Take a bright light and no light at all, the light=positive and the darkness=negative. When I say positive and negative I mean them as influences in your life happy and sad so on. When the light and darkness are presented to your eyes you get the same effect you cannot see. What im trying to get at is when these positve and negative things are presented to us in life you still up with the same outcome... eventually you are back at nothing...because as how happy or sad something makes you there is still an opposite that effects you as well may in be in the future or past. So elimate both what do then. After we die the mind does not come with us, its a muscle dependent on oxygen and all that other stuff. So what do you think with after you die????? you, your soul and this last part is jsut based on my religious belives, so you can think what you want. In all religions though it is the same concept you die you go to an eternal place......

hmmm...go get some sleep dude.

But there's a moon to guide you through the darkness isn't there? Just look in the right direction and you'll find the way.

Actually, many religions believe in no eternal place at all. The Indo-European polytheistic religions tended to not have a conception of -eternal- afterlives, Judaism mentions NOTHING on the afterlife, Taoism mentions nothing, Buddhism's afterlife is fleeting, Hinduism's afterlife is fleeting, Shinto doesn't get much into it...

And actually, when light is presented to oneself, unless in extreme amounts, one is not blinded at all. In fact, that is how one sees: The reflection of light. No light, no sight. Going into a completely walled off basement is the best example of this.

your mind is your head, your computer's program. but the trick is, you ARE you. you can feel that. you are aware. obviously, there's something more than simple computing happenind in the human mind. when you die, the computer shuts down, number crunching and logic circuits flip off, but I think that the awareness, that feeling if "you", lives on to an unknown fate.

Weed_Eater_Guy:

Why do you think that it lives onto an unknown faith? What reason do you have for this?

Prince James: I do not remember any old testament references to an after life, but I always assumed Judaism included the concept.

In the new testament, a question is posed to Jesus about what happens in the after life when a widow (widower?) has remarried and then dies after the second spouse has expired. Who is the spouse in the after life? I also remember some parable or story about a man named Lazarus (not the one allegedly restored to life by Jesus) who was poor during his lifetime, and in the after life is asked for a drink of water by a man who was rich while alive. The rich man is suffering torment.

The above two references surely indicate that the Jews of the era had a concept of an after life. Since the early Christians were Jews, it is hard to imagine that they invented the after life concept rather than adopting it from Judaism.

BTW: I happen to be an atheist who was exposed to Catholicism and Quakerism as a child. I still remember a lot of what was taught in Sunday school. My interest in religion is from an academic point of view. I was fascinated by a comparative religion course, and have read quite a bit about various religions.

Dinosaur:

Prince James: I do not remember any old testament references to an after life, but I always assumed Judaism included the concept.

It seems to be more an idea they developed through contact with the Greeks and other pagans, as well as contained in some of the non-canonical Hebrew books, rather then an orthodox concept in Judaism. The closest thing to an afterlife is the notion of the ressurrection, which even then plays little into the Jewish religion as a whole. Judaism is a very temporal religion in manyways.

In the new testament, a question is posed to Jesus about what happens in the after life when a widow (widower?) has remarried and then dies after the second spouse has expired. Who is the spouse in the after life? I also remember some parable or story about a man named Lazarus (not the one allegedly restored to life by Jesus) who was poor during his lifetime, and in the after life is asked for a drink of water by a man who was rich while alive. The rich man is suffering torment.

Again, this seems to be a bit more related to -later- Judaism, after it sort of mixed in with Greek concepts and other such things, as well as the non-canonical books and such things. In what would be considered "real Judaism", the belief is basically absent, not to mention that the religion of clerics always differs from the religion of regular people. For instance, in Buddhism the clerics don't believe in basically any superstition, but throughout the peasantry and such, the idea of rubbing Buddha heads for good luck is prominent, as well as getting good luck charms, and all other such things. Commoners tend to "pollute" religion with such things.

