rob beasley
However Jesus is real
Steefen
When was Jesus’ ministry? When did he die? How did he die? Why did he die? Where did he live?
rob beasley
Do not know! Do not Know! I suspect he was massacred by the Romans. If you read and interpret the Gospel of Thomas (Jesus Gospel) you can easily see how he would have threatened Romes Cult, not to mention the Old testament. Not in nazareth.
I judge his reality on the worthiness of the 114 Sayings. in the gospel of Thomas (Jesus). Further I looked at all 114 says and their Biblical Equivalent. There were 61 Sayings that had a Biblical match and 63 that did not. I feel that it makes more sense that the Gospel of Jesus came first. This means The Romans used these sayings to bolster the credibility of the new testament.
It seems that ancient peoples (and modern ones) did feel there was a God or an essence or a Creator being that was or is (real). This is found in Greek Philosophy as well as Egyptian psalms. Why should a powerful person such as Cyrus be exempt from this belief?
Looking into the context, it seems that evidence suggests that Nabonidus left Babylon and its Marduk priesthood for the last ten years before Cyrus took it. Whether it was an ulcer or a madness hinted at in Daniel’s version of Nebuchadnezzar ii, he resided in the town of Teyma in Arabia whose god was Sin, the moon god. Also of interest are the facts that his mother was a priestess of Sin in another region, Harran. And finally we have a story that he argued that the crescent shaped moon on the temple of Marduk meant the Temple should be the temple of Sin.
So Cyrus was not foisting his invention on the Babylonians. He was returning the Babylonian central cult to primacy. While this can be viewed as entirely political, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Cyrus preferred any Persian deity to Marduk that I am aware of. Even if he did, he clearly made a point to respect the deity of Babylon while in Babylon.
Finally, there seems to be a willingness to accept similar gods while in foreign lands. While the Greco-Roman pantheon of gods is the most famous example, this can even be stretched to Zues-YHWH. So calling the Creator by a different name by no means denigrated your worship of the Creator in your native language.
Godspel
So the Iliad is fake to you? Or the epic of Gilgamesh?
I think you confuse truth with fact. You want them to be the same thing. They’re not.
Reply: I have not considered either the Iliad or the epic of Gilgamesh.
I just draw conclusions based on scholarly positions, patterns of behaviours and what I read. For example both the books of Isaiah and Daniel have had their authorship and dating challenged by the majority of scholars. (See op)
It seems that ancient peoples (and modern ones) did feel there was a God or an essence or a Creator being that was or is (real). This is found in Greek Philosophy as well as Egyptian psalms. Why should a powerful person such as Cyrus be exempt from this belief?
Reply
“According to the British Museum, the Cyrus Cylinder reflects a long tradition in Mesopotamia where, from as early as the third millennium BC, kings began their reigns with declarations of reforms.** you do not have permission to see this link **“
FMV
Looking into the context, it seems that evidence suggests that Nabonidus left Babylon and its Marduk priesthood for the last ten years before Cyrus took it. Whether it was an ulcer or a madness hinted at in Daniel’s version of Nebuchadnezzar ii, he resided in the town of Teyma in Arabia whose god was Sin, the moon god. Also of interest are the facts that his mother was a priestess of Sin in another region, Harran. And finally we have a story that he argued that the crescent shaped moon on the temple of Marduk meant the Temple should be the temple of Sin.
Reply: I thought Nabonidus was conquered by Cyrus and is mentioned and defiled on the Cyrus Cylinder. I am now aware of the points you raise ** you do not have permission to see this link **. I still believe that Cyrus adopted the Mesopotamian traditions as opposed to nobly preserving Marduk. Perhaps he set about achieving both agendas.
Scholars say the Book of Isaiah, which mentions Cyrus several times, was not written by Isaiah (referring to the sections of Isaiah that mention Cyrus). I say Cyrus, or his people, wrote them.
FMV
So Cyrus was not foisting his invention on the Babylonians. He was returning the Babylonian central cult to primacy. While this can be viewed as entirely political, there is no evidence that I am aware of that Cyrus preferred any Persian deity to Marduk that I am aware of. Even if he did, he clearly made a point to respect the deity of Babylon while in Babylon.
reply: Cyrus son, ** you do not have permission to see this link ** was said to be an follower of an Indo-Iranian religion possibly Zoroastrian . Is this not a clue to Cyrus Religion.
