Archeologly proves the Bible?

[Hokulele]

And here is something I recently noticed:

Recently noticed? You mean we have been discussing this very topic for pages and you had no idea what Luke actually wrote the entire time?

Good grief.

 

[Lucian]

Why, historical authors often do it in their books. Known facts do not always tell the complete story so in those unknown or grey areas of history historical authors sometimes take the facts they do know and speculate what might have happened using a rational analysis of the known facts.

When you say "historical authors," do you mean historians or historical novelists? There is a difference, and your terminology is ambiguous. It's true that historians have to deal with limited information and that they make inferences and form conclusions based on that limited evidence; it is also true that different historians will look at the same evidence and come up with different interpretations; however, responsible historians present evidence for their conclusions, cite sources fairly and completely, and explain their arguments fully. They don't just take a smattering of facts (or "facts") and make up a story. That's what historical novelists do, which is fine, as long as the novel isn't presented as "history."

 

[Maia]

Perhaps it is becuase he suggests that jesus may not be divine?


This is strange, however, given DOC's willingness to call Thomas Jefferson a christian, even though he called the bible a dung heap.

I just love John Shelby Spong. I've read just about every single one of his books, and I quote him all the time around here. He is indeed a retired Episcopalian priest, and not only does he
say in all of his recent books that Jesus was not divine (he makes a very good argument that Jesus was a real person, but definitely not the Son of God, etc.), but he said these things before he was, shall we say, highly encouraged to retire. A priest is a priest, whether Catholic or Episcopalian or Kohanim or Orthodox or a traditional African religion or whatever, unless the person making the argument specifies exactly which type of priest he's talking about to begin with.

 

[GreNME]

That is fantastic.

But you dont have to scan and download the images. Those thumbnails when clicked allow one to download the images from the web page as jpg files. They print on full A4 paper well. You try it and if you think the resolution is not good enough, well you will probably have to scan them as you said.

It's less about whether I can see them and more about whether you and others can. I'm not looking to do a translation for anyone who wants to on the fly, I'm going to provide as much information as I can to allow you and whomever else wants to do so to make the translation. Like I mentioned earlier, I'm not the fastest at doing this in small spurts, and since this is less of an academic exercise and more of an edification exercise I'm opting to point you in the direction and let you see if your results confirm expectations. However, since I want your expectations to be based on something in particular I'd rather you chose the source material to work from.

GreNME
I just had a quick look through my stack of books on Egypt. I found my copy of the Book of the Dead - the E.A. Wallis Budge translation. I also found Herodotus: "An Account of Egypt".

I have shelves full of this stuff. I shall have to dust them off and sort them. Trouble is, this Forum takes up much of my time and I am enjoying it. I am trying to finish Murdock. I must say, the more I read the more sense it makes to me with my Roman Catholic background.

Thank "god" I am Atheist.

I very strongly do not recommend budge as an accurate translation. I don't discourage it because Budge confirms Murdock's claims-- Budge's work does not, and I have his books as well to confirm it-- but because Budge's work is incomplete, contains much guesswork, and translations have been refined and improved upon greatly in the century since he was doing the translating. On top of that, Budge inserts a lot of "thee, thy, thou" biblical-type wording in his translations, which makes them all that much more difficult to parse clearly.

I don't mean to be hard on you, eccles. The thing is that the whole "Out of Egypt" mentality that gets superimposed on practically any topic-- and the Horus-Jesus topic is one such example-- is something that's vague and slippery by nature, and the only way to perform a positive proof of whether something really does have an origin based from Ancient Egypt is to nail down the supposed line of transition and see if it holds up. In almost every single case, the Horus-Jesus claims simply do not hold up. But to show you this using a primary source I would rather you be the one determining whether the claims are corroborated by the source material.

