Anyone else think the stories and powers of "God" and "Jesus" are based on the Phoenician/Punic gods "Baal" and "Eshmun"?

No I don't.

I don't really get what you are saying here. There were lots of primary gods in the ancient world and lots of gods of healing.

The "big 3" monotheistic religions ripped off a lot of their stories from older pagan religions so it's possible.

No, at Datalounge we believe God and Jesus were ripped off from the gods of Sumerian Housewives! Phoenicians were a bunch of weirdos who got all excited about fucking purple.

Or possibly the Egyptian gods. Or Hittite gods.

The resurrection myth of Osiris

What about the Osiris story has anything to do with the Jesus story?

in the Levant, healing deities were often linked with dogs who are known to lick their own wounds. The saliva has antibacterial properties helping to heal faster. Is it a coincidence that the bible has a story or 2 or more of Jesus using his saliva/spit to heal people? copycat!!!!!! The Phoenicians cherished their dogs btw

[quote] Phoenicians were a bunch of weirdos who got all excited about fucking purple.

How does one fuck a color especially in Phoenix where the heat must make colors run?

Actually it was the Romans who got all excited about the purple dye that the Phoenicians and later the Carthaginians marketed. Yes, the Phoenicians and Carthaginians used purple a lot, but the Romans paid big bucks for it. Only the Roman elite were allowed to wear it.

Christianity lifted a lot from the ancient Persian Mithraism

the proximity of the Phoenicians to the Jews and Christians makes it very possible that ideas were borrowed.

No, it really didn't, r11.

Human sacrifice is behind all these godly resurrection stories.

You need to read "The Golden Bough" to catch what it is all about. Magic to make the crops grow.

No.

Didn't the worshippers use to make foreskin sacrifices to Baal ?

No, R16, just anal ring sacrifices.

Happy birthday to the mythological creatures celebrating the 25th of December as their birthday:

Apollo

Attis

Bacchus

Beddou

Buddha

Chrishna

Dionysus the son of Zeus

Helios

Hercules

Horus

Jesus

Jupiter

Mithra

Nimrod (who eventually came to be worshipped as Baal)

Osiris

Perseus

Quetzalcoatl

Sol Invictus

Tammuz

Interestingly... Apollo and Helios are "Gods of the Sun", while Jesus is the "Son of God"....

Naaaah, can't be any connection there...

cultural appropriation!!!!

To the doubters, oh please. The new testament made sure to include a part about Jesus walking over to the Pools of Bethesda. That was where Asclepius was worshipped. Asclepius was the Greek version of Eshmun. The pools were at Asclepius' temple and were believed to have healing powers. In the bible story, Jesus saw that no one was being cured at the pools so he cured them himself in order to show he is the real healing god, not Asclepius/Eshmun. That was such a transparent and calculated to make the public fall for the bs of the new faith known as Christianity. In ancient Greek texts, Asclepius was referred to as "savior" which they took from the Phoenician texts referring to Eshmun as "savior". Guess what? Jesus is coincidentally a healer and called "savior". Can't be related at all, right?

Everything you seek can be found in the bowels of Denver Airport or the Fort Wayne Denny's.

I have no idea, but when i read that i knew that many papas (and maybe mamas) here would answer that. Cute and informative.

"Interestingly... Apollo and Helios are "Gods of the Sun", while Jesus is the "Son of God".... Naaaah, can't be any connection there..."

You do realize that sun and son are not homophones in Greek, right?

Christianity is Mithraism with a new name

What a coincidence that Christ was born of a Virgin birth just like Hinduism's Krishna, who was born to save the world, was also born of a virgin birth.

You forgot the god Adonis.

[quote]Interestingly... Apollo and Helios are "Gods of the Sun", while Jesus is the "Son of God"....

The words "sun" and "son" are only homonyms in English, which none of these ancient peoples spoke.

The monotheistic religions ripped off the older pagan faith stories and then tried to make it seem like they were original.

Ba'al was a sky and storm god and king of his pantheon, so that's kind of like the Abrahamic god, especially as Europeans converted to Christianity and reassigned some attributes of Zeus and/or Odin to the Christian god.

But Judeo-Christianity modeled their Satan after Ba'al more than anything. They interpreted Ba'al and his human sacrificial cult as Satan and his followers. The Bible even has an alternate name for Satan/Lucifer/the Devil — it calls him "Beelzebub," as well, which is directly derived from the pagan deity Ba'al.

The myth of Adonis

Just throwing around vague resemblances between religions and religious figures is not a demonstration of one's influence on the other.

Nothing vague about these resemblances. They are all based on the same principles, a magical view of the world where "magic" means using imitation to cause nature to behave the way you want. Like spitting on the ground to make rain, sacrificing in order to bring rebirth is an attempt to manipulate the agricultural cycle. If anything, having the gods kill each other in mythology is more civilized than the Christian way of killing the human scapegoat, one step further removed from the witch doctor era.

