It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ehrman Debunked.

page: 4
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 11:44 AM
link   
reply to post by wildtimes
 


You said Moses didn't write Genesis, and so I assume you believe they were written by the Documentary Hypothesis, which isn't supported by any evidence what so ever aside from the imagination of its creators.




Was Moses JEPD or R?
He was none of the above. Rather, Moses himself was both writer and editor of the Pentateuch, and these five books were composed by him in about 1400 BC , not by unknowns at the time of the Exile. This does not mean that Moses did not use other written sources available to him (see later), or that he wrote the last few verses of Deuteronomy 34 that record his death. Talmudic (Rabbinic Jewish) tradition has always been that these were added, under divine inspiration, by Joshua. There is no external evidence at all in support of J, E, D, P, or R. What were their names? What else did these alleged literary savants write? History, both Hebrew and secular, knows nothing of them. They exist only in the fertile imaginations of the inventors of the documentary hypothesis.


Reference




The following quote comes from Omni magazine of August 1982:

‘After feeding the 20,000 Hebrew words of Genesis into a computer at Technion University in Israel, researchers found many sentences that ended in verbs and numerous words of six characters or more. Because these idiosyncratic patterns appear again and again, says project director Yehuda Radday, it seems likely that a sole author was responsible. Their exhaustive computer analysis conducted in Israel suggested an 82 percent probability that the book has just one author.’


Lets not forget these six either.




The evidence that Moses wrote the Pentateuch, often referred to in the Bible as ‘the Law’ (Hebrew torah), is overwhelming: Contrary to the views of Wellhausen and others, archaeological research has established that writing was indeed well known in Moses’ day. The JEDP hypothesis falsely assumes that the Israelites waited until many centuries after the foundation of their nation before committing any of their history or laws to written form, even though their neighbours kept written records of their own history and religion from before the time of Moses.4 The author is obviously an eyewitness of the Exodus from Egypt, familiar with the geography,5 flora and fauna of the region;6 he uses several Egyptian words,7 and refers to customs that go back to the second millennium BC.8 The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24. Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8; 8:32–34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13. In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28. Does this mean that Moses wrote Genesis without reference to any previous information? Not necessarily. Genesis comprises narratives of historical events that occurred before Moses was born. Moses may very well have had access to patriarchal records and/or reliable oral traditions of these events. In that case, such records would certainly have been preserved by being written (probably on clay tablets) and handed down from father to son via the line of Adam-Seth-Noah-Shem-Abraham-Isaac-Jacob, etc.




posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 




So you are saying that shedding of blood can be proof of consummation?


I don't know warm, you tell me. Oh wait, you already did.



and marriage contracts and the proof of the marriage is in the shedding of blood


So shedding of blood was good enough for you before, but now it isn't? Did I get that right? That's not very fair of you warm, if anything it is intellectually dishonest, not only to me but to yourself as well.

Another proof of consummation would be what you see, the light. No marriage, no light, no life, no flow of blood.
edit on 22-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 11:56 AM
link   
Oh, Mr.Ehrman,The professor from North Carolina, the peerless scholar of New Testament texts, has dragged himself away from more favored concerns to draw a line in the sand on the question of Jesus. No, he is not a mythicist himself, the direction towards which all his books pointed and as many of his fans were beginning to think. "No, no – Jesus most certainly existed" a mantra Ehrman repeats endlessly and was, (Christians please note), "the most important figure in the history of Western civilization" a statement scarcely true. Debunked? I don't think so, as he still believes, Jesus existed.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 11:59 AM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by wildtimes
 


I don't personally believe one person wrote Genesis, but a few people. Not sure it was Moses either, but maybe. I was only using his frame of reference to make a point, that if one person wrote all of Genesis as he believes, the code in the names could have easily been put in.

Also, I do not believe the resurrection occurred in any way. The whole scenario just seems way too convenient for what the bible is. I believe everything after the crucifixion was fabricated. If they could make up Jesus floating up into the sky, they could have made up his resurrection.


