I found an interesting article edited by Hugh Fogelman, a Jewish scholar, on the real meaning of Lazarus, the brother of Mary Magdalene and Martha, and what his story is about. Could it be possible that Christianity is nothing more than Egyptian astrology?


LAZARUS...EGYPTIAN OSIRIS

Edited by Hugh Fogelman

The story of Ausar (Osiris) is one of Egypt's most ancient myths. So old, it's origins have been lost in time. It was an important story to the Egyptians because of Ausar's (Osiris) role as the king of Egypt who is resurrected as the "King of the dead".

The god Ausar was the central deity in ancient Egyptian mortuary rituals. In Egyptian mythology he is ruler of the Underworld and associated with resurrection. Ausar is also associated with agricultural renewal and the resurrection of Mother Nature as well.

Are people aware that the European plagiarizers changed El-Ausar (Osiris) of Egypt to Lazarus? Are Christianas aware that similarly Heru or Horus was changed into Jesus, the son (Sun) of God? This original story (prototype for Constantine's bible) is published in detail in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

Are Christians also aware that the word Lazarus when translated into the Egyptian language means "El- Azur or El-Osiris" which means "God Helps"? We find these similarities with Judeo-Christianity due to the influence of the Alexandrian influence of Hellenistic Judaism. I have a book in my library written by Randel Helm's entitled Gospel Fictions and it this book it relates that the "Pyramid Texts" describe a story of Osiris being raised from the dead by Horus. Now what follows next is very important to our understanding of the Lazarus story in the gospel of John.

The word "Lazarus" is a thinly disguised depiction of "L-ASURAS". "Ausar" is the real name of Osiris in Egyptian. 'L' just means "the", and functions as a definite article in English. This means that "L-Asuras" or Osiris is just another name for Lazarus and it was this Osiris who was raised from the dead following 3 days in the tomb. It is interesting to note that in Hindi the Sun is called Asurya or Surya or Sri. This is where we get our Sire or Sir, when referring to a man of status and education.

The Lazarus story has a connection with Egypt and we find parallels to it in the "Pyramid Texts". The Pyramid Texts are inscribed on the walls on ten pyramids which are all situated at the necropolis of Saqqara. It is in these "Pyramid Texts" that we first find a unique play on words when we look at the word Bethany.

Christians should ask themselves; (1) Where did Lazarus supposedly live? He is mentioned at living at Bethany. (2) Are you aware that the word "Bethany, when translated back into the Egyptian language is "Beth-anu" and it means the House of the Sun? (3) Are Christians aware than many of the details of that story of the raising of Osiris have analogs in the story of Lazarus? Helms' book Who Wrote The Gospels has a section on Lazarus. On pages 121-126 Helms talks about the Lazarus myth in relation to the "Pyramid Texts". He uses R.O. Faulkner as his primary reference.

When compared to the story of Osiris that predated the Lazarus account by thousands of years we find that the resurrection of Lazarus is nothing more than another version of the story of the solar year. Robert Taylor, a Christian minister, gave a sermon about this very thing in 1830 which you can find in his famous work that got him imprisoned in the colonies which is entitled The Devil's Pulpit. He shows us that the resurrection of Lazarus is a plagiarized story taken from the Ausarian Resurrection (Osiris) of over 12,000 years ago, which was also based on the Sun and its resurrection from the dead at the Winter Solstice.

How many Christians know the Osiris story? I believe that all Christians and followers of all world religion must understand this story for it is from this story that all religions emanate in some degree. It is in this story that the God Ausar (Osiris as the personified Sun) was killed by his brother, Set (personified darkness from which we later get the concept of the adversary of the Sun whom we call Satan).

Whether or not you believe in battles between the forces of light and darkness, this idea nevertheless occupies an important place in a substratum of collective belief in Western culture. The idea of light-and-darkness is as old as the hills. The alternation of night/day and winter/summer has been a fundamental human experience throughout time. The interaction of light and dark created life. To the Ancients all creation was seen to result from infinite variations of these two polarities which together make one. As prehistory unfolded, people became increasingly habituated to hurting and harming one another. A shock to human values and sensibilities, this brought up the 'problem of evil'. What made people do this?

Was there an evil force causing people to act anti-socially or to go against the Laws of Creation? Thus arose the idea of a universal battle, not merely an interaction, between the forces of light and darkness. This is generally known as dualism.

In this scenario, light became 'good' and darkness 'evil'. This Cosmic principle was preserved by the Ancients through the aid of myths and legends that captured for all time this Eternal Principle and we find it expressed through the agents of Osiris, Horus, and Set to begin with but others would follow in every nation under the Sun.

This contest between good (life) and bad (death) and light and darkness is played out in many legends the world over; only the names change. The New Testament account of Lazarus is but one of many of these myths. The original story of such a tension between good and evil and light versus darkness goes all the way back to Egypt and the legend of the triumph of life and light over darkness and death begins with Osiris. Thus the stories of being raised from the dead goes back to Egypt. It relates to one of the best known and most powerful myths, the raising of Osiris, the god of the dead.

Osiris, Ausar, is the god of the dead, and the god of the resurrection into eternal life; ruler, protector, and judge of the deceased, and his prototype (the deceased was in historical times usually referred to as "the Osiris" [L-Ausar/Lazarus..see above the word play]). His cult originated in Abydos, where his actual tomb was said to be located.

The essence of Osiris left to establish a kingdom in the constellation of Orion, while his body went to the underworld.

So we have now see that Lazarus, or L-Asuras or Osiris is raised from the dead. Asur, is the real name of Osiris in Egyptian. But this again goes back to Egypt. It relates to one of the best known and most powerful myths, the raising of Osiris, the god of the dead which is nothing more than the personified story of the rebirth of the Sun from the dead following the Winter Solstice.

The worship of Osiris, like that of the sun god Ra, was one of the great cults of ancient Egypt. It gradually spread throughout the Mediterranean world and, with that of Isis and Horus, was especially vital during the time of the Roman Empire and it would be Rome again who gives us the New Testament. After all, the Church Fathers who canonized the New Testament were all Romans (ex-pagans who converted to Christianity).

Identified variously with the waters of the Nile, the grain of the earth, the moon, and the Sun, Osiris was the great symbol of the creative forces of nature and the imperishability of life (the triumph of life over death and light over darkness as seen in the path of the Sun through the Heavens).

Osiris died and the Sun stood still on the horizon for 3 days and men feared the Sun had died. Through the power of Birth (Isis) under the authority and skill of Thoth (The Higher Genius) Osiris arose on the physical plane as the great avenging god Horus, his son. On the spiritual plane Osiris became the great god of the underworld. Like Jesus he became the god that the Egyptians needed to become in order to be saved.

What this means is that unless the initiate allows for the complete transformation of the self under the direct guidance of the Higher, no true and lasting power can be obtained.

Osiris, being the first living thing to die, subsequently became lord of the dead. His death was avenged by his son Horus, who defeated Set and cast him out into the desert to the West of Egypt (the Sahara). Prayers and spells were addressed to Osiris throughout Egyptian history, in hopes of securing his blessing and entering the afterlife which he ruled; but his popularity steadily increased through the Middle Kingdom. By Dynasty XVIII he was probably the most widely worshipped god in Egypt.

It is in this 18th dynasty that emerges the Pharaoh Moses who overturns this worship of the godman and refocuses worship of Egypt upon the invisible Creator of the Universe.

We need another Moses today to refocus our worship from the false godman of Nicea, Jesus of Constantine's doing, back to the invisible Creator God.

Let us now remember the ancient quote from Thomas Payne:

"The Christian religion is a parody on the worship of the Sun, in which they put a man whom they call Christ, in the place of the Sun, and pay him the same adoration which was originally paid to the Sun."

Fortunately, centuries of Christian book burning (like the burning of the Alexandrian library and its 700,000 volumes by Rome in the 4th century) cannot erase the stars. By looking at the Gospels through the eyes of an astronomer and astrologer, we can understand why the Gospels follow the same story outline.

The tale of Jesus takes place within one Zodiac year. By breaking down the Gospels according to each of the twelve Zodiac constellations, we can track Jesus as the sun through references to each motif that the constellations correspond to.

A Christian's religious belief system, when tested and exposed to contradictory facts from Archeology, Biblical languages, Biblical history, Biblical culture, Comparative religion, Astronomy and Astrology must in the Spirit of Truth and Repentance, be flexible enough to change.

Wow that is an amazing story. Going to take a while to read it and punch key stuff like robert taylor devils pulpit into yahoo searches. thanks for sharing it.

I found an interesting article edited by Hugh Fogelman, a Jewish scholar, on the real meaning of Lazarus, ...
How wonderful. Here we have Medicine Woman bringing us "the real meaning of Lazarus", aided by her "Jewish scholar". The latter is relevant because she has a long history of ignorant pandering to Judaism. Consequently, we are assured that what follows comes from a "Jewish scholar" - his area of scholarship is apparently irrelevant, only his cultur. The whole approach is rather disgusting.

In fact, the story of Lazarus is almost certainly inauthentic. This is discussed by Helmes as noted, and also at Pascal's Wager (http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/healings.html). (You might wish to compare the latter to the innuendo stream authored by Fogelman to get a sense of what is, and what isn't, scholarship.) In authenticity in Paul is hardly big news, as the Adulterae Pericope shows quite well. But this conflation of story and myth hardly represents evidence of some "real meaning" hiding under the surface, eagerly awaiting exposure by Medicine Woman's real Jewish scholar.

Could it be possible that Christianity is nothing more than Egyptian astrology?
You tell us. Leave the inane rhetorical questions at the door and provide the evidence. And don't suggest that your Jewish scholar provided it. Adapting some story picked up in Alexandria is no more evidence of an Egyptian provenance than is the relationship between the Passion narrative and the Yom Kippur tradition evidance of a Jewish one.

It is in this 18th dynasty that emerges the Pharaoh Moses who overturns this worship of the godman and refocuses worship of Egypt upon the invisible Creator of the Universe.
So, we get to the punch line. For those who missed the evidence leading up to this piece of conjecture, I have no doubt that Medicine Woman's will summarize it for us. Specifically: What is your Jewish scholar's field of scholarship? What are his credentials? What is the evidence of an 18th Dynasty Exodus? What is the evidence of a Pharoah Moses in Canaan? What, for that matter, is the evidence for Israelite monotheism (as opposed to monolatry) before the Josiah reforms?This is crap. If you're at all interested in real scholarship, you might consider starting here ...

