Jews Rejected God's Offer

and as i pointed out, luke even says as much.

one more time around this simple idea: genesis was not written in the time of abraham. nor isaac. nor jacob.in fact, i seriously doubt it was written during moses's lfietime as well. the best date i can find is about 600 -- in BABYLONIAN captivity. does the prophesy make more sense now? it's about egypt, but it's supposed to say to the reader "god got us out of egypt, he can get us out babylon too" or at the very least give them something to identify with.

yes, you have a copy. it's called the book of genesis.i won't even bother quoting. we all know where abraham was from: ur of the chaldeans. when were the chaldeans in ur? about 900-600 bc.want some more evidence? look at the heavy babylonian influences: one creation account, the story of noah and the tower of babel are prime examples. noah's often debated, as is creation, so lets look at babel.there really is a tower of babel. if i recall correctly, it's where we get the name "babylon" from. bab-el means ladder of the gods (or "stairway to heaven" if you will). it was completed at some point (a few millenia before christ), but fell into disrepair and crumbled, leaving only the first few levels of the ziggurat. around 600 bc, king nebuchadnezzar (remember him?) set about to rebuild and it was never finished. so we have an ancient babylonian temple, that "reached to the heavens" and a failed attempt to rebuild it by a very famous king....and a story in the bible that makes fun of it. you see, the tower of babel story is a JOKE. balal means "confusion" and SOUNDS like babel. and so the hebrews reading this story, and looking at nebuchadnezzar's project are laughing. "god must have confused him or made him stupid," they would say.it's entirely too much of a coincidence for there to be a project to rebuild the babel ziggurat while the hebrews are there for it to NOT indicate that it influenced the writing.now, i can't begin to point out all of the anti-babylon subtext in genesis. but it's sure there in abundance. this one was just a really good example. re-read genesis and watch for slander of babylon. if moses wrote the book, you'd think it'd be anti-egyptian, not anti-babylonian. i don't think the hebrews were even concerned with babylon until they were forced into subjugation.so i think it makes a lot more sense to say that good portion of genesis was written IN babylon, or compiled and editted in babylon. i suspect a large motivation in doing this was to preserve certain oral legends, myths, and stories, so that the hebrew tradition would stay alive and isolated in a foriegn land. although i'm also pretty sure that certain parts of it date much, much earlier.the point is that moses couldn't have written about the chaldeans, probably didn't write about the tower of babel, and certainly didn't care about the babylonians in the slightest. and so those bits at least must date much later than his lifetime.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-25-2004 01:27 AM

"pseudepigraphical" is even harder to spell than "apocrypha" and "septuagint" combined but not as hard as "floccinaucinihilipilification"just thank god we don't have to use that last one in bible study... well, sometimes, i guess. for instance i tend to floccinaucinihilipilificate the book of john and the letters of paul...

seeing as how we have no archaeological evidence that even existed until about that time, yes i am. like i said, awfully coincidental that the chaldeans ruled ur around 600 bc. do i look like mel gibson to you?in order for the text to have been compiled earlier, you'd need a conspiracy. the evidence just does not support it. not at all. the bible takes shots at LOTS of people. the story of lot's daughters and his bastard children takes a shot at two neighbors (who btw also didn't exist in the time of moses...)/ but it takes an especially strong negative light with babylon. why? not assyria. who concquered the norther kingdom?why not EGYPT, if it was written by moses? the only parts of the bible i'm against are the epistles and the book of john. other than that, i quite like the bible. i find it interesting. if i didn't, i wouldn't post here, read the bible, or take classes in it. in fact, one of my goals for the future is to learn hebrew...pointing out problems with other people's readings of the text is not anti-bible. i search for truth. if i thought the bible was a worthless document, i would say so and be done with it. something in the book of genesis struck home with me many years ago, ringed of truth. you know the feeling, i'm sure. tingles and goosebumps. and for that reason, i became a christian after years of militant athiesm. not even agnosticism, i was a hardcore athiest.do i doubt the bible? yes. there are problems with it. inconsistencies, errors, theological changes, and many, many interpretations. personally, i don't give a damn that it has problems. so what if it's a bit contradictory? what someone said about god 3000 years ago means very very little to my faith and my relationship with god. but i do think it's a little fun to watch the literalists squirm. yes, and the apostle paul was one of them. he supported "open rebellion to god's word" in the form of the law. do shave? get hair cuts? have bacon? ride a bicycle on saturdays? you're in open rebellion to god's word. how do you justify your way of living? you must think some of the bible doesn't apply to you. true. the bible represents a myriad different view points. this is a problem if you read it literally as a single consistent document. but like i said, i have no problems with it.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 11-26-2004 05:24 AM

i was busy laughing at how obvious this was, and then i thought about it.i don't believe moses wrote the torah. i'm positive he didn't write any of deuteronomy, and i don't think he would have had much to do with genesis.however, the torah shows signs of five distinct authors. some are much later (like the d and p authors). but who wrote j? e? h? how old are the sources of these documents?