So the apostles fabricated the Resurrection, and then died for that fabrication? That makes a whole lot of sense. Throughout history there are religious martyrs, but they always believe they are dying for the truth. If the apostles fabricated the Resurrection, then they knew Jesus wasn't God because they never saw him after his death.....

Maybe you didn't see this either:




The following quote comes from Omni magazine of August 1982: ‘After feeding the 20,000 Hebrew words of Genesis into a computer at Technion University in Israel, researchers found many sentences that ended in verbs and numerous words of six characters or more. Because these idiosyncratic patterns appear again and again, says project director Yehuda Radday, it seems likely that a sole author was responsible. Their exhaustive computer analysis conducted in Israel suggested an 82 percent probability that the book has just one author.’


82% chance that you are incorrect about the authorship of Moses.
edit on 22-11-2013 by ServantOfTheLamb because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



You said Moses didn't write Genesis
.

No.

I said Thomas Paine believed Moses didn't write Genesis. And Genesis doesn't concern Moses at all. He's not even mentioned. Then, the other books, Jeremiah and Isaah and Numbers and Deut?, were ATTRIBUTED to Moses, but Paine shows how he talks about himself in the third person, and calls himself "meek."

You didn't even read the extexts, did you? Let alone Thomas Paine. I suspect you think you'd be struck by lightning if you even entertained the idea of reading one of the most respected "Founding Fathers" saying so. Right?

Silly. There's no harm in study.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:07 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Who said the apostles fabricated anything? Only John and Matthew were apostles of Jesus, and their authorship to their respective gospels is based on conjecture by church fathers 100 years after the fact.

Who's to say Jesus' apostles died for the resurrection? How do you know that they didn't die for the message that Jesus taught by spreading it? Why does the resurrection even have to be in the discussion when talking about their deaths? They could have easily been killed for spreading the truth without Jesus' literal resurrection in the equation at all, then after they were killed the resurrection was inserted into the story.

If you really think that an empire as corrupt as Rome would legalize and help spread the truth then you have some serious blinders on. They spent hundreds of years killing and persecuting Christians, why would they throw all of that work away and legalize it in the end? I'll tell you why, because they killed all of them then altered their teachings to fit their needs.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:09 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



82% chance that you are incorrect about the authorship of Moses.

LOL!!

Read Thomas Paine, and something BESIDES YOUR BIBLE for a change.
*eyeroll*



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:11 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by WarminIndy
 




So you are saying that shedding of blood can be proof of consummation?


I don't know warm, you tell me. Oh wait, you already did.



and marriage contracts and the proof of the marriage is in the shedding of blood


So shedding of blood was good enough for you before, but now it isn't? Did I get that right? That's not very fair of you warm, if anything it is intellectually dishonest, not only to me but to yourself as well.

Another proof of consummation would be what you see, the light. No marriage, no light, no life, no flow of blood.
edit on 22-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)


Oh, you totally missed it.

See, you go on another plane, but your enlightenment didn't catch the theology that you just subconsciously slipped so Freud-like.

I caught your Freudian Slip and propped you back up. So go ahead, expound on the shedding of blood and consummation.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:15 PM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



You said Moses didn't write Genesis
.

No.

I said Thomas Paine believed Moses didn't write Genesis. And Genesis doesn't concern Moses at all. He's not even mentioned. Then, the other books, Jeremiah and Isaah and Numbers and Deut?, were ATTRIBUTED to Moses, but Paine shows how he talks about himself in the third person, and calls himself "meek."

You didn't even read the extexts, did you? Let alone Thomas Paine. I suspect you think you'd be struck by lightning if you even entertained the idea of reading one of the most respected "Founding Fathers" saying so. Right?

Silly. There's no harm in study.


Apparently you didnt even read my response...Genesis Doesn't concern moses at all?

The Pentateuch claims in many places that Moses was the writer, e.g. Exodus 17:14; 24:4–7; 34:27; Numbers 33:2; Deuteronomy 31:9, 22, 24.