From Epic to Canon: History and Literature in Ancient Israel (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=bsq1FC3C57&isbn=0801865336&itm=1)

The Early History of God: Yahweh and the Other Deities in Ancient Israel (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=bsq1FC3C57&isbn=080283972X&TXT=Y&itm=1
)

Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/textbooks/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=bsq1FC3C57&isbn=0691000867&TXT=Y&itm=2)

There were very few people, aside from emperors, that were as documented or influential as Jesus Christ. There is no doubt that he walked the Earth and started Christianity, and that is the bottom line. Another thing. In Christian theology, Good is more powerful than Evil, there is no "power struggle between dark and light" going on. Whose the master of all Evil? Satan. Who created Satan? God.

There is no extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ.

Frisbinator,

There is no doubt that he walked the Earth and started Christianity, Umm, well yes there is significant doubt by many that he ever existed. So that blows away another baseless Christian assertion.

and that is the bottom line.Ah ha, pity you have no facts to backup your claim.

In Christian theology, Good is more powerful than Evil, there is no "power struggle between dark and light" going on. I think mythology is a more accurate term than theology. But neither term has any bearing on truth. There are only degrees of chaos and there is no indication that total chaos could not dominate.

Whose the master of all Evil? Satan. Who created Satan? God. As told from within Christian mythology of course. And if this mythical character had really wanted to be compassionate and loving he would never have created Satan would he?

Kat

There is no doubt that he walked the Earth and started Christianity, and that is the bottom line.Since there is, in fact, doubt, your statement can only reflect ignorance or dishonesty.

Here's the fact:

Lazarus wasn't considered a god (not to my knowledge at least :D).

Therefore, this is all more heresy and BS from MW.



Unless you wish to dispute the story of Lazarus the beggar as well... this is way too farfetched. Reminds me of a certain PM making propaganda threads.. :(

There were very few people, aside from emperors, that were as documented or influential as Jesus Christ. There is no doubt that he walked the Earth and started Christianity, and that is the bottom line.

It doesn't matter if Jesus did walk the land or not. Just because he may have actually existed, does it mean the magical stories written about him are true? I don't think the problem is that Jesus was a real person or not but rather if everything written about him is true. The reason why is because everything he has supposedly done, past religious prophets have as well so it looks as if his stories were ripped from other sources, ya know?

Heck, I'm alive right now and if people write stories about me hundreds of years from now saying I did this and that which I didn't, does it mean I did all that? I mean hey, they have proof that I did exist, so that must mean that I can walk on water and do other nifty things? No, heh.

And even if everything Medicine Woman says is true about the stories of Lazarus being ripped from Egyptian beliefs, one has to realize again that the beliefs of Egyptians aren't unique either. All of those were taken from Babylon. Babylon was taken from Sumer, etc. If one wants to find the REAL truth (if it is all true or not), you have to trace the root back to the base from which it first came. Talk about one hell of a word of mouth (and written) story passed on through the years! That's the problem I have with the somewhat modern religions. They act as if this is all something new. Your stories and history and all that aren't new or unique to just your religion. But they don't wanna accept that fact in fear of all their beliefs being false.

It doesn't matter whether your religion is ripped from another. There's nothing wrong if I believe a pink elephant is telling me the ten commandments. The only thing that matters is the message. Everything else is all semantics. Who cares if so and so said this or that [haha, unless it's the difference between the good guy saying this and the bad guy saying that.. don't wanna worship the wrong person. ;)] if they all say the same good things? Don't get so worked up over the details unless you're a historian trying to root back to the origins. For religious people, all that matters are the good words being said/read.

- N

There is no extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ.
You say that as if it's a negative thing. When the autographs appeared, Paul's epistles, John's gospel, and everything else were all "extra-Biblical". The act of compiling them into some or other collection hardly makes any of them less or more historical.

In authenticity in Paul is hardly big news, as the Adulterae Pericope shows quite well.
The adulterae pericope is actually from John, not Paul. Besides, it has its own claims to authenticity (http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/oracleofdelphi/bib_crit_paper.htm).

The adulterae pericope is actually from John, not Paul. Besides, it has its own claims to authenticity (http://www.angelfire.com/realm2/oracleofdelphi/bib_crit_paper.htm).
The science of textual criticism is indispensable to Christianity. Through this method all variations and differences of our Scripture become a joy, not something to be feared. Using this method we can determine the original reading of a text and what passages were added later. The adultera pericope is one passage where this method has proved most fruitful. Not only can we safely say that the pericope does not belong where it is at, we can also determine where it came from and how it was included and spread. Because of all of this, although the pericope was not originally in the text and possibly should be excised from the Gospels, we can assume that it is based on an actual event in the life of Jesus and it is a story that all Christians should enjoy. [ibid]
That is an assumption, not an evidenced claim of authenticity.

There is no extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ.

Could you explain, or expand, the meaning of your statement, which is contrary to what historians say that there is extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ? Just curious.

http://www.paracletesystems.co.uk/inj/inj005manmyth.htm

http://www.hnn.us/comments/6184.html

The Bible, as a Book, is a compilation.

When the "documentation" of Jesus was being written, there was no Bible, as a Book.

I am sure it then qualifies as "extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ".

[QUOTE=ConsequentAtheist]How wonderful. Here we have Medicine Woman bringing us "the real meaning of Lazarus", aided by her "Jewish scholar".
*************
M*W: I thought this article was particularly interesting because I thought Lazarus was a Jew. So you were not impressed. Why should I care?
*************
Specifically:[list] What is your Jewish scholar's field of scholarship? What are his credentials?
*************
M*W: I really don't know what Hugh Fogelman's field of scholarship is. I was under the impression that he is a Rabbi, but maybe he's not. It really doesn't take a rocket scientist to research and write an article like this. This isn't the first time I've read this same story about Lazarus. It has been published elsewhere.
*************
What is the evidence of an 18th Dynasty Exodus?
*************
M*W: Hell if I know. There has been some recent data published that says the Exodus never happened. Again, hell if I know. I would need to see more evidence for this.
*************
What is the evidence of a Pharoah Moses in Canaan?
*************
M*W: I don't think Moses ever made it into Canaan, did he? Moses, the Pharoah, has also been published and aired on PBS. Seeing as how Moses' story was some 5,000 years ago centering on the Exodus, who really knows what took place that long ago.
*************
What, for that matter, is the evidence for Israelite monotheism (as opposed to monolatry) before the Josiah reforms?
*************
M*W: Evidence? I've never heard of the Josiah reforms. Again, hell if I care.
*************
This is crap. If you're at all interested in real scholarship, you might consider starting here ...
*************
M*W: CA, I will give you the courtesy to say that I acknowledge your scholarship on ancient Biblical matters. I do not profess to be any kind of scholar of your caliber. I have my specific interests, as you know, to refute the myths of Christianity, although I'm certainly not opposed to learning all I can about Biblical history, I do appreciate the references you listed. What may seem like crap to you may bring enlightenment to someone else.

Could you explain, or expand, the meaning of your statement, which is contrary to what historians say that there is extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ? Just curious.

http://www.paracletesystems.co.uk/inj/inj005manmyth.htm
http://www.hnn.us/comments/6184.html

What historians say "there is extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ"?

Your former link very nice evidence of an early CE Christian movement. It is not evidence of an historical Jesus.

The latter link is seriously dated and essentially worthless. See Essays on the James Ossuary (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James_Ossuary_essays.htm).

M*W: I really don't know what Hugh Fogelman's field of scholarship is. I was under the impression that he is a Rabbi, but maybe he's not ... What may seem like crap to you may bring enlightenment to someone else.
You know nothing about your source, less about his conclusions, but offer it up as a source of enlightment. Let me suggest that you are a perfect example of what that type of scholarship produces. You seem little more than a gullible little girl sadly driven by your neurotic hatred of Christianity.

There is no extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ.

Agreed, but there is no evidence fo a lot of things. ;)http://imperialculture.ipbhost.com/uploads/post-15-1084997229.jpg (http://bmwguy.proboards26.com/index.cgi)

You know nothing about your source, less about his conclusions, but offer it up as a source of enlightment. Let me suggest that you are a perfect example of what that type of scholarship produces. You seem little more than a gullible little girl sadly driven by your neurotic hatred of Christianity.
*************
M*W: Hah! You really don't know me at all!

*************
M*W: Hah! You really don't know me at all!

Hmm.. Scully. Appears to be extra terrestrial evidence of a dual personalitiy.. :bugeye:

There is no extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ.

What about Josephus?

You know nothing about your source, less about his conclusions, but offer it up as a source of enlightment. Let me suggest that you are a perfect example of what that type of scholarship produces. You seem little more than a gullible little girl sadly driven by your neurotic hatred of Christianity.
*************
M*W: Although you were spewing hatred at me again, you did give me something to think about when you said I was "sadly driven" by my "neurotic hatred of Christianity."

Let's compare that to all the Christians who have a neurotic need to believe in Christianity. I used to be one of them. Maybe it seems I'm taking my "neurotic hatred of Christianity" a little too personally? Yes, I am. They lied to me, too, and when I came to realize the lie had been perpetuated for 2000 years, I greived for my loss as if it had been a close friend who had betrayed me. So, yes, I do take it personally. It was not just something that could "come and go" easily without any imminent emotional trauma. I know the disillusionment I experienced when I found the truth about Christianity. I blamed myself at first for "searching" but not much anymore. I learned the importance of "searching." The truth has continued to reconfirm itself to me. Now that Christianity is the fastest declining religion worldwide, I suppose it's confirming the lies it told to millions of others. Humanity is not that cummulatively stupid. Or are we? Which is better? To continue to believe the lies with our heads stuck in the sand? Or learn the truth and suffer the loss of a "committed relationship?" What you call "neurotic hatred" of Christianity I see as a necessary warning to those who blindly believe in the lies. They're afraid to learn the truth, so they don't research. They're trapped in this lie, and they perpetuate this lie, because they don't want to believe anything but their personal dying demi-god savior of myth.

Yes, I do take it personally, and I feel that I have a responsibility to my fellow humans to free them from this dillusion.

You can spew all the hatred you want at me, but it doesn't hurt me. Your hatred will turn within and destroy you.

*************
M*W: Although you were spewing hatred at me again, you did give me something to think about when you said I was "sadly driven" by my "neurotic hatred of Christianity."