The above two references surely indicate that the Jews of the era had a concept of an after life. Since the early Christians were Jews, it is hard to imagine that they invented the after life concept rather than adopting it from Judaism.

Considering how close many of these Jewish ideas are to Greek notions of Tartarus and the like, it seems hard to say it really comes from Judaism.

BTW: I happen to be an atheist who was exposed to Catholicism and Quakerism as a child. I still remember a lot of what was taught in Sunday school. My interest in religion is from an academic point of view. I was fascinated by a comparative religion course, and have read quite a bit about various religions.

I'm an Atheistic Pantheist who grew up in a pretty religiously Liberal family, who similarly is interested in religion from an academic, as well as a philosophical, view.

Prince James,
I disagree with a few statements you made.
I think you misunderstand a few things.
The Torah talks numerous times of people being "gathered to their people" after death (Gen. 25:8 (Abraham), 25:17 (Ishmael), 35:29 (Isaac), 49:33 (Jacob), Deut. 32:50 (Moses and Aaron) II Kings 22:20 (King Josiah)).
In 1 Kings, when a king came to the end of his mortal life he was said to be "resting with his fathers" (except, perhaps notably, in the case of Zimiri, who committed suicide and was said to have "died" in 1 Kings 16:15).
Kareit ("being cut off from your people") is meant in a spititual, not physical sense.
Daniel 12 in the Tanakh is all about the "End Times" and the "World to Come".

Also, what do you mean by, "Buddhism's afterlife is fleeting", "Hinduism's afterlife is fleeting".
Buddhism, speaks of "The Absolute", which is essentially eternal. Sure, it is not the same "afterlife" ideal that the Christians have, but is IS a very similar concept. Beyond thsi physical existence, there is a "perfect" existence that will last an eternity. What about that is fleeting?

As far as Hinduism is concerned, well, Hinusim is about as splintered as Protestantism, but even worse, because it is on a personal level. One core belief, however, is the concept, taken from the Vedas, of a multiple tiered existence that beings, in different lifetimes can ascend, and essentially become eternal demigods. So I am really not sure where you get that idea from either.

For instance, in Buddhism the clerics don't believe in basically any superstition, but throughout the peasantry and such, the idea of rubbing Buddha heads for good luck is prominent, as well as getting good luck charms, and all other such things. Commoners tend to "pollute" religion with such things.
That's absurd.
Tibetan Buddhism is rife with ritualistic prayer, music, "charms" and all of teh other trappings of religion, all the way up to the Dalai Lama. As are other flavors of Buddhism. It has been that way since the first split at the Second Council, which was, of course, held by monks. Where do you get that notion that it was "polluted" by Commoners?

one_raven:

The Torah talks numerous times of people being "gathered to their people" after death (Gen. 25:8 (Abraham), 25:17 (Ishmael), 35:29 (Isaac), 49:33 (Jacob), Deut. 32:50 (Moses and Aaron) II Kings 22:20 (King Josiah)).
In 1 Kings, when a king came to the end of his mortal life he was said to be "resting with his fathers" (except, perhaps notably, in the case of Zimiri, who committed suicide and was said to have "died" in 1 Kings 16:15).
Kareit ("being cut off from your people") is meant in a spititual, not physical sense.

The term "gathered to their people" and "resting with the fathers" are both very ambigious statements. In that all of them are dead, and held in grand esteem, one could be said that they are simply "resting with the fathers" in the sense that they are dead with them and held to such regard, and "gathered to their people" means that they have shared the mortal lot with their forebears.

Daniel 12 in the Tanakh is all about the "End Times" and the "World to Come".

This regards a resurrection which some, like Maimonides, did not believe would be eternal and that death would return.

Also, what do you mean by, "Buddhism's afterlife is fleeting", "Hinduism's afterlife is fleeting".
Buddhism, speaks of "The Absolute", which is essentially eternal. Sure, it is not the same "afterlife" ideal that the Christians have, but is IS a very similar concept. Beyond thsi physical existence, there is a "perfect" existence that will last an eternity. What about that is fleeting?

