Egyptian Account of Exodus.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I don't think there is a historian alive minus richard carrier who believes Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a real person.

Alive? What kind of qualifier is that?

The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present

The book is a historical review of some 35 major deniers of Jesus historicity (radicals, mythicists) covering the period 1780 – 1926, [...]

Drews describes the social consequences of a denial of historicity, and explains why so many theologians and secular researchers stick to historicity, though the ahistoricity of Jesus is scientifically as sure as that of Romulus and Remus, or the seven legendary kings of Rome. The consequences are generally underestimated.

It is quite understandable that the denial party is unique only in that point [of the non-historicity, Ahistorizität], and otherwise offers a variety of diverging explanations [each denier has his own independent hypothesis]. The church has done everything for 2000 years to obscure and hide away the origins of Christianity, so that there’s no way to get any further without speculative hypotheses.

It is obvious that no serious researcher could claim the historicity of Jesus, unless it were the savior of the dominating religion of the prevailing culture. So there’s nothing but Christian prejudice which keeps even secular researchers from admitting non-historicity

Papers, Essays and Books:

Baron D'Holbach, Ecce Homo! The Critical History of Jesus of Nazareth, Being a Rational Analysis of the Gospels. 1770
J Archibald Robertson, Jesus: Myth or History?, 1946
"Bruno Bauer", by Douglas Moddach, 2009, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (SEP)
"History of religions"
Andrew George, What’s new in the Gilgamesh Epic?, Un. of London
Gary D. Thompson, "The Development, Heyday, and Demise of Panbabylonism" A. J. Allan, "A Forgotten Chapter: the Radicals"
Hermann Detering, "The Dutch Radical Approach to the Pauline Epistles", 1996
Hermann Detering: Paulusbriefe ohne Paulus. Die Paulusbriefe in der holländischen Radikalkritik – "The Pauline Epistles Without Paul", 1992 (English abstract). The full German text Die Paulusbriefe in der Holländischen Radikalkritik, 1992, 531 p. (The Pauline Epistles in the Dutch Radical School) not accessible online. The Table of Contents indicates a detailed examination of each member of the Dutch School. The extensive Introduction, p. 1-17 is accessible.

"Willem C. Van Manen & the Dutch Radicals", in Radikalkritik
Willem C. van Manen, "Paul & Paulinism", ca. 1900
Willem C. van Manen, Epistle to the Romans, ca. 1900
See also An Outline of Van Manen's Analysis of Pauline Literature in Thomas Whittaker's The Origins of Christianity, (1904–1933). Includes reviews of Acts, Romans, and 1 & 2 Corinthians
Hermann Detering, "G.J.P.J. Bolland", English Summary by Klaus Schilling

G.A. van Den Bergh van Eysinga, Early Christianity's Letters (1951)
Thomas Whittaker, "Prof. G.A. van Den Bergh van Eysinga", (1934)
Klaus Schilling, "A survey: G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga", (2003)
G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, "Does Jesus Live, or Has He Only Lived? A Study of the Doctrine of Historicity" (1930) – English Summary by Klaus Schilling (2003), a commentary on Drews's "Denial of the Historicity of Jesus"
G.A. van den Bergh van Eysinga, Das Christentum als MysterienReligion (1950, "Christianity as a Mystery Cult")

Radikalkritik
Radikalkritik – Articles, reviews and books in English
Ernest Renan, Life of Jesus, 1863
Edwin Johnson, Antiqua mater – A Study of Christian Origins, 1887, published anonymously
Hermann Raschke, "Historical and Metaphysical Christ", excerpt from The Workshop of the Evangelist Mark (1924), p. 26-30 (text in German)
"A History of 'Jesus Denial' "— "Demolishing the Historicity of Jesus", in Jesus Never Existed, by Kenneth Humphreys

The following books support aspects of the Christ myth theory:

Anacalypsis: An Attempt to Draw Aside the Veil of the Saitic Isis or an Inquiry into the Origin of Languages, Nations and Religions by Godfrey Higgins, 1836
The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (or Christianity Before Christ) by Kersey Graves, 1875
The Christ Myth ( or Die Christusmythe) by Arthur Drews, 1909
The Denial of the Historicity of Jesus in Past and Present ( or Die Leugnung der Geschichtlichkeit Jesu in Vergangenheit und Gegenwart) by Arthur Drews, 1927
Did Jesus Exist? by George Albert Wells, 1975
The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God? by Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy, 1999
The Pagan Christ: Recovering the Lost Light (or The Pagan Christ: Is Blind Faith Killing Christianity?) by Tom Harpur, 2004
The Jesus Puzzle by Earl Doherty, 2005
God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything (or God Is Not Great: The Case Against Religion) by Christopher Hitchens, 2007

Carry on

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Tangerine

Clutch that straw tightly! This is the sort of thing that convinces me that believers don't, deep down, really believe. If they did, they wouldn't grasp the flimsiest straw in an attempt to convince themselves that Biblical myths are fact

Its this sort of thing that makes me think you didn't even look at the papyrus.

