early Christianity and it is certain that his belief in Mythras influenced, the choice of gospels. Also it is impossible to say whether the gospels included by the council were in their original form or were altered to fit what the Emporor and the bishops wanted.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-44755637477196553692009-06-16T18:55:15.186-07:002009-06-16T18:55:15.186-07:00Pardon the delay. Insofar as the Josephus quotatio...Pardon the delay. Insofar as the Josephus quotation fom the video, maybe we could both agree that the reference to Jesus being the "Christ" was interpolated. This would not be consistent with his (Josephus') Jewish background. The other details mentioned would seem historical in nature and I don't really see where the problem of acceptability would be. If there are other points you would like to discuss, please list them here.<br /><br />I'll check out the video you supplied tomorrow.<br /><br />Can we put the Mithrian claim to rest? If not, if it could be shown that the Roman legends post-dated the claims of the early Christian church, would that suffice?J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-37371800670618547002009-06-11T19:05:37.453-07:002009-06-11T19:05:37.453-07:00You raise some interesting points to discuss and I...You raise some interesting points to discuss and I hope to address some of them this weekend. Thanks for your response.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-28584432584409074282009-06-10T18:22:11.673-07:002009-06-10T18:22:11.673-07:00@JD continued
I have heard a number of variants by...@JD continued<br />I have heard a number of variants by scholars regarding what parts of the Josephus passage should be considered true and which not. I think calling it not a forgery is overly generous. The attempt to decieve is clear. This was neither an error or an attempt at clarification or exposition, it was clearly an attemp at making Josephus sound like a Christian. Some of the writing could be the actual words of Josephus despite being out of context. However the creator of this video allows more than is prudent. For instance he retained doer of wonderful works which is nearly as unlikely from Josephus as was the part about calling Jesus the Christ which the video acknowledged was false. Also it is unlikely that Josephus would have used the term Christian. Christ is not a proper name it is a title, meaning annointed ones. The early disciples called themseles Christian meaning followers of the Christ however a Jew like Josephus would have not done so. It is unclear if anyone outside of the religion used the term that early on, not even all of the early followers used it. It is possible but not demonstrated that it may have been used by the Romans but the Jews of the time would not have. After removing those all that is really left of the passage is an acknowledgement of the existence and beliefs of early Christianity which is not in dispute. It is known that there were Christians, It is also known that they believed Jesus of Nazereth was the messiah and rose from the dead. What is disputed is did this actually happen, nothing in Josephus substantiates that. The other passage from Josephus calling James the brother of the so called Christ is more credible in the sense that it is both appropriate for Josephus to say and consistent with the tone of the surrounding work.<br /><br />The issue is that I am not disputing that someone claiming to be the messiah was executed by the Romans. I am not disputing that he was named some variant of Yeshua. The questionis did this person or any of the self proclaimed messiahs actually do miracles or rise from the dead. Contemporary sources are silent on the subject. Which is surprising considering the presence of both Hebrew and Roman commentators in abundance who would have written about actual public miracles.<br /><br /> Here is an interesting video showing the abundance of prolific commentators who did not notice reports of ressurections, healings and powerful magic.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eOkzs887Jp8" rel="nofollow">This video</a><br /><br />You are correct that I am willing to accept parts of the Josephus passage despite being skeptical, I just think less of it is accurate than you do. It is however all suspect because it is impossible to know what was and was not added later we can only speculate.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-17862345366277163102009-06-10T18:16:07.250-07:002009-06-10T18:16:07.250-07:00@JD