Many times in the rest of the Old Testament, Moses is said to have been the writer, e.g. Joshua 1:7–8; 8:32–34; Judges 3:4; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 2 Chronicles 25:4; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 8:1; 13:1; Daniel 9:11–13. In the New Testament, Jesus frequently spoke of Moses’ writings or the Law of Moses, e.g. Matthew 8:4; 19:7–8; Mark 7:10; 12:26; Luke 24:27, 44; John 5:46–47; 7:19. Jesus said that those who ‘hear not [i.e. reject] Moses’ would not be persuaded ‘though one rose from the dead’ (Luke 16:31). Thus we see that those churches and seminaries which reject the historicity of Moses’ writings often also reject the literal bodily resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ. Other New Testament speakers/writers said the same thing, e.g. John 1:17; Acts 6:14; 13:39; 15:5; 1 Corinthians 9:9; 2 Corinthians 3:15; Hebrews 10:28

So while Genesis might not mention Moses he is attributed to the many times throughout the Bible, and we know that the Book was written around the time of Moses.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:16 PM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



82% chance that you are incorrect about the authorship of Moses.

LOL!!

Read Thomas Paine, and something BESIDES YOUR BIBLE for a change.
*eyeroll*


That wasn't from my Bible that was from a computer?



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


What?
Reading 'Christian apologetics' sites doesn't count as open-minded research, dude.
Seriously, do you think you would be struck by lightning to look at secular material from a brilliant philosopher who was connected with the Founding Fathers?

That Satan himself would stride through your walls, eyes ablaze, pitchfork at your throat, laughing evilly, if you decided to even think about looking outside your box?



Good Lord. *facepalm* Live a little, Servant!! You're missing out on a WHOLE LOTTA fun!



edit on 11/22/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:18 PM
link   
reply to post by WarminIndy
 


Could you maybe elaborate on how I slipped up? It would help if you explained how Instead of just saying I did. What did I miss exactly?

How is the shedding of blood proof of the consummation of marriage warm? You said that it was, so how? You're the one who brought up the shedding of blood as proof, not me. Stop projecting your Freudian slips onto me.
edit on 22-11-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:21 PM
link   
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
 


Because if the woman is bleeding, she is not considered pure and is therefore unsuitable for marriage. That's why it was customary in those times to knock her up and wait three months before finally marrying her, because three months of missing her period constituted as a sign of purity.

Hence, should she bleed, it can be safely inferred that she is now married.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:23 PM
link   

3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 

If you really think that an empire as corrupt as Rome would legalize and help spread the truth then you have some serious blinders on. They spent hundreds of years killing and persecuting Christians, why would they throw all of that work away and legalize it in the end? I'll tell you why, because they killed all of them then altered their teachings to fit their needs.


I mean you can sit here and speculate all day like you did in your first two paragraphs, I am not going to sit here and disprove every what if scenario.

You are making huge fundamental attribution errors in the quoted text. Constantine was a pagan(until his death bed), so there would be no reason to believe that if he was attempting to control the masses through religion it would make sense he would have used his own.

If you have a problem with the Council of Nicea point out where it is in the original documents and I will gladly research it and clear anything up for you.

Originals



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:24 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



So while Genesis might not mention Moses he is attributed to the many times throughout the Bible, and we know that the Book was written around the time of Moses.


Uhhhm.... NO

We KNOW that the book was written somewhere within the 2nd and 6th century BC

Moses died around 1272 BC...




posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:25 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



Constantine was a pagan(until his death bed), so there would be no reason to believe that if he was attempting to control the masses through religion it would make sense he would have used his own.

If you have a problem with the Council of Nicea point out where it is in the original documents and I will gladly research it and clear anything up for you.

Seriously?

!!!
Wow.