FMV
Finally, there seems to be a willingness to accept similar gods while in foreign lands. While the Greco-Roman pantheon of gods is the most famous example, this can even be stretched to Zues-YHWH. So calling the Creator by a different name by no means denigrated your worship of the Creator in your native language.
reply: why would a loving creator allow such confusion? I have no response.
I agree that Cambyses ii’s religion might give a hint toward Cyrus’s closely guarded personal religious inclination. Who knows though. A son often finds his own way. If I may point out another aspect of the politics of holding Babylon, who will see that Cyrus was not the first or the last to think holding Marduk in high regard had a huge payoff. The region we call Babylonia was very wealthy, but it was easily overrun. The Chaldean dynasty was a group that conquered Babylon and then ruled Babylonia from it. Babylon was like a second capital when the Assyrians conquered Babylon. The biblical authors use Assyria and Babylonia as names of the same Assyrian empire, and later call the Babylonian empire Assyria. The Seleucid emperor called himself a king of Babylonia and gave respect to Marduk. In destroying Egypt, Antiochus iv was hesitant to include this wealthy and productive land into his empire. One reason may have been that it would move too much of his attention west, and his true money maker was Babylonia.
There are about 2000 papers on Academia.edu about Nabodinus, and many of them examine the similarities to Daniel’s NEbuchdnezzar, including the fact both had a son named Belshazzar. Also, Daniel mentions a strange idol the king made everyone bow to. Perhaps this was Nabonidus attempting to force the worship of Sin in the temple of Marduk?
Why would a loving God allow such confusion. IDK. Perhaps it is not a problem for most. It is the literalists who cause many of the problems, imho. In Maccabean Judea, one side clearly was not accepting of change while the other side simply did not respect the traditions that some still held in high regard. I think Both sides overvalued rites and not human beings.
To FMV:
ANy thoughts on this
“Scholars say the Book of Isaiah, which mentions Cyrus several times, was not written by Isaiah (referring to the sections of Isaiah that mention Cyrus at least). I say Cyrus, or his people, wrote them.”
That is, if scholars say it wasn’t Isaiah that wrote these mentions, who did and why?
robbeasley said
GodspelSo the Iliad is fake to you? Or the epic of Gilgamesh?
I think you confuse truth with fact. You want them to be the same thing. They’re not.
Reply: I have not considered either the Iliad or the epic of Gilgamesh.
I just draw conclusions based on scholarly positions, patterns of behaviours and what I read. For example both the books of Isaiah and Daniel have had their authorship and dating challenged by the majority of scholars. (See op)
Scholarly positions? So you’ve given up on Atwill, then. 😀
Gospell (sorry for typing error on previous posts)
I don’t rely on anything Atwill has said. Although I do agree with his theory that Rome was behind the New Testament. 
I my opinion, the most telling issue is the scholarly positions relating to the Book of Daniel
** you do not have permission to see this link **Dating Book of Daniel
Source:** you do not have permission to see this link **
“The prophecies of Daniel are accurate down to the career of ** you do not have permission to see this link **
Further evidence of the book’s date is in the fact that Daniel is excluded from the Hebrew Bible’s ** you do not have permission to see this link **“
I say the actual author date is possibly 160 BC because the “Seventy Sevens” passage includes a reference to a 1 week (7 years) and half 1 week (3.5 years) which could relate to the Maccabean revolt and the death of Antiochus IV Epiphanes
If I am right all prophecies are a fake and because angel Gabriel first appears in Daniel he too must be a fake.
To have a theory in the true sense, you need to know how scholarship works. Atwill does not. He has crazy ideas, and he writes about them, and people like that, which is why Von Daniken’s books about aliens building the Pyramids and stuff sold so well (much better than Atwill’s largely unknown work).
The Daniel stuff is not interesting to me, so I’m not bothering to read what you say about it. 🙂
I do not understand the logic of your argument on Daniel and Gabriel. IF I write a fiction, or a mostly true prophecy, or even attempt a non fiction that has errors, and in that writing I write about Hilary Clinton’s message to me, non of my efforts to put her in writing falsifies her existence.
