@creative51 heaven forfend a moment of foment and holy moses, your point in all likelihood is correct however almost everything is myth and it is almost a self-fulfilling prophecy so rather than ascribing astonishing insight into the co-incidence I'd rather just observe that myths always have a beginning and this one started long before the old testament around the time the first hominid mused wtf.

@creative51 note, the character of Avarim does not do any of the miraculous things done by/to Abram/Abraham. Merely that he was a (perhaps?) historical figure whose named was used in the myth. The authors are Finkelstein and Silberman . The book is available on Amazon for Kindle. I’m rereading it now.

You have 5 points there that would take a bit for me to read and weed thru. I don't mind civil discussion and have my own discussion group I would invite you to view over and consider making comments. I do prefer short reads for my eye sight is not all that great. It's just, the longer I read my eyes get fatigued and long reads are not much interest to me to have to get thru.

So, having said all that, please consider this post I made and I have some other ideals to pass to you for your furthe consideration if you are interested in discussing.

Click this link for the group discussion I have here: "I am copying most of a post from my other group "" because it can be a way to help better ..."

Obviously not much of a biblical studyer. The bible clearly says the people are the gods and it clearly says the God-people wrote the words.

@creative51 its not about "my take", it is about what is clearly written in the biblical text refering to the citizens of the nation of Israel , "...written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods"..." John 10:34

@creative51 so it is very clear ad I just gave you clear reference to john 10:34

@creative51 I gave book chapter verse reference. If you are interested google entire book

@creative51 believe what you want, doesn't make it correct calling it a fairy tale just because you believe it is

@Word: Please educate yourself on the origins of the bible. I recommend two books to get your started 'Who Wrote The Bible' by Richard E. Friedman and '101 Myths of the Bible: How Ancient Scribes Invented Biblical History' by Gary Greenberg.

And, I don't care what claims are in the bible. People can claim all they want in any writings they want--that does not make their claims true.

@Joanne thanks, might work, I do have some education and not in need of Freidman or Greenburg theories to discredit something they have little understanding on.

@creative51 Where is "my claim" of understanding posted so that you are able to consider it "hot" air?

You have no knowledge of my understanding to evaluate it, much less consider it hot air.

@Word : Please, enlighten us. From where to you get your ideas about the bible? It seems that you think that the bible is somehow supernaturally inspired and not just words of men that were inspired by myths of the time. And, please, don't use the bible to back up any claims you make. The bible is not an authoritative source for truth.

@Joanne I get my understanding of the biblical text from the biblical text and my life experiences and education.

Do you know anything about brainless slime mould cognition or zombie ant fungus?

@Joanne I tagged you in this discussion, please reel free to read of it and make comments. Click link:

"I am copying most of a post from my other group "" because it can be a way to help better ..."

@Joanne do you know anything about evolution?

I DO NOT claim to be an evolutionary specialist but I have college biology and some understanding of it.

My statement as a nonprofessional in evolution is:

The biblical text based on its literary theme and motifs which follow through the text would give an apparence of the documentation of the development and evolution of a parasite mind meme living organism that evolved and developed into the purported Jesus character.

Certainly Jesus, the son of god, god itself, miracle worker, savior of the world, foretold of in the Old Testament and fulfilled in the New Testament, is fictional and his character development was aided by prevalent myths of the time.

However, it is highly likely that one of the many messiah figures that existed in the time of "Jesus" did inspire a faithful following and likely influenced whoever Paul was, and it was he who took the message of Jesus, as he understood it, to the Gentiles thus creating Jesus followers that eventually came to be called Christians.

@Joanne A lot of the stories power comes from things like the parables, which to anyone with a degree of feeling for such things, I would say, come over as quite literary in nature. The sort of thing that a writer with a pen would compose, and not an illiterate wandering rabi. So you have to wonder if there is not an invisible ghost figure somewhere in the mix, behind st Paul and the gosple scribes Mat, Mark, Luke, and John, none of whom seem to have the quality for that sort of invention.

Just speculation out loud though.

@Joanne False. It is not "highly likely" at all. Sure there were would-be messiahs at the time, but it is 'highly likely' they all perished when the Romans brought the hammer down. It's also likely the Romans created the Jesus myth out of whole cloth to replace Judaism, then mass-distribute it. This accounts for it's amazing growth. They took a composite of all these 'messiahs' and concocted one in conformity with the mystery religions to create a new religion (give them credit) to replace their own bankrupt, now mythological, gods.
Paul himself wrote of a celestial being, and it is 'highly likely' the Romans grafted his few writings onto this narrative.
In short, the ENTIRE New Testament, from start to finish, was and is a complete fabrication.

@Fernapple considered study of the psychology of eye witness testimony. The new testiment is "testiment" as in purported to be written testimony accounts from various different eye witnesses.
evaluate the various writings to see if they have contradictions according to psychology of eye witness testimony.