Any afterlife which is not Nirvana - which is hardly a life at all - is, to Buddhism, a transient thing. If one goes to Hell, or becomes a deity or an animal, this life will only last until one's karma runs out and one dies. Similarly, Hinduism holds only to the notion of Moksha being eternal, which, just as Buddhism hardly has an "afterlife" with Nirvana, is similarly a sort of non-life submerged in Brahman, whilst all conditional afterlives are fleeting, even if they could last for aeons.

As far as Hinduism is concerned, well, Hinusim is about as splintered as Protestantism, but even worse, because it is on a personal level. One core belief, however, is the concept, taken from the Vedas, of a multiple tiered existence that beings, in different lifetimes can ascend, and essentially become eternal demigods. So I am really not sure where you get that idea from either.

There is no notion of eternal demi-Gods in Hinduism. The Devas and Asuras are just as subject to death as mortal beings, although their lifespan may be trillions upon trillions of years. I believe the Bhagavad-Gita and Upanishads speak of this notion, and even in the Vedas, the notion of eternalhood to any of the deities is never fully ascribed.

That's absurd.
Tibetan Buddhism is rife with ritualistic prayer, music, "charms" and all of teh other trappings of religion, all the way up to the Dalai Lama. As are other flavors of Buddhism. It has been that way since the first split at the Second Council, which was, of course, held by monks. Where do you get that notion that it was "polluted" by Commoners?

Ask a lama or monk whether or not these charms, the music, prayers, et cetera, are not part of samsara and not simply things to use for what they can give and then abandon through detachment, and I'm sure the monk will affirm that they are simply such. The commoners, on the other hand, are convinced that they will gain something truly valuable from all of this. Moreover, whilst I hate to raise fiction to the level of fact, a similar point to mine is raised in Kipling's "Kim", where the Tibetan Lama is constantly attacking the superstitions and "idolatries" of his own people and the peoples of India that he meets.

The term "gathered to their people" and "resting with the fathers" are both very ambigious statements. In that all of them are dead, and held in grand esteem, one could be said that they are simply "resting with the fathers" in the sense that they are dead with them and held to such regard, and "gathered to their people" means that they have shared the mortal lot with their forebears.

Sure, they are ambiguous and could be interpreted in just about any way you wish to interpret them (just as most of the rest of the Torah).
Ask the vast majority of Rabbi's and Jewish scholars what they mean, however.

Any afterlife which is not Nirvana - which is hardly a life at all - is, to Buddhism, a transient thing. If one goes to Hell, or becomes a deity or an animal, this life will only last until one's karma runs out and one dies. Similarly, Hinduism holds only to the notion of Moksha being eternal, which, just as Buddhism hardly has an "afterlife" with Nirvana, is similarly a sort of non-life submerged in Brahman, whilst all conditional afterlives are fleeting, even if they could last for aeons.
Nirvana would be the afterlife that compares to the Christain heavenly reward, so to talk about any afterlife that is not Nirvana, is silly and pointless to this discussion, really.
And your opinion of Nirvana (being "hardly an afterlife at all") is inconsequential.
Nirvana is the eternal perfect existence offered by the Buddha.

There is no notion of eternal demi-Gods in Hinduism. The Devas and Asuras are just as subject to death as mortal beings, although their lifespan may be trillions upon trillions of years.
And angels can be cast from heaven, and humans souls can br obliterated etc. For all intents and purposes, the demigods are eternal and immortal, in just the same way angels and souls are.


Ask a lama or monk whether or not these charms, the music, prayers, et cetera, are not part of samsara and not simply things to use for what they can give and then abandon through detachment, and I'm sure the monk will affirm that they are simply such. The commoners, on the other hand, are convinced that they will gain something truly valuable from all of this. Moreover, whilst I hate to raise fiction to the level of fact, a similar point to mine is raised in Kipling's "Kim", where the Tibetan Lama is constantly attacking the superstitions and "idolatries" of his own people and the peoples of India that he meets.
The significance of the rituals, prayer wheels, dorje, prayer beads etc. all depends on which monk or Lama you happen to ask and what belief system they follow.