Let's compare that to all the Christians who have a neurotic need to believe in Christianity. I used to be one of them. Maybe it seems I'm taking my "neurotic hatred of Christianity" a little too personally? Yes, I am. They lied to me, too, and when I came to realize the lie had been perpetuated for 2000 years, I greived for my loss as if it had been a close friend who had betrayed me. So, yes, I do take it personally. It was not just something that could "come and go" easily without any imminent emotional trauma. I know the disillusionment I experienced when I found the truth about Christianity. I blamed myself at first for "searching" but not much anymore. I learned the importance of "searching." The truth has continued to reconfirm itself to me. Now that Christianity is the fastest declining religion worldwide, I suppose it's confirming the lies it told to millions of others. Humanity is not that cummulatively stupid. Or are we? Which is better? To continue to believe the lies with our heads stuck in the sand? Or learn the truth and suffer the loss of a "committed relationship?" What you call "neurotic hatred" of Christianity I see as a necessary warning to those who blindly believe in the lies. They're afraid to learn the truth, so they don't research. They're trapped in this lie, and they perpetuate this lie, because they don't want to believe anything but their personal dying demi-god savior of myth.

Yes, I do take it personally, and I feel that I have a responsibility to my fellow humans to free them from this dillusion.

You can spew all the hatred you want at me, but it doesn't hurt me. Your hatred will turn within and destroy you.

Oh no CA, this "neurotic hatred" of yours is surely going to consume you! You had better listen to what MW says, she has your best interests in mind..

:m:

What historians say "there is extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ"?

Your former link very nice evidence of an early CE Christian movement. It is not evidence of an historical Jesus.

The latter link is seriously dated and essentially worthless. See Essays on the James Ossuary (http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/James_Ossuary_essays.htm).

Excuse me for insisting that you answer the question, CA, but you have made the declaration there is no extra-biblical references to Jesus Christ. I am just asking for a further explanation and reason for the statement. (In case you want to know which historians who say there is, just put your search engine to "historical Jesus".)
Thank you in advance.

I was going to start this post by asking Medicine Woman to please conform to the quote tags as it would make reading her replies easier, but I see that she actually did it already. Bravo. Please continue to do so.

Now that that's out of the way. I'll say that it was an interesting article. It's a pity that few here are able to discuss the article and have degenerated into a debate on whether Jesus was real or not. I guess it's sort of on topic, but ignores the original argument. Merely tries to contradict it by saying Jesus was real so the article is fake.


...Jesus, the son (Sun) of God?

I have a bit of a problem with this statement. I have heard it made by others in the past. The problem with it is son and sun are homonyms in English. I doubt that they were in earlier languages. Maybe I'm wrong on this. I think the relevant language would be Latin. Anyone know latin?

As to the rest of the article, I have no doubts that the original god of humanity was almost certainly the sun. What thing in our world is so obviously powerful, important, and awe-inspiring as the sun? Now, I don't know about the sun hanging out on the horizon for three days (unless someone took a trip to the arctic or antarctic), but I am sure that solar eclipses would have scared the hell out of primitive peoples. Hell, it'd scare the hell out of me if I didn't know what was happening. And then when people began to go blind because they looked at it (a natural enough inclination).

Now, do christians really feel that their religion came from a single source without being influenced in any way by the religions and beliefs that came before? That's a ridiculous idea. Christianity has incorporated pagan myths into itself time and time again. Most of the time, these pagan beliefs were brought in after the Bible had been canonized and therefore the beliefs were not added to the bible, just to the general belief structure. But, I find it highly likely that when the Romans were christianized they incorporated their previous beliefs into the Bible. And since they wrote the Bible, these beliefs would have become part of it.

I seriously doubt that, if Jesus were real, that he would recognize his religion as it has been transformed beyond all recognition of his original tenets. It was a doomsday cult after all, but we're still waiting for doomsday. The original Christians were part of a trend of doomsday cults that hid in the desert waiting the end of days. It's a good thing (or a bad thing depending on your view) that some of the christians weren't so reclusive and spread the faith to Rome. Of course, once this happened the religion was taken from their hands and shaped into something new, a religion that would appeal to decadent Romans rather than world-weary Jews. I would imagine that what remained of the original cult either died out on it's own as the world never ended and people got tired of waiting in the desert or were slaughtered by the Romans for having heretical ideas.

And remember, Egypt in this case is not even worlds removed from Christianity. It has more links than Roman. The early Jews were supposedly held in bondage in Egypt. It is extremely likely that certain Egyptian beliefs were incorporated into their mythos. The real story of the Jews doesn't begin until after Egypt. The first books of the bible are the books of Moses. All that had gone before was just memories of the past seen through the filter of the present.

There is also the possibility that Moses was not Jewish at all. I've read theories here and there that Moses was Egyptian, not merely raised Egyptian (even if a Jew raised Egyptian, well you are how you are raised.) I've heard that Moses is an Egyptian name, not a Jewish one. And the possibility exists that Moses' god was different than the god the Jews ended up with. There is speculation that Moses was killed in the desert by his followers who were tired of wandering and wanted to settle down. Once they found their promised land and settled down to begin writing the stories of the bible, they'd find it distasteful to admit to themselves that Moses was killed and changed it to his not being allowed into the Holy Land because of his pride.

An interesting side note on Moses being left behind. I was watching a documentary the other day on some nomadic tribe. I don't recall their name or even where in the world they live, but they still live the same way their ancestors have for hundreds or thousands of years. Their lives are a lesson in conformity. The highest ideal of the son is to live the life his father lived. Change is bad. But anyway, about Moses. Their is a part of the journey where they have to ford a wide and fast river. Often sheep are lost in this crossing and sometimes tribesmen as well. When a man (or woman I'd guess, they only showed a man on this particular show) grows old and feels that he will not survive the crossing, what do you think happens to him? He's left behind. Just that simple. He doesn't cross the river while his family does. They actually showed an old man who made this choice on this particular round of their eternal migration. I don't know if it was real or just staged to show the principle. But, the guy just sat down by a big rock and waited. One of the dogs stayed behind for companionship. But, damn, that's harsh, man. It's a brutal world. Of course, the Jews at the time were seperated from their nomadic roots because they were sedentary in Egypt. Or were they? It's possible that if they weren't slaves, then perhaps they just wandered through. Picking up a new holy man as they did so.

Anyway, this is turning into a small novel, I fear. So, I'll just make one more quick point. MW's article is about Egypt, but I wonder if Babylon didn't have a greater impact on Jewish beliefs. From my readings of the bible, it seems that the bible was actually written after the return from captivity in Babylon. The events that happened before this time are written in a style that suggests they are remembered to have happened in a particular way. But afterwards, you get the prophets who write of their own lives in terms of the present. The tribes that didn't make it back from Babylon were described as being wicked and punished by god. Coinicidence? The bible (Torah) written at this time was an attempt to bolster the returning people's national consciousness. To give them something to believe in, to follow, the belief of their ancestors. Unfortunately, although I have read certain Babylonian-Jewish similarities, I can't recall any right now. So, I'll leave it at this point and see what happens.


Oh, I did want to mention one more thing.
Osiris, being the first living thing to die, subsequently became lord of the dead.

In the Mask's of God, it is said that in many belief structures, the story of the original death is told something like this. Once no one died and the people were innocent. Then, someone murdered someone else for various reasons (sometimes without even meaning to). The murderer attempts to hide his misdeed by burying the corpse (often just the head, the murder being a decapitation). From this burial a plant grows. The type of plant varies from region to region, but is generally the staple food plant of the area. See the ties to the Garden of Eden? The murder was moved to a time after the garden, but the food plant which brings life and death is plainly the tree of knowledge. It's interesting in the Jewish faith that the plant is seperated into the tree of knowledge and the tree of life (which we never partook of, and which is likely a reference to the Kaballah). This is a trend in Judaism. To take earlier beliefs and reverse them, to show that their faith is different to other faiths. That their faith is THE faith. Anyway, something interesting to think about, I always thought.

What about Josephus?

Hasn't Josephus pretty much been shown to be a liar... oops exagerator, a propagandist to the highest degree? Unless I'm getting my references mixed, didn't Josephus tell the story of (blankin on the name, that fortress where supposedly all the jews holed up and killed themselves rather than submit to the Romans.) Archeological evidence is telling a quite different story as to what really happened. At least as regards to how many Jews were holed up there. And doesn't a lot of Josephus' histories begin with I wasn't there but...?

This argues he was mostly accurate: http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html

So does this one, although it's an admittedly Christian website: http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_01_01_01_JOS.html

Basic bio, courtesty of the Church: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08522a.htm

Another, from a secular source: http://religion.rutgers.edu/iho/josephus.html

As these sites all mention in varying degress, he was unreliable in at least one important sense ... despite the Jewish-Roman conflict of his time, he was a favorite of several Roman emperors.

Thus he probably never visited Masada or set foot on its summit, so he cannot himself have measured its walls.

Masada, that's it. I hate it when I forget something so basic.

I just thought that I'd go on a tangent and promote some poetry (don't hit me). There's a poem by Sylvia Plath called Lady Lazarus and it's really good (except the last 2 words, imho).

What about Josephus?
The Testimonium Flavianum is widely recognized as a Christian interpolation.
This argues he was mostly accurate: http://www.centuryone.com/josephus.html
From your reference:
Was Josephus always correct? Certainly not. His inaccuracies range from vagueness to blatant exaggeration. Shaye Cohen accuses him of "inveterate sloppiness". The index to Cohen's book goes so far as actually to include entries for "exaggeration", "inconsistency and sloppiness" and "corrupt transmission of names and numbers". Indeed, even if it is accepted that copyists were responsible for not a few of his mistakes (some of which have been hinted at already), it still cannot be denied that he was by nature somewhat negligent. The list of scholars who have deprecated his errors is long but suffice it to mention here the accusations of tow eminent archaeologists alone, since archaeology is the central theme of the present discussion. Albright remarks on "how inaccurate Josephus generally was in details . . ." Vincent goes even further. "Il serait superflu", he maintains, "d'accentuer de nouveau la futilite de toute evaluation fondee sur les chiffres de Josephe." However, a remark on the previous page, to the effect that a particular item of information is an "excellente approsimation", reflects the reaction typical of scholars investigating Josephus' data.

For a well-balanced discussion, see Testimonium Flavianum (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/testimonium.html)

Excuse me for insisting that you answer the question, CA, but you have made the declaration there is no extra-biblical references to Jesus Christ.
That is a lie, and a stupid one at that. What I said was:
What historians say "there is extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ"?
Your former link very nice evidence of an early CE Christian movement. It is not evidence of an historical Jesus.
Instead of presuming to make demands on me, take some time to learn the difference between "references" and "evidence".

I am just asking for a further explanation and reason for the statement. (In case you want to know which historians who say there is, just put your search engine to "historical Jesus".)
I'm so pleased that you can use a search engine. Now give me a specific example of extra-biblical evidence and I'll be more than happy to address it.