Interesting I had actually seen the first abd...@JD<br /><br />Interesting I had actually seen the first abd third video before. I recal seeing an extended version of the first one that included more of the debate but I could not find it. I have heard Craig many times. The problem is that nothing he said actually establishes the accuracy of the Gospels. At best it concludes that they are roughly faithful to the source material. Also I do not dispute that one of the early messiahs was crucified by Pilate. I have no credible evidence of it outside of the Gospels but I also have no evidence against it in particular. As I have mentioned before Yeshua or some variant thereof is a symbolic name and offhand I can think of three distinct historical messiah figures who used it.<br /><br />However if the source material is a myth then the Gospels are as well. The question is how to authenticate the story. On one extreme(not mine) we have the premise that the whole thing was created out of whole cloth by the early churc fathers. On the other we have the relatively common but false belief that the Gospels were directly written by the apostles following the ressurection and were the basis for Christianity. I doubt either of these have any merit but they have supporters. The truth is somewhere in between. The only way I can think of to substaniate it is with historical references independant of the Gospels and the early church. However such references are almost nonexistent.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-3077960334491357392009-06-09T17:00:38.004-07:002009-06-09T17:00:38.004-07:00RE: Josephus Ryk, I just came across this video th...RE: Josephus Ryk, I just came across <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6cQgqbXYN0" rel="nofollow">this video</a> that perhaps we could both agree on.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-7572259156794040692009-06-07T18:48:25.002-07:002009-06-07T18:48:25.002-07:00No hurry. The first one is about 5 minutes long a...No hurry. The first one is about 5 minutes long and the other two are shorter than that. I thought it would be more interesting watching a video than just reading something. In the mean time I'm going to examine that which was written about Josephus.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-45211673051907006882009-06-07T16:48:08.687-07:002009-06-07T16:48:08.687-07:00@JD
I am unlikely to have time to follow your link...@JD<br />I am unlikely to have time to follow your links soon. I am home for the weekend but have to travel again tomorrow. I am currently devoting most of my time to my family but I will try to give them a look when I am back on the road.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-19802494752095692762009-06-06T19:14:11.493-07:002009-06-06T19:14:11.493-07:00I would sat the sources for the new testament are ...<i>I would sat the sources for the new testament are extremely unreliable. Considering how late the gospels were written, the fact that they were unlikely to have been written by the people who had any firsthand knowledge, it seems there was ample time for mythmaking.</i><br /><br />Ryk, this weekend, if you can find the time, I would like you to examine the following couple of videos. After you have viewed that which I post, I would like to get your thoughts on them.<br /><br />The first is titled <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_r62LpPhLdQ&feature=related" rel="nofollow">What Do Scholars Believe About The Resurrection of Jesus?</a> It's about 5 minutes long. <br /><br />The second is titled <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sru30C62yeE&feature=related" rel="nofollow">Are There Inconsistencies Between The Four Gospels?</a><br /><br />Only if you enjoyed the first two would I recommend a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkBD20edOco" rel="nofollow">personal favorite</a> for your viewing pleasure.<br /><br />I had a chance to look over the link you provided re: Josephus. I would like to look into the matter in greater depth this coming week.<br /><br />JCJ Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-65280601412377921492009-06-05T19:33:08.130-07:002009-06-05T19:33:08.130-07:00@JDCurtis
Thanks for your comments about Fiji. I ...@JDCurtis<br /><br />Thanks for your comments about Fiji. I will look into it when I can. I will of course look for several sources. Dr. Kennedys claims are not unreasonable but they are unusual in terms of historical cannibalism. In any case it is certainly interesting.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-887238388736076322009-06-05T19:22:18.347-07:002009-06-05T19:22:18.347-07:00No, it doesnt really give any more details than th...No, it doesnt really give any more details than that. I only have access to the Kennedy-Newcombe book, maybe the source cited has some more details.<br /><br />One other part of <i>What I Jesus Had Never Been Born</i> has a reference that has some more details in it. Cannibalism is mentioned.