What do you mean by "not part of samsara"? I don't understand what point you are trying to make with that. Do you mean not required to break free from samsara?
Also, "for what they can give and then abandon through detachment"? :confused: Are you saying they purposefully attach themselves to these things in order to have something to "give up"?

Similarly, the Buddha left a great deal of room for personal belief and left a lot of stones unturned in his teachings purposely.

one_raven:

Sure, they are ambiguous and could be interpreted in just about any way you wish to interpret them (just as most of the rest of the Torah).
Ask the vast majority of Rabbi's and Jewish scholars what they mean, however.

I've actually seen on television and read in various articles, many rabbis discussing the lack of a notion of any real afterlife in Judaism. But it would be interesting to present to some rabbis these specific verses and ask their views concerning it.

Nirvana would be the afterlife that compares to the Christain heavenly reward, so to talk about any afterlife that is not Nirvana, is silly and pointless to this discussion, really.
And your opinion of Nirvana (being "hardly an afterlife at all") is inconsequential.
Nirvana is the eternal perfect existence offered by the Buddha.

Ah, but there is no reward in Nirvana, as there is really no self! It's a start of annihilation, at the very best, and nothing more. Moreover, it is said in Buddhism, that nothing is eternal at all.

And angels can be cast from heaven, and humans souls can br obliterated etc. For all intents and purposes, the demigods are eternal and immortal, in just the same way angels and souls are.

If they are not truly eternal, it is silly to call them thus.

The significance of the rituals, prayer wheels, dorje, prayer beads etc. all depends on which monk or Lama you happen to ask and what belief system they follow.

Considering the main tenets of Tibetan Buddhism - which we were discussing specifically - the general emptyness of such things are held to be true. Of course, I suppose many such monks and such may deviate from what the "true doctrine" is, just as many laymen.

What do you mean by "not part of samsara"? I don't understand what point you are trying to make with that. Do you mean not required to break free from samsara?

I meant whether or not prayer beeds themselves are just samsaric diversions.

Also, "for what they can give and then abandon through detachment"? Are you saying they purposefully attach themselves to these things in order to have something to "give up"?

No. I had meant they could use such for what they offer, whatever that might be, but eventually even these things must be abandoned through detachment, lest they become the karmic clingings that Buddhism hopes to annihilate.

Similarly, the Buddha left a great deal of room for personal belief and left a lot of stones unturned in his teachings purposely.

This is true. In fact, I seem to recall him specificall y avoiding ever speaking about Gods and magic powers and otehr such things.

I've actually seen on television and read in various articles, many rabbis discussing the lack of a notion of any real afterlife in Judaism. But it would be interesting to present to some rabbis these specific verses and ask their views concerning it.
I think it would be interesting as well.
I have read a lot of articles not only professing that Jews do, in fact, believe in an afterlife, but take great offense to people incorrectly stating and assuming otherwise.
That could very well be a case of the squeaky wheel, however.
My own opinion is swayed mostly by the Zimiri exception to "rested with his fathers" that I came across. The significance of that exception, however, is admittedly biased. I was actively looking for passages that would support a "reality" I am trying to present in a fictional book.
Ah, but there is no reward in Nirvana, as there is really no self! It's a start of annihilation, at the very best, and nothing more. Moreover, it is said in Buddhism, that nothing is eternal at all.
Again, that is your personal view of Buddhism refelcted in your value system.
Many would argue that it would be the greatest reward.
Nothing is static. Everything changes. It says nothing about The Absolute not being eternal.
If they are not truly eternal, it is silly to call them thus.
By that same reasoning, then nothing in Christianity except God (and even THAT is arguable) is truly eternal.
Thus, these "eternal" afterlife concepts are akin to the Christian version (which is contrary to what I understand your position to be). Furthermore, they are FAR from your suggseted "fleeting".
Considering the main tenets of Tibetan Buddhism - which we were discussing specifically - the general emptyness of such things are held to be true. Of course, I suppose many such monks and such may deviate from what the "true doctrine" is, just as many laymen.