There is no extra-Biblical documentation of Jesus Christ.

On the contrary, CA, I was referring to the above response, whether you had implied it to be a reference or evidence. Again, please explain it in more detail. Thank you.

http://www.paracletesystems.co.uk/inj/inj005manmyth.htm

Who among your laundry list of hopeful candidates, do you believe offers evidence of an historical Jesus, and what is that evidence?

Who among your laundry list of hopeful candidates, do you believe offers evidence of an historical Jesus, and what is that evidence?
Why don't you choose one and explain?

http://www.carlislecofc.org/extrabiblical.htm

(P.S. The argument is whether Jesus Christ is mentioned in an extra-biblical source, not whether he is a man or myth. Look at your statement again.)

[QUOTE=invert_nexus]I was going to start this post by asking Medicine Woman to please conform to the quote tags as it would make reading her replies easier, but I see that she actually did it already. Bravo. Please continue to do so.
*************
M*W: I'm not sure I know how to use the "quote tags." Please explain. Thanks.

M*W: I'm not sure I know how to use the "quote tags." Please explain. Thanks.

And I was so sure you had it. I did notice in another post that you quoted more than you intended. So, I'll explain. Everything you intend to be in quotes must end with a [/quote] and must start with a [quote]. It's just that simple. To use the posted by, start with the [quote=whoever].

invert_nexus: I'll say that it was an interesting article. It's a pity that few here are able to discuss the article and have degenerated into a debate on whether Jesus was real or not. I guess it's sort of on topic, but ignores the original argument. Merely tries to contradict it by saying Jesus was real so the article is fake.

The problem with it is son and sun are homonyms in English. I doubt that they were in earlier languages. Maybe I'm wrong on this. I think the relevant language would be Latin. Anyone know latin?
*************
M*W: Good point. The sun is "helios" in Greek, and I believe "Sol" in Latin. In Hebrew, I believe it is "el, "eli," or even "Heli," (Joseph's father--does that make Joseph "son of the Sun?). What is the translation of the "Morningstar?" (Supposedly Venus?)
*************
invert_nexus: As to the rest of the article, I have no doubts that the original god of humanity was almost certainly the sun. What thing in our world is so obviously powerful, important, and awe-inspiring as the sun? Now, I don't know about the sun hanging out on the horizon for three days (unless someone took a trip to the arctic or antarctic), but I am sure that solar eclipses would have scared the hell out of primitive peoples. Hell, it'd scare the hell out of me if I didn't know what was happening. And then when people began to go blind because they looked at it (a natural enough inclination).
*************
M*W: Question (before I forget)? If Moses never made it to the Promised Land (because he died), when the hell did he write the Pentateuch/Torah? Seems like he would have had to have writen Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy way back in Egypt somewhere and NOT in the Promised Land. Were these texts Hebrew or Egyptian? I know the ancient Hebrews were a nomadic tribe called the "hibiru" or "abiru". Perhaps they spoke a form of Hebrew just like Aramaic is a form of Hebrew.

Anyhoo, here's an excerpt from Jesus, Last of the Pharaohs: The Truth Behind the Mask Revealed, by Ralph Ellis, second edition 1999, Dorset, England.

"Aaron proclaimed himself pharaoh of all Egypt, and changed his name from Amenhotep to Akhenaton (Aaron) to signify his irrevocable break from the old regime."

"A new era had dawned in Egypt, the Amarna age, which was to be different in all respects from the old regime. This revolution was the result of Aaron's commitment to the sacred study of the workings of the cosmos, the power behind the sun."

"The people needed to understand that it was not the physical form of the god that was important, but the cosmos itself and the mathematical functions that ordered its motions that were to be venerated."

"These "gods" of Egypt were messengers from other worlds, not the gods themselves. The sun and cosmos were the real power behind all life in the Universe and thei 'energy' was largely invisible."

"Aaron gave the order: there were to be no graven images to divert his people's attention from the real divine worship, that of the Aton, the workings of the cosmos. All the old gods were banned. The people were to praise Aaron himself for his wisdom and understanding of the cosmos and praise the divine movement of the Sun in its orbit because it was the physical representation of the mechanics of the cosmos. If you could understand the movement of the Sun, as he did, you would understand the greatness of the Universe. Thus, the temples were aligned with the rising and setting of the Sun and were opened up to the sky, so that the "Sun God" could be worshiped when it reached its highest point in the sky each day. That is why the deity had no pphysical form at Amarna, for the workings of the cosmos have no form. That was why the theology of Moses and Aaron became monotheistic, for there was only one cosmos and only one set of laws which it obeys. These laws are strange, silent, invisible forces that are more powerful than anything that can be imagined."
*************
invert_nexus: Now, do christians really feel that their religion came from a single source without being influenced in any way by the religions and beliefs that came before? That's a ridiculous idea. Christianity has incorporated pagan myths into itself time and time again. Most of the time, these pagan beliefs were brought in after the Bible had been canonized and therefore the beliefs were not added to the bible, just to the general belief structure. But, I find it highly likely that when the Romans were christianized they incorporated their previous beliefs into the Bible. And since they wrote the Bible, these beliefs would have become part of it.

I seriously doubt that, if Jesus were real, that he would recognize his religion as it has been transformed beyond all recognition of his original tenets. It was a doomsday cult after all, but we're still waiting for doomsday. The original Christians were part of a trend of doomsday cults that hid in the desert waiting the end of days. It's a good thing (or a bad thing depending on your view) that some of the christians weren't so reclusive and spread the faith to Rome. Of course, once this happened the religion was taken from their hands and shaped into something new, a religion that would appeal to decadent Romans rather than world-weary Jews. I would imagine that what remained of the original cult either died out on it's own as the world never ended and people got tired of waiting in the desert or were slaughtered by the Romans for having heretical ideas.

And remember, Egypt in this case is not even worlds removed from Christianity. It has more links than Roman. The early Jews were supposedly held in bondage in Egypt. It is extremely likely that certain Egyptian beliefs were incorporated into their mythos. The real story of the Jews doesn't begin until after Egypt. The first books of the bible are the books of Moses. All that had gone before was just memories of the past seen through the filter of the present.

There is also the possibility that Moses was not Jewish at all. I've read theories here and there that Moses was Egyptian, not merely raised Egyptian (even if a Jew raised Egyptian, well you are how you are raised.) I've heard that Moses is an Egyptian name, not a Jewish one. And the possibility exists that Moses' god was different than the god the Jews ended up with. There is speculation that Moses was killed in the desert by his followers who were tired of wandering and wanted to settle down. Once they found their promised land and settled down to begin writing the stories of the bible, they'd find it distasteful to admit to themselves that Moses was killed and changed it to his not being allowed into the Holy Land because of his pride.
*************
M*W: So, if Moses was already dead, who wrote the Torah in the Promised Land?
*************
invert_nexus: An interesting side note on Moses being left behind. I was watching a documentary the other day on some nomadic tribe. I don't recall their name or even where in the world they live, but they still live the same way their ancestors have for hundreds or thousands of years. Their lives are a lesson in conformity. The highest ideal of the son is to live the life his father lived. Change is bad. But anyway, about Moses. Their is a part of the journey where they have to ford a wide and fast river. Often sheep are lost in this crossing and sometimes tribesmen as well. When a man (or woman I'd guess, they only showed a man on this particular show) grows old and feels that he will not survive the crossing, what do you think happens to him? He's left behind. Just that simple. He doesn't cross the river while his family does. They actually showed an old man who made this choice on this particular round of their eternal migration. I don't know if it was real or just staged to show the principle. But, the guy just sat down by a big rock and waited. One of the dogs stayed behind for companionship. But, damn, that's harsh, man. It's a brutal world. Of course, the Jews at the time were seperated from their nomadic roots because they were sedentary in Egypt. Or were they? It's possible that if they weren't slaves, then perhaps they just wandered through. Picking up a new holy man as they did so.

Anyway, this is turning into a small novel, I fear. So, I'll just make one more quick point. MW's article is about Egypt, but I wonder if Babylon didn't have a greater impact on Jewish beliefs. From my readings of the bible, it seems that the bible was actually written after the return from captivity in Babylon. The events that happened before this time are written in a style that suggests they are remembered to have happened in a particular way. But afterwards, you get the prophets who write of their own lives in terms of the present. The tribes that didn't make it back from Babylon were described as being wicked and punished by god. Coinicidence? The bible (Torah) written at this time was an attempt to bolster the returning people's national consciousness. To give them something to believe in, to follow, the belief of their ancestors. Unfortunately, although I have read certain Babylonian-Jewish similarities, I can't recall any right now. So, I'll leave it at this point and see what happens.
*************
M*W: The Sumerians may have had an influence on the Torah (i.e. the floods of Noah AND Gilgamesh).
*************
Oh, I did want to mention one more thing. In the Mask's of God, it is said that in many belief structures, the story of the original death is told something like this. Once no one died and the people were innocent. Then, someone murdered someone else for various reasons (sometimes without even meaning to). The murderer attempts to hide his misdeed by burying the corpse (often just the head, the murder being a decapitation). From this burial a plant grows. The type of plant varies from region to region, but is generally the staple food plant of the area. See the ties to the Garden of Eden? The murder was moved to a time after the garden, but the food plant which brings life and death is plainly the tree of knowledge. It's interesting in the Jewish faith that the plant is seperated into the tree of knowledge and the tree of life (which we never partook of, and which is likely a reference to the Kaballah). This is a trend in Judaism. To take earlier beliefs and reverse them, to show that their faith is different to other faiths. That their faith is THE faith. Anyway, something interesting to think about, I always thought.
*************
M*W: invert_nexus: Thank you for posting your research. Earlier recorded history influenced the writing of the Torah. The story of the GoE happened much later that most people believe.

M*W: Question (before I forget)? If Moses never made it to the Promised Land (because he died), when the hell did he write the Pentateuch/Torah? Seems like he would have had to have writen Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and Deuteronomy way back in Egypt somewhere and NOT in the Promised Land.

Personally, I don't believe that Moses wrote the books of Moses. If anything, it was an oral tradition until much later. There is a point in either chronicles or kings where the book of the law is discovered in the temple. It had been forgotten and not followed for quite some time prior to this. This indicates to me that it was at this time that the books were written. Personally, I still feel that the entirety of the bible was written after the return from Babylon. The pentateuch might have come earlier though.


"Aaron proclaimed himself pharaoh of all Egypt, and changed his name from Amenhotep to Akhenaton (Aaron) to signify his irrevocable break from the old regime."