<br /><br /><i>In 1844, H.L Hastings visited the Fiji Islands. He found there that life was very cheap and that it was held in low steem. You could buy a human being for $7.00 or one musket! That was cheaper than a cow. After having bought him you could work him, whip him starve him or eat him, according to your preference-and many did the latter. He returned a number of years later and found that the value of human life had risen tremendously. One could not buy a human being for $7.00 to beat or eat. In fact, you could not buy one for seven million dollars. Why? Because across the Fiji Islands there were 1,200 Christian chapels where the gospel of Christ had been proclaimed, and people had been taught that we are not our own; that we have been purchasd with a price, not with silver or gold, but with the precious blood of Jesus Christ.</i><br /><br />D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe; <i>What If Jesus Had Never Been Born?,</i> pg 27<br /><br />I'll try to address some of your other points tomorrow.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-54221187661198159122009-06-04T23:11:27.628-07:002009-06-04T23:11:27.628-07:00@JD
Good one, that joke got a laugh. I guess Cgris...@JD<br />Good one, that joke got a laugh. I guess Cgristianity is preferable to some other religions, at least as far as this story goes. It sounds apocryphal to me. It is cute but it seems far fetched. Does the story mention which tribe,or island? Does it name the soldier. Does it indicate if the tribesman was being humorous. I say this because most traditional cannibalism was ceremonial rather than nutritional. It sounds like if this is more than just a folk tale you are dealing with a tribesman who has a sense of humor.<br /><br />Anyway swapping tribal animism for Christianity is mostly a lateral shift. It comes with a little added civilization, but to truly upgrade the tribes would need to abandon superstition altogether.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-4774814390246354152009-06-04T20:22:29.557-07:002009-06-04T20:22:29.557-07:00I don't wish to change the subject and I want ...I don't wish to change the subject and I want to address some of that which you brought up this weekend. However, earlier you brought up the subject of "cannibalism" and while reading today, I came across the following and I just thought I'd throw this out there.<br /><br /><i>James C, Hefley provides a telling anecdote about the end of cannibalism in one tribe because of Christ. During World War II, on a remote island in the Pacific, an American G.I. met a national who could speak English carrying a Bible. "The soldier pointed to the Bible and grinned knowingly "We educated people don't put much faith in that Book anymore,' he said. The islander grinned back . 'Well it's a good thing for you that we do' he said while patting his stomach, 'or else you'd be in here by now'</i>" <br /><br />D. James Kennedy and Jerry Newcombe; <i> What If Jesus Had never Been Born?</i> pg 24 <br />Source cited by Kennedy, Newcombe. James C. Hefley; <i>What's So Great About The Bible?</i> pg 76J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-41263230253083236222009-06-04T19:53:33.554-07:002009-06-04T19:53:33.554-07:00@JD
The writings of Josephus are considered relia...@JD<br /><br />The writings of Josephus are considered reliable but the comments about Jesus are obvious forgeries added much later. I am on the road at the moment and don't have access to all of my material but <a href="http://freethought.mbdojo.com/josephus.html" rel="nofollow">this essay</a> does a very good job of summarizing the evidence that Josephus never wrote thos passages.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-89009401833114570082009-06-04T19:38:27.606-07:002009-06-04T19:38:27.606-07:00@JD
I would sat the sources for the new testament ...@JD<br />I would sat the sources for the new testament are extremely unreliable. Considering how late the gospels were written, the fact that they were unlikely to have been written by the people who had any firsthand knowledge, it seems there was ample time for mythmaking. Particularly by a group actively trying to found a religion.<br /><br />However I have not read these pre gospel documents. If you can point me to a place that I may find copies to read that would be appreciated. In fact I am intrigued, I had understood that the original mythic texts from which the gospels were drawn no longer existed. Frankly I didn't know that it had been conclusively proven that such a document existed.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-7154484218396314702009-06-04T19:30:55.672-07:002009-06-04T19:30:55.672-07:00I am quite aware that Dionysius like Jesus is a fi...<i>I am quite aware that Dionysius like Jesus is a figure of myth.</i><br /><br />On what evidence do you base this assertion Ryk? There is far better evidence to prove the historical existence of Jesus of Nazereth than Alexander the Great who almost nobody questions if he was real or not. <br /><br />Regarding Josephus, I emailed a professor yestersay (she teaches <i>History of Western Civilization</i> to undergraduates) at a small Eastern college re: the accuracy of Flavius Josephus and she emailed me the following. <i>He is a Jewish historian, and eyewitness to the destruction of Jerusalem. Because of the generally balanced treatment of all sides, he is regarded as accurate. His work doesn’t received the same scrutiny as the Scripture (because it doesn’t claim inspiration), but is the equivalent of Herodotus, Thucydides, Pliny and others.