I meant whether or not prayer beeds themselves are just samsaric diversions.

No. I had meant they could use such for what they offer, whatever that might be, but eventually even these things must be abandoned through detachment, lest they become the karmic clingings that Buddhism hopes to annihilate.
Emptyness?
See, this is where I tend to differ with a lot of people when discussing Buddhism.
Non-attachment does not negate intrinsic value.
You should not become attached to food, yet it is necessary for survival.
Just because something has no value in the next existence does not mean it can not have value in THIS existence.
The essence of the goal of a Buddhist is to be released from samsara by releasing his desire to be here.
By releasing attachment to material things, by releasing attachment to personal relationships or anything else material, one can begin to release desire to remain in samsara.
This does not mean that a prayer wheel, for example, is insignificant or empty. It does not mean it has no value.
It's value could very well be helping in breaking free from samsara, which, of course, would place a great deal of value on it.
It IS, don't forget, the monks that keep the prayer wheels perpetually turning.
This is true. In fact, I seem to recall him specificall y avoiding ever speaking about Gods and magic powers and otehr such things.
An inportant point that MANY people miss.
Buddha was an atheist.
He did not say that his followers should be.

one_raven:

I think it would be interesting as well.
I have read a lot of articles not only professing that Jews do, in fact, believe in an afterlife, but take great offense to people incorrectly stating and assuming otherwise.
That could very well be a case of the squeaky wheel, however.
My own opinion is swayed mostly by the Zimiri exception to "rested with his fathers" that I came across. The significance of that exception, however, is admittedly biased. I was actively looking for passages that would support a "reality" I am trying to present in a fictional book.

Of course, this passage still could be interpreted as essentially meaning he will not be counted favourably amongst his dead ancestors due to the sinful nature of his death. It may be akin to the shameful cousin most families try to avoid talking about.

Ah! I know a few Jews who I could ask for their rabbi's phone number!

Again, that is your personal view of Buddhism refelcted in your value system.
Many would argue that it would be the greatest reward.
Nothing is static. Everything changes. It says nothing about The Absolute not being eternal.

I'll have to look for the few passages from some sutras and commentaries which seem to support a less "absolute" Nirvana. Of course, there is still the notion that Nirvana itself is dependent on samsara.

By that same reasoning, then nothing in Christianity except God (and even THAT is arguable) is truly eternal.
Thus, these "eternal" afterlife concepts are akin to the Christian version (which is contrary to what I understand your position to be). Furthermore, they are FAR from your suggseted "fleeting".

In Christianity, I do believe that God (triune or otherwise) -is- the only one who is eternal. Even angels are considered created, as is Heaven, Creation, and Hell. I do not, however, doubt that Christianity's afterlife is a state which one will spend the rest of eternity in. -That- is certainly not fleeting.

Emptyness?
See, this is where I tend to differ with a lot of people when discussing Buddhism.
Non-attachment does not negate intrinsic value.
You should not become attached to food, yet it is necessary for survival.
Just because something has no value in the next existence does not mean it can not have value in THIS existence.
The essence of the goal of a Buddhist is to be released from samsara by releasing his desire to be here.
By releasing attachment to material things, by releasing attachment to personal relationships or anything else material, one can begin to release desire to remain in samsara.
This does not mean that a prayer wheel, for example, is insignificant or empty. It does not mean it has no value.
It's value could very well be helping in breaking free from samsara, which, of course, would place a great deal of value on it.
It IS, don't forget, the monks that keep the prayer wheels perpetually turning.