Is this Aaron Moses' brother? Are you saying that he was Akhenaton? Akhenaten was killed wasn't he? His successor was Tutankhamen who restored the dynasty to it's old religion. These are different times than the Exodus, aren't they?


M*W: So, if Moses was already dead, who wrote the Torah in the Promised Land?

This is highly speculative. One can break down the pentateuch by writing styles and come up with at least two seperate accounts that have been welded together. Take the flood story, which is the most blatant of these. In the flood story, Noah is commanded to take 2 of each animal and then 7 clean animals and 2 unclean. Obviously two separate accounts. Of course, they might have been seperate accounts that Moses himself welded together, but I personally doubt it.

I just found the passage where the book of the law is found. 2 kings 22. It was in Josiah's reign with Hilkiah as the high priest. This would be a very likely time of the authorship of the pentateuch.


M*W: The Sumerians may have had an influence on the Torah (i.e. the floods of Noah AND Gilgamesh).

This is what leads me to believe the late authorship of the bible being after the exile. The flood story is in the original books of moses. If the Babylon story exists in this book, then the influence must have come before it's authorship.

Also, the nature of the narrative changes after the return from Babylon. It becomes present tense rather than past tense.


M*W: invert_nexus: Thank you for posting your research. Earlier recorded history influenced the writing of the Torah. The story of the GoE happened much later that most people believe.

No problem, I just wish I had the books to reference. I checked them out at the library and it's been too long since I've read them. If you haven't read them, I'd recommend you do so. Very good. The author is Joseph Campbell. I have heard that it is best to take it with a grain of salt, but I do that anyway. I have also heard that much of what he wrote was said by Jung, by I don't know about that, I've never read Jung.

http://www.carlislecofc.org/extrabiblical.htm

(P.S. The argument is whether Jesus Christ is mentioned in an extra-biblical source, not whether he is a man or myth. Look at your statement again.)If you read "documentation" and mistakenly inferred 'reference of no probative value', then your laundry list is, indeed, relevant and I stand corrected.

Question (before I forget)? If Moses never made it to the Promised Land (because he died), when the hell did he write the Pentateuch/Torah?
Questions don't get much more inane than this, folks. M*W, do your truly believe that 'Moses' wrote the Torah?


"Aaron proclaimed himself pharaoh of all Egypt, and changed his name from Amenhotep to Akhenaton (Aaron) to signify his irrevocable break from the old regime."
Akhenaten means "He Who is of Service to Aten”. Please show me any evidence demonstrating a philological link between 'Akhenaten' and 'Aaron'.

[QUOTE=invert_nexus]Personally, I don't believe that Moses wrote the books of Moses.
*************
M*W: Now that you said that, it makes sense to me that Moses didn't write the Torah. He was dead! But who did?
************
i_n: Personally, I still feel that the entirety of the bible was written after the return from Babylon. The pentateuch might have come earlier though.
*************
M*W: I looked this up, and here's what I found from my earlier citation: "Although the Israelites in Babylon were slaves, it would seem that they were not necessarily incarcerated and chained. Undoubtedly they had quotas of work to accomplish for the Babylonians and they had no freedom to leave, but it would seem that some were in a position to acquire wealth and so when they were eventually freed, many chose to stay oon in Babylon."

"It was in Babylon that modern Judaism evolved from the mix of A
rian peoples taken from Jerusalem. There, the Jews began the process of gathering their records together into the scroll that would become known as the Torah, the first five books of the Old Testament. It was also the time when the priests began to dissociate themselves from everything Egyptian and Egypt became a pariah state, the scapegoate for all the calamities that had befallen them."

"The biblical oaths against Egypt go on page after page. It as clear that if there were ever any favourable mention of Egypt in the Judaic texts that were being absorbed into the new scroll, they would have been withdrawn at this time. The Torah was beginning to take shape in the slavery of Babylon."

"It is difficult to call these people Arians anymore, for the constellations had now moved on and Pisces was in the ascendance. Perhaps "Stellar-people" and their astronomer-priests would be more appropriate. Whatever the name, there were many incentives for these peoples of Egypt and Israel to spread out across the Mediterranean."
*************
Hey, I have to go right now, but I'll get back to you with the rest of my post!

Medicine Woman,

I posted earlier about how to use the quote tags, maybe you missed it, it was between your question and your next post. I'll repeat it. Quoted material must end with a [/quote] and begin with a [quote] or . Just trying to be helpful. It's difficult reading your posts without the quotes. Sorry about the weird use of quotes above, with a quote being used later, it originally quoted all the way from the quote to the end of the next quote. This way is better.


[quote]Although the Israelites in Babylon were slaves, it would seem that they were not necessarily incarcerated and chained.

I would agree on this. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if many were scribes. I don't have any direct evidence of this however.

Your comments on making Egypt a pariah at this time certainly sounds right. Although, Babylon has always been held up as an even greater pariah. I wonder if Babylon was considered evil at the time of the release or if it took a generation or two? I would have to reread the relevant books of the bible, and I don't wish to do so right now. It's interesting to note that there is no material of the time spent while in Babylon itself. It's likely that instead of writing directly of Babylon and risking revocation of Darius' release, that they instead wrote of Egypt as a metaphor for Babylon. Of course, Darius was a Persian(?) not a Babylonian, so I don't know how much he would care about trash talking Babylon. It's strange that theres no Babylonian Chronicles though.

The prophets that were attempting to bolster the faith of the people after the release would have seen themselves as symbolizing Moses in his attempts to do the same after the release from Egypt. It's a possibility that until this time the slavery in Egypt was not even part of the tradition. It might have been entirely introduced at this time. What better time to introduce new stories into the tradition? The generation that was returning from exile was disenfranchised with their past. Many of them probably knew little of Jewish tradition and would not have known that new material was being added. It is unfortunate that no material from this time survives.

I've come up with all this merely from logical deduction. It's likely to not be entirely true. But, it seems to follow typical propaganda style behavior.



Edit: Doh! I mean Cyrus, not Darius, and he was Persian. Who was Darius then?

"It was in Babylon that modern Judaism evolved from the mix of Arian peoples taken from Jerusalem. There, the Jews began the process of gathering their records together into the scroll that would become known as the Torah, ...
And the evidence for this silliness would be what?

What do you think about it, Consequent? When was the Torah put together? As I've said, the two likely times for these oral traditions to have been rendered onto paper are when the books of law (pentateuch) are found in the the temple during the reign of Josiah. And from the way the books are written, there seems to be a drastic shift of writing style following the return from Babylon. Past tense to present tense. I find it highly likely that this is when it was written.

Of course, I realize that it may not have been "The Torah" then, I saw a thread or web site that said it wasn't officialized until much later, but it is obvious that up until a certain point things could be introduced into it but not after. I feel the torah after Babylon was greatly changed. I mentioned my thoughts about Egypt as a metaphor for Babylon. I find this to be a likely scenario. What are your thoughts?

And from the way the books are written, there seems to be a drastic shift of writing style following the return from Babylon.
I would concur that the Torah is a post-exilic construction weaving together various traditions, but how do you assert "a drastic shift of writing style following the return" absent some verified instance of the "style" prior to that return?

but how do you assert "a drastic shift of writing style following the return" absent some verified instance of the "style" prior to that return?

Simply. By noticing that after the exile it is written in present tense (for the most part) while before the exile it is written in past tense (for the most part.) Simple as that. I came to this conclusion, not by reading of others thoughts on the matter, but reading the bible itself. It strikes you (me anyway) like a brick in the face.

[QUOTE=invert_nexus] to CA: I mentioned my thoughts about Egypt as a metaphor for Babylon.
*************
M*W: I feel quite certain that both the OT and NT contained many, many "metaphors."

[QUOTE=ConsequentAtheist]Questions don't get much more inane than this, folks. M*W, do your truly believe that 'Moses' wrote the Torah?
*************
M*W: That's why I'm here CA, so I can learn things like this. Since you seem to have a good fund of ancient Biblical knowledge, it's really too bad that you won't just share your knowledge with us instead of being so God damn hateful. What a waste!
*************
CA: Akhenaten means "He Who is of Service to Aten”. Please show me any evidence demonstrating a philological link between 'Akhenaten' and 'Aaron'.
*************
M*W: CA, you know as well as I do, no matter what I post as a reference or evidence, you will refute it. Why should I bother?

James R: CA continues to be his awful arrogant, hateful self. If all he's going to do is debase everyone who posts as educationally inferior, maybe he would be happier elsewhere.

If Moses never made it to the Promised Land (because he died), when the hell did he write the Pentateuch/Torah?
Questions don't get much more inane than this, folks. M*W, do your truly believe that 'Moses' wrote the Torah?
That's why I'm here CA, so I can learn things like this. Since you seem to have a good fund of ancient Biblical knowledge, it's really too bad that you won't just share your knowledge with us instead of being so God damn hateful. What a waste!

You might consider learning how to discern rational argument and then reading something other than fringe speculation. See, for example: Who Wrote the Bible? (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=mHu1vu0ZEC&isbn=0060630353&itm=1), followed by The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=mHu1vu0ZEC&isbn=0385497881&itm=7)A fairly good summary can be found here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm).

Akhenaten means "He Who is of Service to Aten”. Please show me any evidence demonstrating a philological link between 'Akhenaten' and 'Aaron'.
CA, you know as well as I do, no matter what I post as a reference or evidence, you will refute it. Why should I bother?
Perhaps to discover if the "reference or evidence" can be successfully refuted, i.e., to determine whether or not your view is based on faulty argument. As I mentioned above, you might consider learning how to discern rational argument as a necessary precondition for you (or anyone else) "learn things like this".

Now, do you have any [i]evidence demonstrating a link between 'Akhenaten' and 'Aaron'?

James R: CA continues to be his awful arrogant, hateful self. If all he's going to do is debase everyone who posts as educationally inferior, maybe he would be happier elsewhere.
Are you petitioning to have me banned? :D Go for it! But first, do you have any evidence demonstrating a link between 'Akhenaten' and 'Aaron' or, for that matter, indicating that Moses wrote the Torah?

James R: CA continues to be his awful arrogant, hateful self. If all he's going to do is debase everyone who posts as educationally inferior, maybe he would be happier elsewhere.
It seems CA is very much happier here, thoroughly enjoying your entertaining & 'scholarly' posts.

It seems CA is very much happier here, thoroughly enjoying your entertaining & 'scholarly' posts.