</i><br />It would appear, on the surface anyway that Josephus is regarded as credible within acedemia. On what basis are you stating that his writings are fictitious?<br /><br />I didnt mean to spam you with too much info, so let's keep this simple. Two questions.<br /><br />1. Did you examine the New Testament accounts of Jesus and if so, why did you think they were lacking in authenticity?<br /><br />2. Do you think that the other extra-biblical authors cited were referring to someone else?J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-86548696118819454762009-06-04T19:24:55.110-07:002009-06-04T19:24:55.110-07:00William Lane Craig once answered a skeptic's q...William Lane Craig <a href="http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5757" rel="nofollow">once answered a skeptic's question</a> about extra-canonical sources thusly..<br /><br />"<i>outside of the canon are there that support Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection in bodily form, and ascension into heaven? <br /><br />Actually, there are lots of extra-canonical sources that support Jesus’ death, burial, and resurrection, sources which I suspect you’ve never thought of. You’re thinking of later extra-canonical sources like Josephus and Tacitus. But the really interesting extra-canonical sources are the earlier ones, that is to say, the sources used by the New Testament writers themselves. Now before you cry foul, you need to reflect that these sources are not themselves in the canon but go back even closer to the events than the canonical books. These are, therefore, the center of historical Jesus study today, not the later extra-canonical sources. Honestly, if you’re focused on what later extra-canonical sources there are for Jesus, you’re really missing the boat.<br /><br />What are some of these sources? The Passion story used by Mark, the formula cited by Paul in I Cor. 15.3-5, Matthew’s special source called M, Luke’s special source called L, and so forth. Some of these are incredibly early sources (which helps to answer your second question). The pre-Markan passion story probably dates from the 30s and is based on eyewitness testimony, and the pre-Pauline formula in I Cor. 15.3-5 has been dated within a couple of years or even months of Jesus’ death. I think you can see why these are the really interesting sources, not some later report by Josephus.<br /><br />Now these sources provide abundant, independent testimony to the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus. Later references to Jesus by the Roman historian Tacitus, the Jewish historian Josephus, the Syrian writer Mara bar Serapion, rabbinical writings, and extra-biblical Christian authors confirm what the New Testament documents tell us about Jesus but don’t really give us anything new. You can find such sources cited and discussed in R. T. France’s very fine book The Evidence for Jesus (1986) or in Robert Van Voorst’s definitive Jesus outside the New Testament (2000). What is key for the historian, however, will be, not these later sources, but the New Testament documents themselves and their sources.<br /><br />Which leads to my question to you: why are you interested in extra-canonical sources rather than the primary source documents themselves? Doesn’t your very question betray the prejudice that the New Testament documents are historically unreliable? But if there are sources outside the New Testament that speak of Jesus, ah, that’s real evidence! <br /><br />You need to keep in mind that originally there wasn’t any such book called “The New Testament.” There were just these separate documents handed down from the first century, things like the Gospel of Luke, the Gospel of John, the Acts of the Apostles, Paul’s letter to the church in Corinth, Greece, and so on. It wasn’t until a couple centuries later that the church officially collected all these documents under one cover, which came to be known as the New Testament. The church only included the earliest sources which were closest to Jesus and the original disciples and left out the later, secondary accounts like the forged apocryphal gospels, which everyone knew were fakes. So from the very nature of the case, the best historical sources were included in the New Testament. People who insist on evidence taken only from writings outside the New Testament don’t understand what they’re asking for. They’re demanding that we ignore the earliest, primary sources about Jesus in favor of sources which are later, secondary, and less reliable, which is just nuts as historical methodology.<br /><br />The real question is, how reliable are the documents for the life of Jesus that came to be incorporated into the book we now call the New Testament?