Not only have I been through this before, there are at least a dozen or more translations since Massey's time of the Ani Papyrus, none of which have this "Anup the Baptizer" or any of the other correlations that Murdock or Massey claim is located in the text. The only way to prove it is to either go plate-by-plate providing a full-text translation (which is way too long and whole books have already been written providing accurate translations) or we can look at individual citations and explore them individually. Since the latter takes less time (but would still be time-consuming in its own right), I'm opting for the latter. But to do that I want to use one of the plates chosen by you or one you think Murdock is citing (yes, I know she never names actual text, which is why I know they're lies). I've asked Murdock herself to do this, as well as some of her more ardent followers who have come to this forum before, and so far the number of times I've gotten a response that wasn't insult, invective, or evasion has remained at zero.

 

[sleepy_lioness]

I'm sure that plenty of Roman Catholic priests think the census didn't happen. Can't be bothered looking it up right now, but it's a commonplace of biblical criticism that Luke made up his story in order to place Jesus's birth in Bethlehem, to retrofit to the Micah prophecy and the Davidic-Messiah narrative. Just about all mainstream biblical scholars believe this. As someone else said, Roman Catholicism has never been about biblical literalism.

 

[Phase Inverter]

Re: The Nonsense about the Census Nonsense

The quote from Fr. Jerome Murphy O'Connor is from a UK television programme entitled Christianity: A History, Episode 1: Jesus the Jew. Originally aired on Channel 4 on Sunday, 11 January, 2009 at 7:00 pm.

This is THE primary source of the O'Connor quote. Regarding Luke's narrative on how Jesus got to Bethlehem, O'Connor states "Luke made a mistake" & "He got it wrong." Regarding the census O'Connor states "[Luke] has to invent the census", "the census is nonsense" & "It's a complete nonsense."

This youtube video isolates the quote in question. If you have a slow connection, pause the video and let it finish loading. Wait till the progress bar at the bottom of the video is completely red, then press play.

 

[eccles]

I'm sure that plenty of Roman Catholic priests think the census didn't happen. Can't be bothered looking it up right now, but it's a commonplace of biblical criticism that Luke made up his story in order to place Jesus's birth in Bethlehem*, to retrofit to the Micah prophecy and the Davidic-Messiah narrative. Just about all mainstream biblical scholars believe this. As someone else said, Roman Catholicism has never been about biblical literalism.

My experience with Roman Catholic priests is that most of them know very little. In seminary they are taught Theology and Philosophy and how to say Mass and perform the other services. It is only those who take the bible seriously enough to study it. I can say the same could be the case with many Ministers. I had a discussion with the minister of the local church about the bible and I knew a lot more than he did.

* The redactors of the Gospel according to Luke did that.

 

[eccles]

Fr. O'Connor has been drinking too much of the "black stuff" - Guiness. Who said Joseph and Mary had a house in Bethelehem, and he did know know that Judea WAS a Roman provence. How can you take that man seriously when he shoots his mouth off like that.

 

[TimCallahan]

That's what you assume happened regarding taxes but what if the Roman's who were responsible for putting Herod Aptipas's father back on the throne said we want some of that money for protection. Do you really think he has the power and forces to say no. Some people think everything is black and white and there is nothing going on behind the scenes. The Romans had the power to basically do anything they wanted in that area. If they wanted a census -- after reading how they had Herod the Great in their pocket -- there is no doubt in my mind they could have got a census whether it was Galilee, Judea, or wherever.

When the Romans instituted the census after deposing Herod Archelaus, a revolt ensued, led by Judas the Galilean. The census was seen as an imposition. The Romans certainly would want money for protection. However, they would not have instituted a census to get it. It was simply cheaper to let their puppet rulers do the legwork.

However, there's another provblem with the historicity of the Lucan Nativity. If we accept it as historical, we must reject the idea that the account in Matthew has any degree of historicity. Luke and Matthew disgree on just about every point in their Nativity stories:

Matthew: Joseph and Mary are already living in Bethlehem. They only end up in Nazareth after they have fled to Egypt to escape Herod's soldiers, who massacre every male two years old and younger in Bethlehem. There is no Roman census, no trek south with Mary in the late stages of pregnancy, no episode of Mary giving birth in a stable.