Certainly things have value in -this- life, but from a Buddhist standpoint, we must always consider said value to be conditional, samsaric, et cetera. The value of food, for instance, is indeed obvious to all, but to cling to it, to give it -objective- value, is to be trapped in delusion.

An inportant point that MANY people miss.
Buddha was an atheist.
He did not say that his followers should be.

Well, I'd argue more non-theistic. He does not necessarily -refute- the notion of God, but doesn't really deal with it.

The first post was quite incoherent. Props to you guys that actually tried to reason with it.

The Hebrews would certainly have had a concept of an afterlife. This can be reasoned in three very strong ways.

Firstly, the father of the Hebrew race (as presented in the Bible), Abraham, came out of Mesopotamia, and was probably originally part of a nomadic, semitic tribe that settled in the Mesopotamian region. It is abundantly clear that the Mesopotamian peoples of that era had a concept of an afterlife. However, the Mesopotamian concept of the afterlife was that of hardships and suffering in an underworld, whereas the heavens were reserved for the gods. This is the first reason that the Hebrews would have had a working concept of an afterlife.

Secondly, after coming out of Mesopotamia, the descendants of Abraham ended up settling into Egypt. Egypt also had its own strong concepts of afterlife. Again, consisting of an underworld and heavenly realm. Osiris, the god of the dead, played an important role in Egyptian mythology, and that influence would certainly not have been lost on a peoples who lived in that culture for such a long time.

Finally, the first Christians were Jewish. The first Christians had an obvious understanding of an afterlife, and it did not come solely out of the teachings of Jesus. Their concept of an afterlife did become refined as influence from other cultures became strong as Christianity spread, but it was present with those first Jewish Christians.

Thus, it stands to reason on three points, that Jews in the past did have an idea or concept of an afterlife, even if that idea wasn't made explicit in the Torah. Many Jewish beliefs are not made explicit in the Torah.

BeyondTimeAndSpace:

Firstly, the father of the Hebrew race (as presented in the Bible), Abraham, came out of Mesopotamia, and was probably originally part of a nomadic, semitic tribe that settled in the Mesopotamian region. It is abundantly clear that the Mesopotamian peoples of that era had a concept of an afterlife. However, the Mesopotamian concept of the afterlife was that of hardships and suffering in an underworld, whereas the heavens were reserved for the gods. This is the first reason that the Hebrews would have had a working concept of an afterlife.

Understanding that other people might have it, is quite different than adopting it oneself.

Secondly, after coming out of Mesopotamia, the descendants of Abraham ended up settling into Egypt. Egypt also had its own strong concepts of afterlife. Again, consisting of an underworld and heavenly realm. Osiris, the god of the dead, played an important role in Egyptian mythology, and that influence would certainly not have been lost on a peoples who lived in that culture for such a long time.

What part of these beliefs do you think would have influenced the Jews?

Finally, the first Christians were Jewish. The first Christians had an obvious understanding of an afterlife, and it did not come solely out of the teachings of Jesus. Their concept of an afterlife did become refined as influence from other cultures became strong as Christianity spread, but it was present with those first Jewish Christians.

Jewish Christians in a Hellenized world under Roman domination. Paul came from Greece. Cultures tend to influence one another when there is such contact.

I know there are some differences, but I still find this funny...

Understanding that other people might have it, is quite different than adopting it oneself.
Jewish Christians in a Hellenized world under Roman domination. Paul came from Greece. Cultures tend to influence one another when there is such contact.
Understanding that other people might have it, is quite different than adopting it oneself.
Jewish Christians in a Hellenized world under Roman domination. Paul came from Greece. Cultures tend to influence one another when there is such contact. :p

One Raven:

The lines betwixt "Greek", "Roman", and "Jewish" tended to blur around that time. We specifically see direct connections.

BeyondTimeAndSpace:



Understanding that other people might have it, is quite different than adopting it oneself.