He was tired of the strife and INFIGHTING that went on between "Christians" (3 centuries after the death of Jesus), so he said (in effect),
"FINE! If they can't get along, then all you 'leaders' come to my council, and decide what you ALL agree on. Then, at least the Christians will all be ON THE SAME PAGE, and not causing unrest."

For all the good it did. (none).



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:26 PM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


What?
Reading 'Christian apologetics' sites doesn't count as open-minded research, dude.
Seriously, do you think you would be struck by lightning to look at secular material from a brilliant philosopher who was connected with the Founding Fathers?

That Satan himself would stride through your walls, eyes ablaze, pitchfork at your throat, laughing evilly, if you decided to even think about looking outside your box?



Good Lord. *facepalm* Live a little, Servant!! You're missing out on a WHOLE LOTTA fun!



edit on 11/22/13 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


I have no problem with reading new research. However nothing new has been presented. I love how when I give arguments you do not wish to attempt and refute you turn tail and change the subject.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



Moses is said to have been the writer


SAID TO HAVE BEEN by Christian apologists and Evangelical Fundamentalists.

NOT BY RESEARCHERS AND SCHOLARS.

Wow.
Truly, try ditching your blinders and looking down the block for a change.

I love how when I give arguments you do not wish to attempt and refute you turn tail and change the subject.

What?
Turn tail? I'm sitting here, right now, using my valuable time and hard-won intellectual KNOWLEDGE to refute you!

I didn't turn tail and change the subject. These are matters of established study and research. YOU are the one stuck in the lalaland of Evangelical Christian Literalism. So easy to shoot down...

Seriously, get a grip. Do some homework. I promise, you'll be okay.


Good Lord.


edit on 11/22/13 by wildtimes because: responding to member's edit



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:30 PM
link   
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 


Christian doctrine is much more effective at controlling the masses because it teaches to turn the other cheek and to love your enemies, and the government has always been the enemy of the people.

It also teaches that as long as you wait and submit to the authorities, Jesus will come back and fix everything for you, so just sit on your hands and wait all while submitting to the authorities as they destroy the planet.

Sounds like an ad campaign for those in power if you ask me. They get to profit off of destruction and suffering while the people sit and wait for a savior (of TPTB's own making) to come and fix it for them. Jesus is not going to come back, we see where the belief he will has gotten us today.

And having one god is a lot easier to manage than a whole pantheon of them.



posted on Nov, 22 2013 @ 12:31 PM
link   

wildtimes
reply to post by ServantOfTheLamb
 



82% chance that you are incorrect about the authorship of Moses.

LOL!!

Read Thomas Paine, and something BESIDES YOUR BIBLE for a change.
*eyeroll*


While we might choose to believe Moses or not as the author of the Torah, what Bart Ehrman missed was this...

Yawhist vs. Elohist Sources

There are two views of God presented, in one source He is called Yaweh, and the other source calls Him El, even though both Yaweh and El were in the Ugaritic texts as separate.

At that time, there was still fighting among them about what to name God, even though the names are more ancient.

Even the Rig Vedas say "Supreme Being", and I can accept that designation. The Rig Vedas pre-Hinduism mention the Supreme Being, and Hindus today still believe in the Supreme Being.

If we go back to the most ancient religions, there was ONE, always known as the ONE. Of course, Hindus say AUM which is the first primary sound. In the Vedic Age, before Hinduism, they knew the ONE. And I am of the belief that Abraham was from Harappa and well aware of ONE, but as Moses came later, he also said "I AM" and is ONE. But someone said "Oh, that ONE is Yaweh" while another said "That ONE is El".

I think Christians should know who Yaweh and El are. I am a Christian and would not hide this information from my Christian brothers and sisters. But wildtimes, whoever one claims to worship, they will give names to it.

I pray about this, and so far, I feel comfortable not saying Yaweh or El, but when I mention Yaweh on these threads, I can only say the verses associated with Yaweh, but not El. And if I say El, then I'll post those verses regarding Him.

If you tell me The Supreme Being, then I know what you are talking about. Some Christians don't know that.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join