Luke: Joseph and Mary have to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem to be enrolled in the Roman census. She is about to give birth by the time they arrive in town. Theres no room for them, and Mary is forced to give birth in a stable. There are no Magi from the east bearing royal gifts, no slaughter of the innocents and no flight to Egypt.

So, Doc, how do you reconcile these two accounts, which contradict each other on so many points?

 

[Simon39759]

It doesn't matter which Herod. Bottom line is if you're an independent Jewish state why are Roman soldiers in the area. And somebody has to pay for the Roman soldiers in the area, right. How do you pay for that -- taxes. And taking a census is one way you determine who you can tax. Taking a census for tax reasons makes perfect sense whether you're and independent nation or not. Do you really believe the Romans in the area didn't expect to get some of that tax money. And to get tax money you have a census.

And that's what tributes are all about.

 

[Phase Inverter]

Who said Joseph and Mary had a house in Bethlehem...

Matthew 2:11

And when they were come into the house, they saw the young child with Mary his mother, and fell down, and worshiped him: and when they had opened their treasures, they presented unto him gifts; gold, and frankincense, and myrrh.​

 

[Phase Inverter]

...he did [not] know that Judea WAS a Roman province.

Maybe he was referring to Nazareth, in Galilee, as not being part of the Roman empire, since that's where Joseph and Mary were living, according to Luke, at the time of the alleged census.

 

[eccles]

Roman Rule (63 BCE-313 CE)

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Romans.html

When the Romans replaced the Seleucids as the great power in the region, they granted the Hasmonean king, Hyrcanus II, limited authority under the Roman governor of Damascus. The Jews were hostile to the new regime, and the following years witnessed frequent insurrections. A last attempt to restore the former glory of the Hasmonean dynasty was made by Mattathias Antigonus, whose defeat and death brought Hasmonean rule to an end (40 BCE), and the Land became a province of the Roman Empire.

In 37 BCE, Herod, a son-in-law of Hyrcanus II, was appointed King of Judea by the Romans. Granted almost unlimited autonomy in the country's internal affairs, he became one of the most powerful monarchs in the eastern part of the Roman Empire. A great admirer of Greco-Roman culture, Herod launched a massive construction program, which included the cities of Caesarea and Sebaste and the fortresses at Herodium and Masada. He also remodeled the Temple into one of the most magnificent buildings of its time. But despite his many achievements, Herod failed to win the trust and support of his Jewish subjects.

Ten years after Herod's death (4 BCE), Judea came under direct Roman administration. Growing anger against increased Roman suppression of Jewish life resulted in sporadic violence which esclated into a full-scale revolt in 66 CE. Superior Roman forces led by Titus were finally victorious, razing Jerusalem to the ground (70 CE) and defeating the last Jewish outpost at Masada (73 CE).

----------------------------------------------------------
That should clear up the matter of Judea being a Provence of the Roman Empire.

 

[eccles]

Nazareth Bethlehem

Matthew 2
1Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king, behold, there came wise men from the east to Jerusalem,

No mention of Nazareth.

Luke 2
1And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus that all the world should be taxed.

2(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

3And all went to be taxed, every one into his own city.

4And Joseph also went up from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, into Judaea, unto the city of David, which is called Bethlehem; (because he was of the house and lineage of David

5To be taxed with Mary his espoused wife, being great with child.

6And so it was, that, while they were there, the days were accomplished that she should be delivered.

7And she brought forth her firstborn son, and wrapped him in swaddling clothes, and laid him in a manger; because there was no room for them in the inn.

DISTANCE from Nazareth to Bethelehem - straight line as measured in Google Earth: 66 miles. So we say 70 miles. That is 7 days march for a Roman Legion; fit men, no 8 month pregnant women..

IF it really happened!!

 

[boloboffin]

Actually, I have a possible reconciliation between the Matthew and Luke nativities - the wise men tell Herod that they saw a star, yadda yadda, and Herod inquires of them the details. He then tells them about Bethlehem and the wise men go there and find Jesus. Then, warned in a dream, they depart without saying goodbye to Herod. Herod gets hacked off and kills every child below two years of age according to the information given to him by the wise men.