Just a reference for verfied biblical characters

[en.m.wikipedia.org]

@Word Wikipedia had lots of links [en.m.wikipedia.org]

@Storm1752 The text discovered in the charred Ein Gedi scroll is "100 percent identical" to the version of the Book of Leviticus that has been in use for centuries, said Dead Sea Scroll scholar Emmanuel Tov from the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, who participated in the study.

"This is quite amazing for us," he said. "In 2,000 years, this text has not changed." [independent.co.uk]

@barjoe your link even says about its theory "It is a fringe theory, supported by few tenured or emeritus specialists in biblical criticism or cognate disciplines.[q 2][3][4][5] It is criticised for its outdated reliance on comparisons between mythologies and deviates from the mainstream historical view.[6]

Christ myth theory

@Word But did they have proof he existed? Do those scholars have proof there is a God? NO!

@barjoe you are a God, do you have proof you exist?

It seems the "scholars" do not even understand biblical text.

The people are the gods. Referring to the citizens of Israel "...written in your Law, 'I have said you are "gods..." John 10:34

People are the gods, gods exist because they are the people, humans, homo sapians are gods.

@Word You can sight the Bible all you want. I don't believe a word of it.

@barjoe I know, it has been proven that the nation of Israel does not exist.

@Word I didn't say that. I said the Bible is a book of fiction in my opinion.

@barjoe ok, well, I don't try to shove bible down anyones throat. If someone has interest, I don't mind discussion explaining what I can.

@Storm1752 : If the Romans completely invented the Jesus character, they certainly did a poor job of it.
If he were completely made up, why are there conflicting accounts of the nature of Jesus (man, son of God or God?), conflicting details about his life and death, and problems with so called fulfilled prophesies?

It makes sense if there was a real person at some point and various stories spread about this person. And post Constantine this person was turned into the savior of mankind and eventually into the God of the Universe. And, because so many stories were known, they could not just throw them all out even though some were in conflict with others.

In the end, it does not matter because whoever might have existed was certainly far removed from what "Jesus" was turned into. But, why is it so hard to accept that one of the messiah figures, who was put to death by the Romans, had a more loyal following than the others and is at the root of the myths that later evolved concerning him?

@Word I have never heard of any serious theologian even, including those of the R. C. church who thought that the gospels were eye witness accounts, even the mainstream churches don't claim that. ( The evangelicals maybe.) And they certainly don't read like eye witness accounts, very few first person for one, the only way in which they resemble eye witness, is in the number and types of the disagreements between them, but that would be true even of second or third hand accounts, being derived from eye witness at some distant time.

You also have to remember that attitudes to writing was very different then, today we make a distinction between fiction which is admired for its imaginative creativity, and reportage, which is admired for accuracy. But in those days the most admired quality was to put a new spin on an old story, since by so doing you were both reverencing the past and giving it the benefit of creativity, which was often seen as god inspired. In other words inaccuracy was valued.

@Fernapple. Not trying to dispute true or fiction of what it says, just observation of what it says

it clearly States in one letter of the new testiment: John 1:6 6 There was a man sent from God whose name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light.

How in the goofie hell can anyone not think that this is not being purported as an eye witness account?

@Word Yes but.
A. You can not use the Bible to prove the Bible.
B. I am not in charge of the churches.

@Fernapple

1. I am not using the bible to prove the bible, only making observations of what it says.

2. The "churchs" evaluation, means very little to me particularly when what they want to purport would go against what is obviously observation of an incorrect sort.

It is a large reason for the "protestant" movement. Many people began reading and understanding biblical text in a way that was different that the (Roman catholic) "church" at the time.

@Fernapple Exactly. The Bible is not only a work of fiction, it's a bad, plagiarized work of fiction. It's filled with numerous contradictions and rehashed legends. To use it as a reference to convince anybody calls for a belief system. Since this is a basically atheist message board, it won't convince anybody and certainly can't be used to prove itself.

@Fernapple But to say, "cannot use the bible to prove the bible " has its erroneous premise. And, is fallacious to assume such premise when looking at biblical text to understand what it is saying. If there was no biblical text, there would not be anything in writing to evaluate.

Just one example of my point, the bible says the nation of Israel exist. We look in the world and find that to be correct. So then we look for the next point and so on in giving verfication, or not, for what is written. No, I am not saying, one verified point verify them all. But, nonetheless, it is erroneous to think the biblical text cannot be used to verify itself.

@barjoe just my point, you cannot prove it fiction.

@barjoe @Fernapple

...with numerous contradictions.

Modern psychology of eye witness testimony verifies that witness statements will have contradictions.

To say it has contradictions does not prove it to be fiction.

If one person wrote the biblical text 2000 years ago to fool people, that person was a genius knowing how to make eye witness accounts match the contradictions that science now would expect to see in real world eye witness testimony.

@Word No, I did not say that to because it has contraditions proves that it is fiction. I said that because it has contraditions does not prove it is fact.