And here I was thinking PM had the most entertaining & 'scholarly' posts.. :rolleyes:

[QUOTE=ConsequentAtheist]You might consider learning how to discern rational argument and then reading something other than fringe speculation. See, for example: Who Wrote the Bible? (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=mHu1vu0ZEC&isbn=0060630353&itm=1), followed by The Pentateuch: An Introduction to the First Five Books of the Bible (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=mHu1vu0ZEC&isbn=0385497881&itm=7)A fairly good summary can be found here (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_tora1.htm).
*************
M*W: Why do you ASSUME "fringe" is the only material I read? I am clearly able to discern between rational argument and what you call "fringe." That's why I am an EX-XIAN.
*************
CA: Perhaps to discover if the "reference or evidence" can be successfully refuted, i.e., to determine whether or not your view is based on faulty argument. As I mentioned above, you might consider learning how to discern rational argument as a necessary precondition for you (or anyone else) "learn things like this".
*************
M*W: On this forum, just about all the references and evidences presented can be refuted. "Rational argument" and "discernment" make-up subjective reasoning. And exactly how much "evidence" could anyone possibly have on the subjects we've been discussing/arguing/debating on this forum? Demanding "evidence" for ancient schools of thought and transmigrations of early peoples is just about as valid as demanding evidence for the tooth fairy. Unless someone on this forum is an archeologist who's been there, none of us would have "evidence." Therefore, the best that we can do is read about the subjects we are interested in discussing on this forum. With that said, I don't see how any reference we may acquire would provide an actual authority of "evidence" on the subject we are discussing.
*************
Now, do you have any [i]evidence demonstrating a link between 'Akhenaten' and 'Aaron'?
*************
M*W: To answer your redundant question, I have not been archeologically exploring the ruins of the Middle East, so I do not have any personal "evidence" per se. What I do have is a "reference" which I cited earlier. In fact, I probably have several other references confirming your question about Akhenaton and Aaron, but I cannot get to those books just now.
*************
Are you petitioning to have me banned? :D Go for it! But first, do you have any evidence demonstrating a link between 'Akhenaten' and 'Aaron' or, for that matter, indicating that Moses wrote the Torah?
*************
M*W: Until earlier today, I had always thought Moses wrote the Torah. Perhaps I never gave this question any thought until invert_nexus brought it to my attention. Most of the members of this forum have a lot to offer when expressing their ideas and knowledge. It's up to the reader to discern what may be fact or fiction. As far as your demanding to see "evidence" in support of some of our posts, your "evidence" is no more valid than anyone else's on this forum. No one has adequate "evidence" of the topics we discuss here, but we can come up with tons of "references." References cannot be considered to be evidences. Just because people have believed something that's been written, preached, and perpetuated for some 2000 years doesn't make it out to be the truth nor does it make it any kind of reliable "evidence."

Since you want the members to see you as the all-wise, all-knowing, all-powerful, ConsequentAtheist, why don't you offer some intelligent references or evidences (LOL--assuming you have any!) to this forum instead of using sciforums as you own personal whipping post. Since you are so hateful and condescending to those who post here, go find yourself a website that caters to other pseudo-intellectual arrogant assholes like yourself.

..., I have not been archeologically exploring the ruins of the Middle East, so I do not have any personal "evidence" per se ... References cannot be considered to be evidences.
I'll take that as a "no". :rolleyes:

ConsequentAtheist,

I would enjoy contributions to the thread beyond attacking a point here or there. You seem to have read widely on the subject and would have some interesting points to add. It is a pity that you don't add them. I guess you figure you had to buy the books, so we should too? Well, there's only so much time and so many books one can read. That, to me, is the point of forums such as these, to gain insight from others who have read material or come up with ideas that differ from my own. Thank you for the book list, if I come across them, I will give them a read.

I note that on the site you linked to as a good summary, my views were backed up. I had mentioned two authors of the pentateuch earlier. There were five listed on the page (including the Redactor). I had forgotten about the J (YHWH) and E (Elohim) split. J from the south (Judah) and E from the north (Israel), both from early times, 722 BCE at the latest.

D (about 622 BCE) I had never heard of. "wrote almost all of book of Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. ... was probably a Levitical priest - perhaps Jeremiah." It also mentions the story of Hilkiah "conveniently" finding the books of law in the temple as the probably date of D, which makes sense, because the book was found in Kings so it would make sense that Kings was written at the time it was found. It also, to my mind, makes Hilkiah the probable author. Even though it mentions "perhaps Jeremiah." Here's a point someone can perhaps clear up without forcing me to read the bible again, what was Jeremiah's time period? Before or after the reign of Josiah? Or was he a prophet who existed at that time? It say's priest not prophet... but... Don't make me read the bible again, I've got too much to do right now. :p

The latest date mentioned was for P, who was thought to have lived in 587 BCE, before the captivity in Babylon. It doesn't speculate at all about a date for R. Do you find it likely that R was after the return from Babylon? R would be the least destructive of the three, because his intent seemed to be to join the conflicting accounts into one. So, it's doubtful (to my mind) that new material was added at this time (actually, according to the first ten chapters of genesis, he seemed to have added genealogical data, funny for the latest author to add such details). Do you think R is later than the "editor" mentioned below? It would almost have to be, I think, because if it was compiled earlier, then the "editor" would have edited all the works rather than just D.

There is this about alteration of texts after Babylon, it is referring to D's work:
A second writer edited the original text after the destruction of Jerusalem by the Babylonians in 587 BCE. He added the last two chapters to 2 Kings and inserted short passages elsewhere to reflect the change in circumstances brought about by the Babylonian attack.

About the "editor", he is only mentioned in the works of D. Without a breakdown of Exodus, it is impossible for me to say whether D had a hand in any of Exodus. So, why would the editor stick to editing D's work rather than all the works (at least one of the earlier accounts)? There are too many similarities in bondage in Egypt and bondage in Babylon for the editor to have not been tempted to add his own contributions to Exodus. There is much dispute over whether the Hebrews were ever slaves in Egypt and it would be interesting to find out whether this was material that was added or changed later.

The article only specifically speaks of the Pentateuch, although it does refer to later books, but none after the return from Babylon. I assume that this is because the later books are obviously written by the prophets for which they are named. Which explains the use of present tense rather than past (which you never commented on, by the way).

And, I still find the absence of any Babylonian chronicles provocative, in the extreme.


Medicine Woman,

A lot of your material is speculative, but I see nothing wrong with that. The material on Lazarus as being a distortion of earlier Egyptian myths is very interesting. However, I do find the connection between Aaron and Akhenaten to be highly doubtful, in the extreme. I'm no expert in Egyptian history, but I am relatively sure that Akhenaten was killed for his heresy. And I know that his successor was Tutankhamen. Which would make Pharoah in Exodus a boy. And wasn't Tut Akhenaten's son? Or was he a nephew or something? That would put an interesting spin on the story, that's for sure. I guess I could look it up, but I'm too lazy right now.

D (about 622 BCE) I had never heard of. "wrote almost all of book of Deuteronomy, as well as Joshua, Judges, 1 & 2 Samuel and 1 & 2 Kings. ... was probably a Levitical priest - perhaps Jeremiah." It also mentions the story of Hilkiah "conveniently" finding the books of law in the temple as the probably date of D, which makes sense, because the book was found in Kings so it would make sense that Kings was written at the time it was found. It also, to my mind, makes Hilkiah the probable author. Even though it mentions "perhaps Jeremiah." Here's a point someone can perhaps clear up without forcing me to read the bible again, what was Jeremiah's time period? Before or after the reign of Josiah? Or was he a prophet who existed at that time? It say's priest not prophet... but... Don't make me read the bible again, I've got too much to do right now. :p



Maybe this website will help.

http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mbible1.html

Thanks, SVRP. That was a good article.

After reading that and going back over the bible somewhat, I realize that I was in error about the past tense - present tense. There are some books set at the same time period as earlier books but speak with a present tense. It's been a while since I read the whole thing, and it's such a chore to read that it's impossible to do in one fell swoop, so I lay my forgetfulness to that. So that lays that theory to waste.

Also, while checking the bible I found that Jeremiah was the son of Hilkiah who found the lost books. So that answers that question. I would believe that Jeremiah was D. It still might have been Hilkiah though. But, I'm sure the researchers have a reason for pointing to Jeremiah.

Hmmm, so what else lies unanswered in here? Well, there's the possibility of revisionalism as regards to Exodus. I've always found this one to be "out there," as they say, but is still up for grabs. The fact that there are present tense writings from earlier times belies a complete revision at the time of the return from Babylon and makes it even more "out there" that slavery in Egypt would be manufactured. But one never knows.

Also, on the link given above, they put a speculative date of the exodus at 1280 to 1250 BC. I did a quick search on Akhenaten and Tutankhamen. Akhenaten's reign was speculatively placed in 1350 to 1332 on the site I looked at. That certainly puts him close in time to the supposed Exodus. So, again, who knows?

By the way, I was also wrong about Tutankhamen following Akhenaten. There was actually a ruler in between that ruled a short while, Smenkhkare. There is much speculation about familial bonds between the three. It's possible that Smenkhkare and Tut were brothers, sons of Akhenaten.

One thing is certain, if the hebrews were indeed in Egypt and the Exodus did occur between 1280 and 1250, then they would have been in Egypt during the Aten heresy. Even if Aaron wasn't Akhenaten, it's possible that Aten was Moses' god. Of course, it's also possible that it's not. :p


Edit: I'd like to further amend my statement on past tense and present tense. I didn't explain this properly. While reading further on the link given above, it makes reference to the fact that ancient hebrew verb forms didn't differentiate between past and present. At this point, I realized that it wasn't past or present that I had noticed, but person. The later books of the bible are written in the first person. I did this, I saw that. The earlier books are third person, they did, he did, she did. By later, I don't mean chronologically (as I had first thought) but by placement in the bible.

ConsequentAtheist,

[QUOTE]I would enjoy contributions to the thread beyond attacking a point here or there. You seem to have read widely on the subject and would have some interesting points to add. It is a pity that you don't add them.
*************
M*W: Thanks, i_n. Let's hope he takes your suggestion.
*************
Medicine Woman, A lot of your material is speculative, but I see nothing wrong with that. The material on Lazarus as being a distortion of earlier Egyptian myths is very interesting.
*************
M*W: I realize my material is "speculative." Don't you think most of what we discuss here is "speculative." I don't proclaim to be a scholar, but I read everything I can on this subject. All I can do is offer it here for discussion. I doubt that anyone of us has any actual "evidence" of what we read as was demanded by CA. If he's the one with the "evidence," he's been unwilling to share it.

I don't proclaim to be a scholar, but I read everything I can on this subject.

Everything? How can you possibly say such a thing with a straight face. What have you read by any professional Egyptologist affiliated with any reputable university? Good grief! :rolleyes:

I note that on the site you linked to as a good summary, my views were backed up.
Feel free to think so. We can address it again if and when you choose to read something substantive about the Documentary Hypothesis. Or not.