What part of these beliefs do you think would have influenced the Jews?



Jewish Christians in a Hellenized world under Roman domination. Paul came from Greece. Cultures tend to influence one another when there is such contact.


I agree with one_raven on this, it's just funny. "Cultures tend to influence one another when there is such contact." Then how can you even made your first statement with a straight face: "Understanding that other people might have it, is quite different than adopting it oneself." Obviously there is a difference, but if you're willing to accept your third statement, then you should also be willing to accept that Abraham's (and his descendant's) concepts and ideas would have been influenced in the same way, especially since they actually chose to live in those cultures, rather than having been conquered by them.

beyondtimeandspace:

I agree with one_raven on this, it's just funny. "Cultures tend to influence one another when there is such contact." Then how can you even made your first statement with a straight face: "Understanding that other people might have it, is quite different than adopting it oneself." Obviously there is a difference, but if you're willing to accept your third statement, then you should also be willing to accept that Abraham's (and his descendant's) concepts and ideas would have been influenced in the same way, especially since they actually chose to live in those cultures, rather than having been conquered by them.

The difference is simple: Throughout the Biblical period, Judaism was in not really engaged in the cosmopolitanism of any empire. Rome had a tendency towards blending of various belief systems, cultural identities, et cetera, which the Jews themselves were apart of in some way or another, and due to the fact that they had not direct control, and we see many Jewish philosophers at the time adopting some Aristolean, Platonic, Neoplatonic, et cetera, notions, along with the formation of the Talmud (I do believe) at this time, it is more likely that such happened only then. Also, the fact that Judaism was vehemently against all other cultures aside from itself at this period of time, the notion that too much syncretism was present seems unjustified. If there really was some notion of an afterlife, Babylonian, Caananite, Hittite, or Egyptian alike, it would have been presented as such specifically in the Torah to reflect this.

This sounds reasonable, but it is false.

The Geneologies of Genesis are obviously influenced by the Sumerian King Lists. The Cosmology of the Torah shows ifluence from both the Egyptian and the Babylonian Cosmologies. The book of Deuteronomy shows influence from Hittite Vassal Treaties. The Levitical laws of the book of Leviticus show influence from the Law Code of Hammurabi of Babylon.

The Torah is itself a compilation of various sources, obviously not all of Hebrew origin. There is more than enough evidence to show that Judaism incorporated ideas, concepts, ways of writing, histories, and more from the cultures with which they had close contact over the millenia BC. It is foolish to say that such influencing solely occurred in the time of Roman and Greek domination.

yeah prince james you do have the buddhism beliefs and philosophies kind of wrong there Raven already corrected you so i wont give the same points as he did but yeah raven is right man.

peace

beyondtimeandspace:

The Geneologies of Genesis are obviously influenced by the Sumerian King Lists. The Cosmology of the Torah shows ifluence from both the Egyptian and the Babylonian Cosmologies. The book of Deuteronomy shows influence from Hittite Vassal Treaties. The Levitical laws of the book of Leviticus show influence from the Law Code of Hammurabi of Babylon.

Might you present specific points regarding the Sumerian King list, the genesis influence, et cetera? I'd be interested in the specifics.

The Torah is itself a compilation of various sources, obviously not all of Hebrew origin. There is more than enough evidence to show that Judaism incorporated ideas, concepts, ways of writing, histories, and more from the cultures with which they had close contact over the millenia BC. It is foolish to say that such influencing solely occurred in the time of Roman and Greek domination.

Might you present some specifics?

EmptyForceOfChi:

yeah prince james you do have the buddhism beliefs and philosophies kind of wrong there Raven already corrected you so i wont give the same points as he did but yeah raven is right man.

If you're just going to Toady, without presenting your case for it, don't post. Demonstrate how I am wrong.

i already said prince, i know its lazy of me but one raven already said the reasons why so theres no need to go over it twice is there.

peace

raven is right man.
I agree with EmptyForceOfChi.