@Word The fact that a book contains facts, does not make it a work of nonfiction. A. Conan-Doyle wrote a work of fiction about a detective called Sherlock Holmes, who lived at 221b Baker Street. Bakers Street exists, that is a fact, but the Sherlock Holmes stories are still fiction. New York exists that is a fact, but Spiderman is still fiction.

@Fernapple yes, contradictions are things that would have to be looked at specifically for each situation and then evaluate how the contradictions affect the whole.

@Fernapple you say, "A. Conan-Doyle wrote a work of fiction about a detective called Sherlock Holmes, who lived at 221b Baker Street."

Did A. Conan-Doyle publish the works as a nonfiction and since it has been published it has been proven to be a fiction?

@Word Irrelevant if A.C. D. published as fiction or none fiction. But I believe that it was fiction, some authors are honest, some are not.

@Fernapple no it is relevant. It could be published fiction but it is not. Or, it could be published as nonfiction but it is not.

@Fernapple So, first, establishment is, what is it purporting it to be?

@Word Its first establishment is fiction. But that is no help with the gosples since we do not know if they were first written as fiction or nonfiction, or even if the first of them or the book from which they were copied was written at all, there is a good argument to be made that it was assembled scrap book fashion from different bits.

The usual history accepted by the mainstrem churches like the R. C. and the Anglican is.
The four canonical gospels were probably written between AD 66 and 110. All four were anonymous (the modern names were added in the 2nd century), almost certainly none were by eyewitnesses, and all are the end-products of long oral and written transmission. Mark was the first to be written, using a variety of sources; the authors of Matthew and Luke, acting independently, used Mark for their narrative of Jesus's career, supplementing it with the collection of sayings called the Q document and additional material unique to each, John was the last and probably pragerized the others.

@Word I don't have to prove it to be fiction. I don't have to prove non-existence of God. I don't believe. They have to prove me to me that bible is real. They have to show evidence of God's existence. The burden of proof is not on atheists.

@Fernapple Matthew mark and John are purported to be apostles, of the first 12 disciples. Luke I understand was a Doctor and his writing evaluated to show better education in the writing style of the original language.

So, 12 men are purported to be direct disciples and when Jesus leaves, he leaves the 12 to be leaders of the 12 tribes of Israel. So, these authors, except Luke, would have reason to have simular information not that one plagerzing the other.

@Fernapple how badly was the new testiment corrupted?

@barjoe I am proven to exist. We are proven to exist. Atheism refuses to accept the fact we exist.

@barjoe and, if you are making a claim that it is fiction, then you have the burden of proof to prove it is fiction. Otherwise, don't call it fiction.

@barjoe do you understand the difference in illogical atheist and agnostic? Illogical atheist says it is fiction but cannot prove it is fiction. Agnostic simply says, "I don't know"

@Word It's logical to me. The Bible is what's illogical. I'm not any type of agnostic. I'm a nonbeliever. An Atheist. I feel free to espouse my nonbelief, I don't preach it. If you believe in God, that's fine for you. I don't believe in God. I don't believe the Bible is factual. I don't have to prove that. The burden of proof is on the theists to show it's a factual account. That's perfectly logical to me. Oh BTW, I don't know what other atheists think, I only have my personal belief system. I know I exist, purely by random and soon I won't. It isn't going to hurt.

@Word Yes I have seen this man before and it is very bad apologetics, he only addresses if the bible has been corrupted, since its history began, which ignores whether the original sourse text was any good in the first place, and whether that was already corrupted before the historical bible.

It may be that anyone saying that the bible is fiction has a burden of proof, but I would never say that, all I would say is that there is no good reason to believe it is fact, and a lot more evidence that it may be fiction rather than fact.

Also the fiction or fact is a false dichotomy anyway, since no book ever published was ever completely one or the other. Even the telephone directory contains some errors, and out of date matter, while even a fantasy like Harry Potter contains a few real places and perhaps some generalized and metaphorical truth.

@Word Yes but, as you say, Mat. Mark and John are only pruported to be aposteles, as you say, and only purported to be so in the bible again, so this is just another case of using the bible to prove itself. And did you not read what I pased on, the official church theology, and the known history says, that Mat. Mark Luke and John did not write any of it, those names are 'known' to have been added in a quite deliberate and recorded act of faking much later, even the churches who did it admit that.

@Fernapple one tomb found
[biblicalarchaeology.org]

@Word Of course it's a Christian Bible site. They are looking for "evidence". It's far from proof.

"...Islam even now, 1000s of years later appears to be some wild donkey people that is always fighting against "brothers" Judism and christianity. ..."

I have reported this post as (in my fallible opinion) violating community guidelines, but I don't see it taken down yet. Ok, that's the business of the board admin, and maybe they just haven't had time yet, but I'm saying something here because I think if something is really out of line and sleazy, that more than one of us in the community will want at least to shed some light on it.

@kmaz I can understand saying they are stubborn wild donkey people is a bit of a shot gun blast of a stereotype type.

If you would care to suggest some better wording that gets the point across, I don't mind considering rewording.