people are usually more attached to the tradition of the bible than the bible itself. there are clear signs in the text that go against certain claims: contradictions, style, and sometimes what the book itself even says.people ignore these for dogma. i think it's silly. i disagree here. i think there is truth and meaning to be found in the book even with unknown multiple authors. who cares if we don't know who wrote it, or if stories conflict? both genesis creation stories tell us that there is something of god in us, and i think that's a powerful idea regardless of textual problems. i'm not sure. i think some of genesis is oral tradition, and some of exodus. not sure what i think about numbers, but deuteronomy is a forgery. i feel it's evident looking at genesis that the redactor was working from multiple source DOCUMENTS, which were copied wholesale into the torah. had the redactor been merely recording oral traditions, the stories would agree on the name of god, and there likely would not be as many contradictions.the source documents themselves, however, may have been records of oral traditions. agreed, and this is evident in various stories in genesis that mock babylon. it points to a date of 600 bc for one of the documents. yes, we are often told two versions of the same story, and this probably has to do with the split of the two kingdoms.a better example would be all of chronicles and all of samuel/kings. same stories, sometimes a different spin. it's not neccessarily the case that one is northern and one is southern. the northern kingdom is often spurned in both stories, but chronicles doesn't even tell the stories of the north, samuel and kings do. i'm convinced that deuteronomy was written during the reign of josiah. not neccessarily. it could have been written before there were any prophets. it really doesn't say much. no prophets? none like moses? i dunno. quite. and often, the words really don't have much to do with the teaching. this is one of the first problems i ran into: random bible quoting. "that's nice, but that has nothing to do with what you're talking about" not sure i agree here either. we can often extract the "original" meaning by context, which can be provided both textually, and with the writings of other cultures at the time and in the area.

but not beyond the lifetime of the audience. even presuming that moses wrote the torah, then the people at the time had ALREADY fulfilled that prophesy.

oh i see. in that case, i agree. well there's a simple explanation. think about, we know the hebrews were in babylon and assyria, but we don't know if they were in egypt or not. lots of hatred towards babylon in particular, not a lot towards egypt. maybe it's because the egyptian captivity never happened.of course, this is not the only explanation. new testament authors were very sympathetic of rome (and very careful not to place blame on rome) when christ was executed by romans. instead the blame was placed on jews. this happened because the christian church was trying to survive under roman rule and not get killed as rebels, but at the same time separate themselves from judaism.not sure how that applies directly to egypt/babylon situation, but it does demonstrate that other factors often distort perspective. however, i think it is clear that authors of particularly exodus used egypt as an allegory for babylon: god rescued us from egypt, and he'll rescue us from babylon. at the same time, it's careful not to place the blame on egypt (god hardened pharoah's heart, etc) directly.and they weren't enslaved all 400 years, just the last little bit of it. no, but i'll give the page a looksee. true, but it's better than baseless literalist readings centered in our own society. yes, but you can often still tell that it's a joke. with the bible, the context has often been so lost that we don't even know what was a joke. it's nice to read the tower of babel literally, sure. but you're missing the fact that it's funny if you do. i've been giving some of the bible a little closer look for a while now, and genesis can be downright hillarious just given the historical context.granted, it's not exactly the same as if i were in the target audience in 600 bc, but some of it can be extracted in "best guesses."

neither of these statements are EXACTLY true. there were later jewish movements (such as the wisdom movement) that eventually begane to adopt the idea of an afterlife as a way to resolve the "why do bad things happen to good people" question.this is of course not the only resolution of the matter. this is my fundamental problem with modern christianity. jesus taught that we should do the right things because they were right, and because it's what we'd want done to us. modern christianity however turns this around as pseudo-punishment/reward system. except that christians don't go to hell, so they just guilt themselves over making their lord suffer.a little screwed up if you ask me. this is just semantics, really. i don't think it's especially important.

do me a favor. read matthew, and then read john, and then come back and revise this point.the reason many of cite the gospel of john as unreliable is that it DOES NOT sync up right with the other gospels.here, jesus calls himself the son of god.

quote:

---

Jhn 9:35 Jesus heard that they had cast him out; and when he had found him, he said unto him, Dost thou believe on the Son of God?
Jhn 9:36 He answered and said, Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?
Jhn 9:37 And Jesus said unto him, Thou hast both seen him, and it is he that talketh with thee.
Jhn 9:38 And he said, Lord, I believe. And he worshipped him.