It can be determined, then, that the events Luke talks about occur two years after the events in Matthew. The wise men don't show up at the actual birth. The harmonious minded would say that the baby was born there, the family returns to Nazareth, and then they move to Bethlehem in time to be greeted by the wise men, whereupon they flee to Egypt and then sneak back to Nazareth when the coast is clear.

 

[eccles]

"the wise men tell Herod that they saw a star"

They saw a star all right, probably after binge drinking the rough Roman wine.

As far as "three wise men" are concerned they are the three stars in the Belt of Orion.

 

[I Ratant]

...
As far as "three wise men" are concerned they are the three stars in the Belt of Orion.

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/338944a84aa90d2878.png[/qimg]

.
The galaxy is on the belt of Orion! Gasp, rattle... uuuhhh!

 

[eccles]

I would like to post a couple of paragraphs from a long reply a question on "Egyptian Dreams" Forum in a topic titled:
Is Roman Catholic Church a cult of Amun-Ra?
http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2508&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=165



They were written by:
Katherine Griffis-Greenberg

Oriental Institute
Oriental Studies Doctoral Program [Egyptology]
Oxford University
Oxford, United Kingdom




"One has to read the Tanakh (Old Testament) to see this was first found in Abraham who traveled from Ur into the Syro-palestinian wild lands, but also encountered the beliefs of the Egyptians as well. One thing that is very prevalent within ANE cultures is what scholars call "literary parallelism" (von Rad 1972), in which other cultures' textual stories are reworked and revised by another culture to explain its own dogma. So, the second chapter of Genesis, verse 5-6 describe a very different form of creation from the story which had just be revealed:

5 When no bush of the field was yet in the land and no small plant of the field had yet sprung up—for the LORD God had not caused it to rain on the land, and there was no man to work the ground, 6 and a mist was going up from the land and was watering the whole face of the ground...

This set of phrases, for example, can be directly traced back to Egyptian creation texts, but does not coordinate with the 6 days of creation story which preceded it: so why the inclusion?

It is thought, by various religious scholars, that the Tanakh tended to assimilate various cultures' beliefs and texts in it to "fill out" gaps in its own mythos. So, the verses above answer the question: when was man created? It gives a timeline, in essence, for the next phrases are:

7 then the LORD God formed the man of dust from the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living creature.

But the emphasis of this section of the Genesis story is not upon "life springing from the middle of chaos", which was the emphasis of these phrases in Egyptian texts, but a more human-centred goal - the creation of man - something which is a mere afterthought in most Egyptian creation texts.

So, as I said above, the Tanakh takes the Egyptian text of creation as a timeline/introduction to the main goal of the story - how man was created - making this an example of the literary borrowing and parallelism of one culture to another to explain a totally different dogmatic point."

 

[eccles]

.
The galaxy is on the belt of Orion! Gasp, rattle... uuuhhh!

Not to be really taken seriously. It is only one of many ideas bandied about by "inspired" individuals.

 

[GreNME]

As far as "three wise men" are concerned they are the three stars in the Belt of Orion.

The biblical sources never give a number. The number developed over the course of centuries after the multiple gospel stories were passing around. Unless someone travelled back in time to evolve three into being the number intended, the case for Orion's belt kinda falls short (oh, and no: it doesn't point to where the sun will rise during first sun-up, since it's on the other side of the sky by then).

I would like to post a couple of paragraphs from a long reply a question on "Egyptian Dreams" Forum in a topic titled:
Is Roman Catholic Church a cult of Amun-Ra?
http://forum.egyptiandreams.co.uk/viewtopic.php?t=2508&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=165

Honestly, I urge you to heed the posts of Segereh and kmt_sesh on that other forum-- they seem to have very balanced insight on the subject matter.

Also, all due respect to the person you're citing, but there's no need to go as far as Egypt for the creation myth. The Hebrew creation myth seems to have direct lines of origination from the Enuma Elish. There is no "definitive" creation myth in Egyptian mythology (instead there are several different ones, some possibly derivative from Mesopotamian sources).