</i>"J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-53737156410493392272009-06-02T22:25:10.529-07:002009-06-02T22:25:10.529-07:00I did not saythat Dionysius was real or actualy tu...I did not saythat Dionysius was real or actualy turned water in to wine. I am quite aware that Dionysius like Jesus is a figure of myth. Also I am aware that there are several distinctions between the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Tale of Noah. Obviously the two myths are different retellings of the same story. It makes sense that as the early tribes that became the Hebrew people adopted monotheism that they would develope their own variants on the original myths. As Yah evolved from a simple storm God, the weaker younger brother of Baal, into the suprem deity of a monotheistic religion the stories told by the tribes who worshipped him would also change. I find it interesting that Yah also evolved to become the Grecian Zeus and later the Roman Jupiter. So technicaly while the Romans were repressing the Jews they were worshiping variants of the same god.<br /><br />It is difficult to Say who copied who regarding Mythras and Jesus. Certainly the Essenes the various messiah cults and the Gnostics all predate Mythraism, but by the time the Gospels were incorporated into what we call the Bible there was certainly opportunity and reason to graft bits of Mythraism onto Christianity.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-11103766321096810352009-06-02T20:20:43.903-07:002009-06-02T20:20:43.903-07:00A couple of points that I didnt address in my earl...A couple of points that I didnt address in my earlier posts........<br /><br />Insofar as the Gilgamesh/Noah contraversy, <a href="http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/gilgamesh.html" rel="nofollow">this link</a> provides that there are seven similarities between the two accounts however there are at least twenty eight differences that make them distinct. Not the least of which is that the vessel described in the Gilgamesh account was unseaworthy, while Noah's was.<br /><br /><i>As to the greek and pagan myths that were incorporated into the Christ legend are Dionysious and Mythras were both grafted on in order to attract sophisticated Romans to the faith.</i><br /><br />Insofar as Dionysious is concerned, one writer put it thusly "There are no histories which claim the Greek god Dionysius turned water into wine nor are there any purported eyewitnesses to him doing so; the histories which do mention water turning into wine at two temples dedicated to him don't even pretend to take the tradition seriously. Pausanius writes: <i>"Three pots are brought into the building by the priests and set down empty in the presence of the citizens and of any strangers who may chance to be in the country. The doors of the building are sealed by the priests themselves and by any others who may be so inclined. On the morrow they are allowed to examine the seals, and on going into the building they find the pots filled with wine.... If the Greeks are to be believed in these matters, one might with equal reason accept what the Ethiopians above Syene say about the table of the sun."</i><br /><br />And then, of course, one must also take into account that no one actually claimed to have ever seen Dionysius, for the very good reason that the sight of him was generally supposed to immediately precede being torn to pieces by his maddened Maenads. Dionysius is a mythic deity; there has never been any belief that he was a historical personage in either his Greek or Roman form. (Day)<br /><br />Insofar as Mithras is concerned, "The Zoroastrian Mithra is not the Roman Mithras. There is no evidence, historical, archeological, or scientific, of any connection between the two other than the similarity of the name. The characteristics and rites are very different; particularly the latter in that there were no rites of Mithra of any kind. Roman Mithraism post-dates Christianity, so to the extent that any similarities between Jesus Christ and Mithras are to be considered evidence of a religion's fictitious nature, it must be directed at Mithraism, not Christianity. The historical record is also clear that in the second century AD, it was believed that Mithraists were copying Christianity, not the other way around." (Day)<br /><br />It would appear that in both instances, the other competing claims were copies of Christianity and not the other way around.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-47416638915546004762009-06-02T20:11:12.968-07:002009-06-02T20:11:12.968-07:00I admit the parts about canibalism are prophetic h...<i> I admit the parts about canibalism are prophetic however it reads far more like BibleGod is threatening them rather than warning them</i><br /><br />Please differentiate between "threatening" and "warning" them in this particular case. "Warning" them sounds like a sissified version of the same thing.