---

and here christ claims to a prophet that brings about the endtimes, and it's blasphemous enough to get him killed, even though he REFUSED to call himself the son of god.

quote:

---

Mat 26:63 But Jesus held his peace. And the high priest answered and said unto him, I adjure thee by the living God, that thou tell us whether thou be the Christ, the Son of God.
Mat 26:64 Jesus saith unto him, Thou hast said: nevertheless I say unto you, Hereafter shall ye see the Son of man sitting on the right hand of power, and coming in the clouds of heaven.
Mat 26:65 Then the high priest rent his clothes, saying, He hath spoken blasphemy; what further need have we of witnesses? behold, now ye have heard his blasphemy.
Mat 26:66 What think ye? They answered and said, He is guilty of death.

---

you don't see a discrepency? no, it's the pervading message of modern pauline christianity. ask any jew what the message of the bible is, and they will never say "john 3:16." not once out of a million. does it stand to reason that it's not the pervading message of, well, all of the other books?just because you only take one message from the bible, doesn't mean the entire bible is only about the that one message. you're totally denying the power and meaning and truth in lamentations, song of songs, job, and even genesis. christ has nothing to do with those things, let alone john's portrayal of him.

he didn't answer. instead, he quoted daniel. the implication is that he was the messiah of the endtimes and not the son of god, though he didn't explicitly say that either. there is nothing strictly blasphemous about quoting the book of daniel, but the high priest sure thought so.but did jesus admit to being the son of god? no, actually he didn't. he didn't deny it either. what he said was very carefully chosen to avoid blasphemy.does jesus say anything like this in the other gospels?

quote:

---

Jhn 10:33 The Jews answered him, saying, For a good work we stone thee not; but for blasphemy; and because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.
Jhn 10:34 Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods?
Jhn 10:35 If he called them gods, unto whom the word of God came, and the scripture cannot be broken;
Jhn 10:36 Say ye of him, whom the Father hath sanctified, and sent into the world, Thou blasphemest; because I said, I am the Son of God?

---

in john, jesus is quoting psalm 82:

quote:

---

Psa 82:6 I have said, Ye [are] gods; and all of you [are] children of the most High.

---

that's nice and all. it shows some level education. this jesus has read psalms. ...however, last time i checked psalms were not part of the law. notice he also said "YOUR law" the "The Law?" and "The Jews?"show me one passage in any of the three other gospels were jesus claims to be the son of god. in every instance, he rebukes the person (or devil) that asks him, usually with a proverb, or he just remains silent on the matter. you said it's consistent with the pervading message of the bible. while "god loves us" is nice, it's not the only message of the bible at all. most of the prophets write of an angry god.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-01-2004 01:37 PM

yes and that's exactly the error.everywhere else jesus refers to the bible as "the law, and the prophets" of sometimes "the law, and the prophets and the psalms."this shows that person who wrote matthew had a better understanding of jewish tradition than the author of john. matthews understanding is far from perfect however, as i know i've pointed out before.the word for law from god in hebrew is torah. speaking the words in john 10:34, jesus would have actually said the word the torah. do you think he was not refering to the torah? however, the author of john was greek. the error was made by him, not jesus, and not us.This message has been edited by Arachnophilia, 12-01-2004 04:42 PM

i am reading it in context. i mentioned similar verses and phrasing in the other gospels, especially matthew. the simple fact of the matter is that john misunderstood what was scripture to jews and what was not.the problem is also that we're dealing with events that were recorded at a later time. while some of these events probably happened, and jesus was probably a real person, the gospels are still imperfect reflections on the truth. john takes a more attributed perspective on jesus (attributing things people said about him to things he said himself) where matt. mark, and luke do not.john was also pretty obviously not jewish. the culture of the time of the events held that the torah was god's holy law, and that rest of the tanakh was also holy but not from god directly. the nevi'im and ketuvim (which contains the psalms) were not included in what was considered scriptures by our standards, but still important and holy books.i am not sure how the christian churches at the time of the authorship of john regarded the hebrew bible, but it is evident by the text that john did not totally approve: "YOUR law" instead of "THE law" commonly, in hebrew, for the last 3000 years or so, the five books of moses are refered to as "The Law" or "Torah." when a scholar mentions The Law he means the Torah, not the individual laws, and not the tanakh.christian often use "the law" to refer to the entire bible (including nt) and sometimes the ten commandments. i'm not sure of the greek/christian usage in john's day. no, it just looks like a goof, because someone misunderstood the structure of sacred hebrew literature. john applied "Law" to the tanakh, when it really only applies to the torah.psalms are not, and will never be holy in the sense that the torah is. the are the words of people in tribute to their god. not directions and laws from god himself.jesus saying "psalms said this" isn't him saying "god said it's ok" it's him saying "other people did it too."it also shows that the author of john wasn't school in the torah. because otherwise, jesus might have said "Did not the Lord said unto Moses, 'I have made you a god over Pharaoh?'"

how is that different than "you say that i am?"