Oh, look, here in this Egyptian papyrus sandals are mentioned. Jesus wore sandals. That proves that Jesus existed. LOL

I don't think there is a historian alive minus richard carrier who believes Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a real person. When people say that I pretty much assume they have no idea how to good history is done.

There isn't an historian alive or dead who has cited an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus lived. I don't give a rip what they "believed".

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Tangerine

Clutch that straw tightly! This is the sort of thing that convinces me that believers don't, deep down, really believe. If they did, they wouldn't grasp the flimsiest straw in an attempt to convince themselves that Biblical myths are fact

Its this sort of thing that makes me think you didn't even look at the papyrus.

Oh, look, here in this Egyptian papyrus sandals are mentioned. Jesus wore sandals. That proves that Jesus existed. LOL

I don't think there is a historian alive minus richard carrier who believes Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a real person. When people say that I pretty much assume they have no idea how to good history is done.

There isn't an historian alive or dead who has cited an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus lived. I don't give a rip what they "believed".

Your words read so bitterly. Look up Josephus, he was a 1st century historian who discussed Jesus.

a reply to: windword

Ok so I go to your wikisource and splattered at the top of the page is:

[hide]This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. This article or section possibly contains previously unpublished synthesis of published material that conveys ideas not attributable to the original sources. (August 2012) This article needs additional citations for verification. (August 2012) The topic of this article may not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline for books.

Seems like you have a really credible source....

Alive? What kind of qualifier is that?

I meant that as in no historians today question the historicity of Jesus. It is kind of a qualifier though seeing as how much of what we found was in the late 1900's. So all those people from the 1700's and 1800's didn't have some evidence that we do today...

Sorry is this thread about the Exodus appearing in a a Egyptian Papyrus?

a reply to: Tangerine

There isn't an historian alive or dead who has cited an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus lived.

This shows again how ignorant of history you are. You do realize that most of what we base our history on is not contemporaneous sources. Not only that, but the amount of time between the writers are much farther out than those of the Bible.

Just a few examples:
Person lived Earliest manuscript Approx time span
Pliny 61-113 A.D. A.D. 850 750 yrs
Plato 427-347 B.C. A.D. 900 1200 yrs
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. A.D. 900 1300 yrs
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. A.D. 1100 1400yrs


Get the point?

The NT documents have maybe a 20-30yr gap(Paul's are probably less) and the number of manuscripts exceeds other ancient documents by thousands....learn how to do history guy and stop being so salty.

That was an excellent find. Quite compelling.

Don't worry about some of the people who are ridiculing you. At least one of the teenage boys who replied I have run across on another thread. They are exploring the worship of ancient Sumerian Gods and think Jesus was a sort of reincarnation of a Sumerian God. They have been conversing about how all religions actually belong to their Sumerian God. Let's get some evidence these gods ever lived. Ha ha

So I suggest you ignore the little minds and know that some people appreciate a find like this that can lead to a rational adult discussion.

I for one would love to see more on the scholarship behind the find and how other translators see the words that were written. A great archeological find, regardless.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

It was, but haters can't appreciate archaeology.

a reply to: grandmakdw

Appreciate it. Glad you enjoyed it. I am right behind you. I would love to see some more work behind it. If anyone happens to run across some please post it.

originally posted by: AinElohim
a reply to: vethumanbeing

yes... I call this
Nuhistory

it's for the faint of heart...

Or HERSTORY instead of HISTORY. Faint of heart? what are you implying as you are purposely vague (to be faint of heart implies cowardice).

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

You have a reading comprehensive problem, my friend. The article, asking for further input, was discussing the review of a book that reviewed 35 historians/scholars who refute the historicity of Jesus Christ/Jesus of Nazareth. My post was merely refuting your assertion that no historian deny's the existence of Jesus.

Why are you wanting to take this thread off topic by are challenging the historicity of Jesus, when this thread should be challenging the historicity of Moses?

On topic, I have a question for you. Have you read the entire text? Here a preface:

Fringe historians often compare the content of this papyrus with Exodus, the second book of the Bible [1]. Similarities between Egyptian texts and the Bible are easily found, and it is reasonable to assume Egyptian influence on the Hebrews, given their at times close contacts. But to conclude from such parallelisms that the Ipuwer Papyrus describes Egypt at the time of the Exodus, requires a leap of faith not everybody is willing to make.