<br /><br /><i>As to Jephtah. Please show me where in the Bible it says that she was not sacrificed.</i><br /><br />From the above commentary "both Wesley's and Henry's commentaries indicate that he did not sacrifice his daughter "but only devoted (her) to perpetual virginity. This appears, From ver.37,38, where we read, that she bewailed not her death, which had been the chief cause of lamentation, if that had been vowed, but her virginity: From this ver.39, where, after he had said, that he did with her according to his vow" he adds, by way of declaration of the matter of that vow, and she knew no man. It is probably conceived, that the Greeks, who used to steal sacred histories, and turn them into fables, had from this history their relation of Iphigenia (which may be put for Jephtigenia) sacrificed by her father Agamemnon, which is described by many of the same circumstances wherewith this is accompanied." (Wesley)<br /><br /><br />Any way you slice it, God did not command Jephtah to sacrifice his daughter. Period> Any other interpretation of the verses cited is inaccurate. It doesnt state outright that he did kill her. Human sacrifice was forbidden in scripture. "Lange says, "At all events, it does not 'stand there in the text,' as Luther wrote, that she was offered in sacrifice." And the fact that the maidens mourned her virginity and not her death seems to prove that she did not die."<br /><br /><i> Why slaughter all of the helpless prisoners, even male children and infants, but keep virginal little girls. Because the pillaging horde wanted rape with their plunder.</i><br /><br />This is at best presumptuous on your behalf and at worst, an insight as to your state of mind. Nowhere does it say that children are to be raped. I think I'll pass on the two-way Rohrshach test with you as such an experience might cause me to run screaming into the night from the psychologist's office.<br /><br /><i>The fact that you actually accept the many acts of genocide that BibleGod commanded proves my point.</i><br /><br />Please reread my post from 4:08 and let me know your thoughts on the matter.<br /><br /><i>Your God can not have be the source of morality because the morality of the Bible is inferior and ugly.</i><br /><br />Again, by what system, from that point in time, are you using to determine that such morality laid out in the Bible is "inferior and ugly".J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-32114460927583656852009-06-02T18:51:07.037-07:002009-06-02T18:51:07.037-07:00It is no surprise to me that you use interpretatio...It is no surprise to me that you use interpretations to justify the behaviors condoned by the Bible. I admit the parts about caanibalism are prophetic however it reads far more like BibleGod is threatening them rather than warning them. If so it is another of his murderous temper tantrums.<br /><br />As to Jephtah. Please show me where in the Bible it says that she was not sacrificed. It does not she does mourn having to die a virgin but the verse clearly states, he did with her as he had promised, he had promised a burnt offering. Also had your god not wanted the gift of roasted little girl he could have caused something else to greey Jephtah first. Also since Jephtah continued in good favor with Biblegod afterwards and continued to judge Israel it seems that Biblegod was happy with the sacrifice. Had this been a morality tale about not making foolish promises Jephtah would have been punished or rebuked.<br /><br />Beating children with a rod is a bit beyond spanking, bashing in their heads with rocks for "cursing their parents" is wicked and selling them as slaves is despicable. I am aware that all of these things were the custom at the time. That is my point. Your God is not some good and wise being. It is the tribal myth of a bunch of bronze age barbarians.Rykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16424545934239146403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-26512625646695388122009-06-01T16:26:47.547-07:002009-06-01T16:26:47.547-07:00Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth hi...Leviticus 20:9 "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him." http://www.biblequery.org/lev.html It would appear that the person who kept the fifth commandment would not have anythig to worry about. While checking through some commentaries, I came across this concerning Leviticus 20 "<br /><br />Q: In Lev 20, why were so many crimes punished with the death penalty? <br />A: Apparently these things were serious enough to merit execution in God’s eyes. Instead of trying to fit God into our own preconceived notions, let us learn what God taught, and then look for reasons for this. Crimes meriting the death penalty fall into three categories: <br />Taking human life: intentional murder and unintentional murder if they do not flee to a city of refuge. An important difference between the Old Testament Law and other laws is that it did not matter if the victim was slave