I didn't mean to cast aspersions, I realize that a lot of what I have said is speculative as well. Speculation isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it is presented as speculation so that some won't take it as truth.

That aside, I reread the thread and saw that I missed this in your original post:
It is in this 18th dynasty that emerges the Pharaoh Moses who overturns this worship of the godman and refocuses worship of Egypt upon the invisible Creator of the Universe.

I missed the Pharoah implication and was taking it merely on the benefits of the story of Lazarus and the Osiris similarities. So it seems that it was your intent all along to connect Moses or Aaron with actually being Pharoah at some point. Kudos to Consequent for catching that. One word makes a big difference.

So, looking at the article with that in mind, I see that you go from the story of Lazarus and Osiris to the 18th dynasty. You don't mention Akhenaten in your original post, but I can now see how it was your intent all along.

In Consequent's rebuttal, I see now (don't know how I missed the Pharoah Moses again) that his real objection is in this proposition. I can see his point. This is a mighty claim to make without some kind of backup other than a nameless article. The author of the article must have had some source for his original claim. I'd like to see it as well.

As I posted before, the speculated date for the Exodus was 1280-1250 BCE while the 18th dynasty ended in 1295 (according to <a href="http://www.touregypt.net/kings.htm">here</a>). So it's entirely possible that the Exodus did occur in the 18th, though current speculation places it later. The Hebrew slaves would very likely have been affected by the Aten heresy (which occured in 1350-1344). And it's entirely possible that Moses (possibly Egyptian and not Hebrew at all) was originally an Aten worshipper. Is anything known of the Aten religion and how it was practiced? Are there any similarities with the Moses era of Judaism? More research is required on this point.


We need another Moses today to refocus our worship from the false godman of Nicea, Jesus of Constantine's doing, back to the invisible Creator God.

Personally, I think we could do without more religions. We have more than enough as it is. What we need is a "Moses" that will lead us out of the religious trap. It's hard to say what Moses' original religion was like, but it is easy to see what it has become and what it has done to the earth. I realize that there are many religious types in here that will dispute this, but religion hasn't done us any good. It brought a loss of knowledge to the west in the middle ages and it threatens a new dark age from the east in the modern era. Time and time again it has been shown that religion is about suppression of heresy rather than support of reason.


M*W: I really don't know what Hugh Fogelman's field of scholarship is. I was under the impression that he is a Rabbi, but maybe he's not ... What may seem like crap to you may bring enlightenment to someone else.
You know nothing about your source, less about his conclusions, but offer it up as a source of enlightment.

Consequent, on Medicine Woman's behalf, I'll offer this. Often, when I have come across something that I find interesting but unsubstantiated, I'll offer it up on a board such as this and see if anyone else has heard about it and might offer up some further insight and sources. And anyway, it's no worse than the way Judaism and Christianity were assembled to begin with. Scattered sources of dubious origin amalgamated into one central theme. It's the story of life.


I blamed myself at first for "searching" but not much anymore. I learned the importance of "searching."

This is understandable, but if you take some of the causticness from Consequent's replies, he's offering good advice (not about the topic, but on research in general). Always take it with a grain of salt. Ask for references and source material. It is especially easy in the internet age to come across reams and reams of useless unsubstantial "facts." That's the greatest difficulty in searching for anything, discarding the wheat from the chaff.



On the other hand, my problem seems to be in retention of relevant data. I often get things turned around through faulty memory. For instance, ever heard of the saying, "feed a cold, starve a fever" or is it "feed a fever, starve a cold"? See, that's my problem. Which is it? I can never remember. Which is why I try to refer to reference materials whenever possible. So that the confusion might be clarified. I don't try to make my brain a mighty reference library, merely a cross-referencing tool. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. But, I can always go back to the source material to clear it up. If it's available, that is.

Feel free to think so. We can address it again if and when you choose to read something substantive about the Documentary Hypothesis. Or not.

Perhaps I should say some of my views. I've already explained the differences in previous posts. Feel free to correct me, I'll take no offense.

Perhaps I should say some of my views. I've already explained the differences in previous posts. Feel free to correct me, I'll take no offense.
There is this story about the man who insists that 16/64 = 1/4 because, he notes, it's the result one gets by cancelling sixes.

There is this story about the man who insists that 16/64 = 1/4 because, he notes, it's the result one gets by cancelling sixes.

No, it's more like the story of the man who said that 1, 2, and 3 are numbers, but doesn't know the rest. It's also the story of a man who knows 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 but jealously hoards his knowledge.

I have already stated that I was wrong about the verb tense, I should have referred to person instead, but even that fails in what I was trying to do with it. And anything I speculated about slavery in Egypt being a "recent" addition was just that, speculation. I never made any stand on it even being likely. In fact, I said it was unlikely.

But, whatever you say. Hang on to that golden ring, bud. It'll make you feel better in your golden years knowing that no one succeeded in prying it from your grasp.

I missed the Pharoah implication ...
You also missed the fact that M*W has a long history wallowing in this stuff.

As I posted before, the speculated date for the Exodus was 1280-1250 BCE while the 18th dynasty ended in 1295 (according to <a href="http://www.touregypt.net/kings.htm">here</a>). So it's entirely possible that the Exodus did occur in the 18th, though current speculation places it later. The Hebrew slaves would very likely have been affected by the Aten heresy (which occured in 1350-1344). And it's entirely possible that Moses (possibly Egyptian and not Hebrew at all) was originally an Aten worshipper. Is anything known of the Aten religion and how it was practiced? Are there any similarities with the Moses era of Judaism? More research is required on this point.

Not "more", "any" ... We have nothing here but a presumed coincidence of dates, derived by taking one of two conjectured dates of an Exodus for which there is no evidence, and then introjecting a religion which is wholly unattested. There is no reason to presume anything other than common henotheism among the proto-Israelites of the hill country, and even less to posit anything remotely similar to a Aten worship.

There are two general ways to approach matters: gather and integrate the evidence and see where it takes you, or weave some fantasy and then see if it holds up.I prefer the former.

So, invert_nexus, why not suggest the evidence for a 13th century BCE Exodus/Conquest, then suggest the evidence for a 13th century BCE monotheism, then suggest the evidence casting YHWH as a sun god rather than a prototypical Canaanite Deity, and then we can entertain the silliness that M*W persists in insinuating at every opportunity.

And anything I speculated about slavery in Egypt being a "recent" addition was just that, speculation. I never made any stand on it even being likely. In fact, I said it was unlikely.
And you also said:
So it's entirely possible that the Exodus did occur in the 18th, though current speculation places it later.
May I ask on what this estimate is based? Have you heard about the movie "A Day Without A Mexican"?

So, invert_nexus, why not suggest the evidence for a 13th century BCE Exodus/Conquest, then suggest the evidence for a 13th century BCE monotheism, then suggest the evidence casting YHWH as a sun god rather than a prototypical Canaanite Deity, and then we can entertain the silliness that M*W persists in insinuating at every opportunity.

Of course, I have none. All dates are speculative. Aten is a nearly unknown religion (AFAIK). The facts about early Judaism are nonexistant (again, AFAIK). I take your point. And no, I don't know everything that's been posted in the religion forum since god knows when. So, if this is a commonly brought up theme, then I understand the hostility. I'll know better next time it comes up.

Sometimes it is helpful to "weave some fantasy" to see where it leads you. One often learns from criticism, you know. As I stated before, it's difficult to seperate the wheat from the chaff while researching a topic. Just every now and again, some who have already done so will share some flour. Not always though.

May I ask on what this estimate is based? Have you heard about the movie "A Day Without A Mexican"?

Based on the proposition that 50 to 100 years is no big leap when the dates are that speculative anyway.

Day Without a Mexican? Nope, can't say that I have.

Of course, I have none. All dates are speculative.
You keep wanting to speculate on the length of the Unicorn's horn. I'm not talking about the date of the Exodus, but its historicity.

The facts about early Judaism are nonexistant (again, AFAIK).
So much for Syro-Palestinian archaeology ...

I'm not talking about the date of the Exodus, but its historicity.

I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by historicity here. What does history say about it? Did it even occur? Archeological evidence?

So much for Syro-Palestinian archaeology ...

Yes, so much for that, rotten bastards... :p Actually, I meant early Judaism, while Moses was still in charge. I haven't heard of any archeological discoveries along this vein, hence the AFAIK. I have seen references to digs at Jericho and other biblical sites, but that may not represent what the religion was originally. But, I suppose if we're after dates (which you say we're not) then one could find the level of the invasion by the Hebrews at Jericho (I think they have it worked it out somewhat) and count backwards. If there is any truth to the bible, then it was less than one man's lifetime since the exodus.

Why do you presume a Biblical Exodus without evidence?

So it's entirely possible that the Exodus did occur in the 18th, though current speculation places it later.
May I ask on what this estimate is based?

... I'm not talking about the date of the Exodus, but its historicity.

Looks like you're talking about dates here. That's all it's based on. Coincidence of dates. Highly speculative dates at that.

Why do you presume a Biblical Exodus without evidence?

Ahh, I get you. I don't, I'm merely discussing the idea. All the evidence I've heard is lack of evidence on that subject.

I give up; I can only assume that your a blithering idiot. If and when you have some evidence that there was an Ethodux, we'll talk.

I didn't mean to cast aspersions, I realize that a lot of what I have said is speculative as well. Speculation isn't necessarily a bad thing as long as it is presented as speculation so that some won't take it as truth.
*************
M*W: Thank you, i_n! CA's perpetual condescendence of my posts don't bother me in the least. I don't claim to be a scholar on biblical history, so everything I post is speculative. CA twists my reference as if it were my own words so he can publicly humiliate me. I'm sure everyone knows his tactics by now. (You should see the PMs I get from a lot of the members here who say my posts "have inspired them," and that I "make this all more understandable for them."

Even with CA's disparaging remarks about me and my posts, fact is, even though he spews his hatred at me personally, he still doesn't know me, he still doesn't know who I have known along the way, or even what I may know, or how many degrees I have and what they're in.) The hatred he spews is what has festered within him. It has absolutely nothing to do with me. As you will see, he does this to everybody, but mostly me. I certainly don't expect it to go away. In fact, I hope he keeps it up! Because of CA's hatred, I get the nicest supportive PMs, and then we have a chuckle about him. How ignorant he is to believe he already knows it all!

Consequent, on Medicine Woman's behalf, I'll offer this. Often, when I have come across something that I find interesting but unsubstantiated, I'll offer it up on a board such as this and see if anyone else has heard about it and might offer up some further insight and sources.