The admonitions of Ipuwer

Let's not jump to conclusions.

originally posted by: cooperton

originally posted by: Tangerine

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Tangerine

Clutch that straw tightly! This is the sort of thing that convinces me that believers don't, deep down, really believe. If they did, they wouldn't grasp the flimsiest straw in an attempt to convince themselves that Biblical myths are fact

Its this sort of thing that makes me think you didn't even look at the papyrus.

Oh, look, here in this Egyptian papyrus sandals are mentioned. Jesus wore sandals. That proves that Jesus existed. LOL

I don't think there is a historian alive minus richard carrier who believes Jesus of Nazareth wasn't a real person. When people say that I pretty much assume they have no idea how to good history is done.

There isn't an historian alive or dead who has cited an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus lived. I don't give a rip what they "believed".

Your words read so bitterly. Look up Josephus, he was a 1st century historian who discussed Jesus.

Obviously, you don't know what contemporaneous means. Contemporaneous documentation proving that Jesus lived would be documentation produced by someone who lived when Jesus allegedly lived and claimed to have actually witnessed him living. Josephus wasn't even alive when Jesus allegedly lived and, thus, could not possibly have witnessed him living. Neither could the other half-dozen people you're about to name.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: Tangerine

There isn't an historian alive or dead who has cited an iota of contemporaneous documentation (ie. historical evidence) proving that Jesus lived.

This shows again how ignorant of history you are. You do realize that most of what we base our history on is not contemporaneous sources. Not only that, but the amount of time between the writers are much farther out than those of the Bible.

Just a few examples:
Person lived Earliest manuscript Approx time span
Pliny 61-113 A.D. A.D. 850 750 yrs
Plato 427-347 B.C. A.D. 900 1200 yrs
Thucydides 460-400 B.C. A.D. 900 1300 yrs
Aristotle 384-322 B.C. A.D. 1100 1400yrs


Get the point?

The NT documents have maybe a 20-30yr gap(Paul's are probably less) and the number of manuscripts exceeds other ancient documents by thousands....learn how to do history guy and stop being so salty.

ROFLMAO. Pliny, Plato, Thucydides, and Aristotle were not even alive when Jesus allegedly lived. They could not possibly have witnessed him living. Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living. Not a word was written about Jesus until two generations after he allegedly lived.

a reply to: Tangerine

Paul lived at the same time as Jesus. We have his epistles. Scholars date his conversion 3-6 years after the cross. No, he didn't meet Jesus before the cross, but he did live in his time frame. he also would have been able to check the tomb on his own. Jesus was buried in a well known tomb not just some random hole.

a reply to: Tangerine

"
 Not a word was written about Jesus until two generations after he allegedly lived. "

False. Acts was written as a history for the church and it ends with Paul in jail. It doesn't mention his death (~64AD), the Jewish rebellions against The Romans or the destruction of the Jerusalem Temple (70AD), so Acts was written around 62 AD. Luke was written before Acts, Matthew was written before Luke, and Mark was written before Matthew; so this was all within the generation of the first followers of Jesus (since he died around 30AD when Pilate was the Roman ruler).

Even more interesting is Jesus predicting the destruction of the Temple. Some say the prophecy was written in after the fact to give credibility so the gospels were written around 70 AD and on...

However even after the first 3 gospels were written with the prediction , later when Acts was written, it doesn't mention the destruction of the Temple , if the author of Acts wanted to convince people of Jesus then what better way than to memtion "years before Jesus predicted it would happen in the first 3 gospels and now as I write Acts, it recently came true!" but he couldn't take the opportunity to do that since the prediction still didn't come true yet until 70AD.

So yes, the first 3 gospels (Mark, Matthew, Luke) as well as Acts, was written before 70AD all within the same generation as the life and death of Jesus.

a reply to: Tangerine

ROFLMAO. Pliny, Plato, Thucydides, and Aristotle were not even alive when Jesus allegedly lived. They could not possibly have witnessed him living. Paul never claimed to have witnessed Jesus living.

Never claimed that they said anything about Jesus.

. Not a word was written about Jesus until two generations after he allegedly lived.

Yes 20-30 years later. Go look at my examples again. I had it in a nice little chart for you but the format didn't follow over. The time frame between the four people I mentioned exceed 1000 years in some cases...

a reply to: arpgme

For once I actually agree with one of your post....

here it is:

this image is a depiction of pharaoh ahmose, expelling the hysksos from egypt. it's called the hyksos expulsion.


here's a video explaining it


here's a pic of the hyksos migrating into egypt


and here's a famous one, i believe from the tomb or temple (forget which) of seti the first, showing the races of mankind. guess who the guys are with the tassels on their kilts

double post. silly mouse