or free. A person being executed for taking human life is fitting punishment for taking human life. <br />Sexual sins: Most sexual sins, adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, are punished with death. Many sexual sins are addictive, and they try to entangle others in their sin. For the good of the community at that time, they were executed. <br />Open defiance: Worshipping other gods, fortune telling, etc. is defiance against God for God’s chosen people, the Jews. Of course a Jew could leave the people, assimilate in another country, and do what they wished. But for Jews living as the chosen people, God did not tolerate defiance against Himself. He also did not tolerate defiance against parents, such as openly cursing them. (Leviticus 20:9). <br />735 Baffling Bible Questions Answered p.67-68 points out that the Old Testament had fewer crimes punished by the death penalty than other law codes. Many other law codes would kill thieves. <br />As a contrast to the Old Testament Law, the Islamic Sharia Law is different. If a freeman and a slave kill a slave together, the slave is executed and the freeman only has to pay half the blood money. Here is the quote: Malik said about an adult and a child when they murder a man together. ‘The adult is killed and the child pays half the full blood-money.’ Malik said, ‘It is like that with a freeman and a slave when they murder a slave. The slave is killed and the freeman pays half of his value.’" Muwatta Malik 43.3.3 <br /><br /><br />So even if it sounds harsh, overall and on net balance, the Old Testament had fewer crimes punishable by death than other law codes.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-37381819736711067172009-06-01T16:25:51.902-07:002009-06-01T16:25:51.902-07:00"Commanding parents to abuse and murder their..."Commanding parents to abuse and murder their children and even sell them as slaves Proverbs 23:13-14, Leviticus 20:9, Exodus 21:7." Let's take a look at these.<br /><br />Proverbs 23:13-14 "Do not hesitate to discipline a child. If you spank him, he will not die. Spank him yourself, and you will save his soul from hell."<br /><br />Really Ryk. Corporal punishment. Thats it. How many youngsters today could use a good butt-whuppin? My parents didnt "spare the rod" and I'm grateful for it. It builds character and caused me to think twice before doing something wrong again. Look around this week and see if you don't see some "parent" trying to deal with their kid like they are their "buddy" or something and the kid doesnt listen at all and merely mocks the parent. There should be no question as to who is in charge in a child-parent relationship. If you doubt that disciplining a child can "save his soul from hell" then it it might also "keep his butt out of jail" someday by causing him to remember right from wrong and that there are consequences for wrong behavior.<br /><br /> <br /><br /><br />Exodus 21:7 "And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do." From the Jamieson Faussett Brown Commenary "<br /><br />Ex 21:7-36. Laws for Maidservants. <br /><br />7-11. if a man sell his daughter-Hebrew girls might be redeemed for a reasonable sum. But in the event of her parents or friends being unable to pay the redemption money, her owner was not at liberty to sell her elsewhere. Should she have been betrothed to him or his son, and either change their minds, a maintenance must be provided for her suitable to her condition as his intended wife, or her freedom instantly granted." <br /><br />This was the reality of the times that they lived in. For comparison, are there better laws from this time period you could cite?J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-68853800065517012162009-06-01T16:19:54.635-07:002009-06-01T16:19:54.635-07:00Deuteronomy 28:57 "She won't share with t...Deuteronomy 28:57 "She won't share with them the afterbirth from her body and the children she gives birth to. She will secretly eat them out of dire necessity, because of the hardships your enemies will make you suffer during the blockade of your cities" Ditto, prophetic.<br /><br />I think I see a pattern developing here. Are ther any verses you can think of that encourage it or say it (canibalism) is OK? Do you think alot of this could have been avoided through repentance?J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8134425139563359175.post-51110714190524567272009-06-01T16:12:52.905-07:002009-06-01T16:12:52.905-07:00Deuteronomy 28:53 "And in the siege, and in t...Deuteronomy 28:53 "And in the siege, and in the straitness, wherewith thine enemies shall distress thee, thou shalt eat the fruit of thine own body, the flesh of thy sons and of thy daughters whom Jehovah thy God hath given thee." Again, prophetic. Telling them how bad things are going to get. Not saying that cannibalism is allright and go out and do it.J Curtishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12746127431922685446noreply@blogger.com