This is understandable, but if you take some of the causticness from Consequent's replies, he's offering good advice (not about the topic, but on research in general). Always take it with a grain of salt. Ask for references and source material. It is especially easy in the internet age to come across reams and reams of useless unsubstantial "facts." That's the greatest difficulty in searching for anything, discarding the wheat from the chaff.
*************
M*W: Yes, I always take CA "with a grain of salt" and maybe with a little pepper too!
*************
On the other hand, my problem seems to be in retention of relevant data. I often get things turned around through faulty memory. For instance, ever heard of the saying, "feed a cold, starve a fever" or is it "feed a fever, starve a cold"? See, that's my problem. Which is it? I can never remember. Which is why I try to refer to reference materials whenever possible. So that the confusion might be clarified. I don't try to make my brain a mighty reference library, merely a cross-referencing tool. Sometimes I succeed, sometimes I fail. But, I can always go back to the source material to clear it up. If it's available, that is.
*************
M*W: Retention seems to be a problem in my age group. My grandchildren know I'm getting to be more forgetful, but they just want to know when am I ever going to grow up! (Never!).

The reference that provoked CA to his explosive wrath was JESUS, LAST OF THE PHARAOHS: The Truth Behind the Mask Revealed, by Ralph Ellis, Edfu Books, Dorset, England, 1999.

And for your future reference, it's "feed a cold," because the body needs nourishment to kill off the bad germs, and "starve a fever," because the body needs to rest and not digest to lower the fever. If you have a fever AND a cold, just eat a little chicken soup. It's been scientifically proven (and I didn't need an Egyptologist at the university level to teach me that!)

ConsequentAtheist,

Why can't you discuss the idea of a religious concept in a religious forum? I personally believe that there was no exodus, but I am still able to entertain the concept.

Medicine Woman,

I guess the question becomes what were his references? Did he base it on anything solid or just speculating like I've been doing? It's definitely an interesting concept in an ironic sort of way.

ConsequentAtheist,

Why can't you discuss the idea of a religious concept in a religious forum? I personally believe that there was no exodus, but I am still able to entertain the concept.
So, when you wrote:So it's entirely possible that the Exodus did occur in the 18th, though current speculation places it later.you meant to say that you"personally believe that there was no exodus".

Let me see if I understand: speculating about the historical relationship between Amenhotep IV and an exodus that you don't believe happened constitutes a viable religious discussion. Got it. :(

Medicine Woman,

I guess the question becomes what were his references? Did he base it on anything solid or just speculating like I've been doing?
But you went far beyond just speculating. In fact, you boast: "I don't proclaim to be a scholar, but I read everything I can on this subject.”

So, once again: what have you read by any professional Egyptologist affiliated with any reputable university?

I personally believe that there was no exodus, but I am still able to entertain the concept.

Maybe these websites can help.

http://www.biblicalchronologist.org/features/exodus.php

http://www.bibleandscience.com/archaeology/exodus.htm

http://www.tamilchrist.ch/archaeology/Moses/Red%20Sea%20Crossing.htm

http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/exodus.html

http://www.doig.net/OT_Chronology.htm

What a pathetic and dishonest little list you have there. Let's do the following: you pick the one that you find most probative and start a new thread. I'll be more than happy to contribute.

But you went far beyond just speculating. In fact, you boast: "I don't proclaim to be a scholar, but I read everything I can on this subject.”

So, once again: what have you read by any professional Egyptologist affiliated with any reputable university?
*************
M*W: As usual, you are an old blow-hard spewing hatred for anyone who likes to discuss religious history, and I was not boasting. Those are YOUR HIGHLIGHTS, not mine. You are the only one who boasts on this forum. In fact, that's ALL you do! You don't offer anything of intellectual value, and that makes everything you post a waste of time for the rest of us.

How dare you demean us when we are searching for answers, and you debase us for doing so! If you feel that you are so far superior to the rest of us, you don't need to be wasting your time on sciforums. Maybe you should go elsewhere to vent your inner-hatred out on your PEERS. Or, you could just relax, chill-out, sip a glass of fine wine, and offer this forum some of your extensive knowledge of religious matters. Then you would become an intellectual asset to this forum. Unfortunately, I don't see you doing that, so I will publically contact our moderator.

CA, I would guess that there are many of us on this forum who don't consult with "professional Egyptologists affiliated with reputable universities." Why would we? For most of us, this forum is not related to our professional development, but it is here for our fun and entertainment.

Sciforums offers us a place to go to discuss relevant topics with other people who have interests like ourselves. The only time you post is to humiliate others you are deluded to believe are of inferior intelligence. You have added tremendous negativity to this forum, and I think it's time that James R. takes serious action.

James R: ConsequentAtheist is totally out of line again by continually interrupting the dialog on this forum. His/her hateful, condescending interjections are totally uncalled for and are not conducive to a positive learning environment.

Apparently, CA has nothing of intellectual value to offer this forum except for the spewing of hatred to those of us who "read and speculate" on the topics contained herein. The bitterness CA adds to this forum is getting old and tiresome. I recommend he be banned from this forum indefinitely and suggest that he find a website where he can converse ONLY with senior level doctorates in Egyptology and religious studies. CA has made it quite clear that he is far superior to all the members on this forum regardless of their religious or other affiliation.

In my opinion, he has continued his bad behavior and, like a spoiled child constantly looking for negative attention, he needs a permanent time-out.

So, when you wrote:

So it's entirely possible that the Exodus did occur in the 18th, though current speculation places it later.

you meant to say that you"personally believe that there was no exodus".

Let me see if I understand: speculating about the historical relationship between Amenhotep IV and an exodus that you don't believe happened constitutes a viable religious discussion. Got it.

It's possible that God is an alien from the crab nebula. Entirely possible is merely a step above the possible, but it doesn't conclude that it's probable.

And, yes I do consider it a viable religious discussion. Because, although there isn't any archeological evidence of an exodus, religious people believe in it. Several dates have been put forward as possible dates for said exodus. One of the dates comes very close to the aten heresy of akhenaten. Why can't we discuss these things? If you want historical evidence, you're in the wrong subforum. As you have said, there isn't even proof that Jesus existed.

No, speculating about how a "mythical" exodus might have been carried out is not another way of saying that I don't believe it did happen. That's what all the statements of "if the bible is true", and "if the exodus did happen" and all the other "if" statements I made that you seem to have missed in your efforts to override my religious beliefs (which, unfortunately for your efforts, I don't have).

The next quote you posted is from Medicine Woman, not me. I have read some things on the subject, but not everything I can. If I cared to, there's a whole shelf at the library I could work my way through. And I most likely will at one time or another, but I have more interests than devouring everything I can on religion.

Maybe I should state my reasons for being interested in religion despite the fact that I'm an agnostic/atheist. To me, religion isn't about god and the devil, it's not about finding the path to salvation or the road to hell, it's about human nature. All cultures on this planet share one common truth, they all have religion in one form or another. Some take it farther than others, but they all have beliefs in things beyond themselves. By examining these myths and their possible beginnings we might come to a better understanding of human nature.

And also, I fear I am looking for a way to cure religion as though it were a disease. (I can see that you are trying the same thing, ConsequentAtheist, but your way is not curing anything. If anything it makes people stronger in their faith.) Sorry, religious folks, but I'll be honest enough to say it. I doubt if I'll succeed, but I can't fight my nature. Religion has it's pros and cons but overall the cons seem to outweigh the pros. The best that could happen (while maintaining religion) would be that it moves away from dogma and moves towards an "invisible godman" as Medicine Woman puts it. Unfortunately, that's only a short term cure. And may not be a cure at all. Better the devil you know than the one you don't? Anyway, given enough time such a religion would once more move to a dogmatic view and suppression of heresy would once more become dominant in the eyes of the church.

And also, I fear I am looking for a way to cure religion as though it were a disease. (I can see that you are trying the same thing, ...)
You see poorly. I have no naive/pretentious desire to cure religion, nor do I think that religion requires a cure. Sloppy and irrational thinking, however ...

I don't proclaim to be a scholar, but I read everything I can on this subject.”..., I would guess that there are many of us on this forum who don't consult with "professional Egyptologists affiliated with reputable universities." Why would we?
I guess I can't think of a reason why you would. :rolleyes:

You see poorly. I have no naive/pretentious desire to cure religion, nor do I think that religion requires a cure. Sloppy and irrational thinking, however ...

I see, then I apologize for trying to say you were trying to "cure" religion. But, then what of religious thinking? Is it sloppy and irrational? The religious believe in such things as the exodus and jesus without proof. Is that something you would try to "cure"? If you take the sloppy and irrational thinking out of religion, what do you have left? Are there many well-spoken and rational premises in the bible? The qu'ran?

The religious believe in such things as the exodus and jesus without proof.

All religious people believe in the Exodus? Necessarily? Does that include the Deist and the Daoist and the Hindu and the Jain? Does it include the liberal Christian and the Reform Jew? Why do you persist in saying things without thinking?

I've recently been introduced to the geographer Yi-Fu Tuan, who wrote:
Religion

Religion is present to varying degree in all cultures. It appears to be a universal human trait. In religion human beings are clearly distinguished from other animals. How can a humanistic perspective contribute to the geography of religion? The field is in disarray for lack of a coherent definition of the phenomenon it seeks to understand. Research on barns and house types is cultural geography, but research on churches and temples seems to belong to the geography of religion. Why is feng-shui, a technique for locating graves and houses, not treated as a branch of applied geography or even of surveying? Is it deemed religious because some practices in geomancy may appear supernatural or magical to the Western scholar? A field so lacking in focus and so arbitrary in its selection of themes cannot hope to achieve intellectual maturity.

A humanist geographer concerned with religion begins by asking, what is the meaning of religion? To the extent that religion is a special kind of awareness, how does it differ from other kinds of awareness? The word religion is derived from the Latin religare, which means to bind again, that is, to bind oneself strongly to a set of beliefs, faith, or ethic. More broadly speaking, the religious person is one who seeks coherence and meaning in his world, and a religious culture is one that has a clearly structured world view. The religious impulse is to tie things together. To what? The "what" is the ultimate concern theologians speak of, and it differs from people to people. Ultimate concern is the emotion-charged expression for the kingpin of a system of beliefs or the central principle that binds the components of a world view. The central principle may be God, the belief that "God does not play dice," a social or ecological ethic, or a concept of justice or of historical development. In this view, Buddhism is as much of a religion as Christianity, and atheistic Communism is a religion no less than agnostic Confucianism. At the individual level, Albert Ei