I have not seen Gabriel either, so I am a little skeptical on that basis.
Literalism is the problem.
For some people, religion can have no meaning if everything in sacred texts is not literally true.
So some of those who wish to uphold religion insist on upholding every aspect of scripture, and some of those who wish to discredit it (or a specific expression of it) insist on discrediting every aspect. Both are equally wrong, and for the same reason. Literalism. Which is a cognitive failure in some humans.
But very funny in movies about aliens.
Robert said
robbeasley said
… I don’t rely on anything Atwill has said. Although I do agree with his theory that Rome was behind the New Testament.
I my opinion, the most telling issue is the scholarly positions relating to the Book of Daniel …But there’s no necessary connection between the dating the writing of Daniel by critical scholars and a conspiracy theory that Rome was behind the New Testament, right? That Mark and other New Testament writers were most certainly influenced by a variety of influences at play across the wide expanse of the Roman Empire at the time seems to me to offer a mediating position that makes wild conspiracy theories completely unnecessary. Right?
Yes they are separate events. The common factor, in my opinion, is the meddling by Empire. That’s where we find the agenda. Making Jesus a son of God seeks to nullify the old Testament God. Something Rome would be pleased with given the recent war with the Jews.
The scholarly position dates the Book of Daniel being authored 164-167 BC. If this is true then the book of Daniel is false. I date it to 160 BC (Seventy Seven passage).
This means all “Prophecies” occurred before the author date. Rome struck up a treaty in 161 BC. So they were on hand for any conspiracy.
godspell said
Literalism is the problem.For some people, religion can have no meaning if everything in sacred texts is not literally true.
So some of those who wish to uphold religion insist on upholding every aspect of scripture, and some of those who wish to discredit it (or a specific expression of it) insist on discrediting every aspect. Both are equally wrong, and for the same reason. Literalism. Which is a cognitive failure in some humans.
But very funny in movies about aliens.
I accept the title of literalism 
FocusMyView said
I do not understand the logic of your argument on Daniel and Gabriel. IF I write a fiction, or a mostly true prophecy, or even attempt a non fiction that has errors, and in that writing I write about Hilary Clinton’s message to me, non of my efforts to put her in writing falsifies her existence.
I have not seen Gabriel either, so I am a little skeptical on that basis.
The “new” date of authorship is 164 – 167 BC according to the majority of scholars. I say its 160 BC (Seventy Sevens passage).
This means all “prophesied” events had already occured. So they aren’t really prophecies. Anyone with a good understanding of history could fake the prophecy Circa 160 BC. We have no idea whether Hillary exists or not. Because the Prophecy is a deliberate fake (assuming the Scholars dating at least) I assume that Daniel is a fake.
If it’s a deliberate fake, how come the author doesn’t claim to be Daniel? Why is it written in the third person narrator form? This is not the only book in the Old or New Testaments to be posthumously attributed to someone who clearly did not write it. Why are you acting like this is some amazing revelation you’ve come up with just now?
It’s a religious/literary work. It’s meant to inspire people. It’s not a literal history (this may be why you have problems with it), and yes, people often wrote ‘prophetic’ works referring to events that had already happened, or were in the process of happening.
There are actual forgeries in the bible, as Bart has gone to some pains to point out, but this isn’t one of them, because to be a forgery, the author (or authors) must claim to be someone better known, as in the case of the false Pauline epistles. This isn’t that.
Do you consider The Iliad to be a fake? Impossible that Homer (if he existed) wrote it all in its extant form.
Daniel is also a form of mythology, mixed with other elements, but we don’t evaluate ancient literature by modern standards–not if we’re smart. (But maybe if we’re very very literal.)
To Godspell
“The Book of Daniel is a 2nd-century BC biblical ** you do not have permission to see this link **
All these false prophecies without exception happened before 160 BC. Even the 10 horns reference to Alexander the Great, as an example.
At the time of Alexander the Great’s death, he had ** you do not have permission to see this link ** (Wikipedia). The kingdoms were:
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- The ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- Parts of modern ** you do not have permission to see this link **
- ** you do not have permission to see this link **(Wikipedia)
- The ** you do not have permission to see this link ** of central Asia
BDEhrman
FreedomBen
evgendob
Robert