I'm not sure what argument you are trying to make, r33. On the one hand, it seems like you are saying that Christianity came out of a broad world of magic -- which is true -- which we mean not so much borrowing from one tradition, but rather fitting into the general worldview of the time. And then you seem to be saying the center of Christianity was a sort of sacrifice, but that's hardly fixed from early on in Christianity. The Cross was about descending to Hell to defeat Satan, demonstrating that the true follower of God was meant to suffer, and a whole bunch of other things. It is wrong to think that the first or primary understanding behind Christianity is a sacrifice meant to appease God.

r34 Dude... Jesus died for your sins. How much more explicit do you need it to be.

--- You do realize that sun and son are not homophones in Greek, right? The greeks I know aren't homophobic. Is that what you are trying to say?

About Jesus's birth on December 25th.

You will note that even today, ruling royal families often celebrate the monarch's birthday on a convenient day, not the actual anniversary of the date of birth. I am especially thinking about "Queen's Day" in Holland. I imagine it's called King's Day now, but it's in April, regardless of the actual monarch's birthday.

Likewise, when the church decided to set a date to commerate Christ's birthday, it didn't matter when the actual anniversary was, especially since it was indeterminate. So, they just picked a day, but they used their smarts to see that the pagan hoi palloi didn't lose a vacation day. That's just good thinking. There us nothing strange or insidious about this.

There are plenty of things in the world that are suspicious. This isn't one of them.

My aunt was born on Feb 29th. She celebrated her birthday whenever it was convenient, towards the end of February.

bump

[quote]R28 The words "sun" and "son" are only homonyms in English, which none of these ancient peoples spoke.

How do you know?? [italic]Were you there ? ?

ήλιος (ílios, sun) and υιός (yiós, son) sound pretty similar even if the two words are not perfect homophones.

[quote]Isn't that kinda similar to God and Jesus?

"God and Jesus" are one and the same in Christianity. They aren't two separate beings with their own back stories. R32 is correct.

You sound like you're trying to sound smarter than you are, OP.

The Jews, and hence Christians and muslims, got half of their religion from the Zoroastrians which came first, and the other half from the pagans. No one thought up anything new. It's all vile shit anyway.

All of Christianity is a rip off of older religions.

Everything from the concept of hell, to the virgin birth, to even the name "Christ" (oddly close to the Hindu deity Krishna, who was also a god in human form born to save humanity)

Father, Son, and Holy Ghost--actually makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

The whole story of Joseph and Mary coming home for an empire-wide census us ludicrous.

First there is no historical mention of a census at that time. And, what huge empire, in its right mind, would put a halt to all commerce so that people could head home to be counted?

"Virgin Birth" came from a misreading of the Hebrew prophets stating that the messiah would come from a virgin (meaning young) girl.

Just proof of New Testament writers twisting themselves into knots to justify that Jesus met the prophets' definitions of the coming messiah,

[quote] There are plenty of things in the world that are suspicious. This isn't one of them.

The entire basis of Christianity is pretty suspicious.

Son of God arrives on Earth to save us from sin that our forefather supposedly committed. The son, of course, is sin free through some wild loophole. He has to actually get killed to "save" us. We have to literally drink is blood and eat his flesh, again, literally, in order to be allowed into heaven.

Wow, that's a big load of BS there.

R45 were the father and holy ghost gay lovers?

R48 drinking blood and eating flesh sounds rather demonic to me!

^^ don’t try to pin that on us gays!

Some deep thinkers among you bitches!

Religions just need to all die, for Christ's sake!

OK. Call me crazy. Every culture, every society, every geographical region at different times, through the ages, all had their own spin on deities. They had their own myths and legends to explain various phenomena. But there is a common thread in all of them. And because of this, IMO, I believe thee were other beings, civilizations, call them Ancient Aliens if you want to, that were here, probably came here long, long before mankind formed anything resembling society, and it evolved, and we're their experiment.

No, religious ideas came from fear and ignorance- fear we would be truck by lightening, that we’d never see dead loved ones again, that our own lives and consciousness were only for a limited time.

^^ STRUCK by lightening. Not “truck.”

You think there might be another word you want to correct, Bunky?

I always figured that Casper was the Holy Ghost

r57 dumbass every one knows it is space ghost.

God, as any religion would have you understand her/him, is simply a construct of the human imagination. We truly have no inkling of what life is really like beyond this one, or exactly what makes up a soul, so we've made up stories to make sense of it.

I firmly believe in a higher power and some form of afterlife, but religion can go suck a big fat dick. God is bigger than any of this.

[quote]R59 We truly have no inkling of... exactly what makes up a soul

If anything.

[Quote]drinking blood and eating flesh sounds rather demonic to me!

Sounds like a typical Friday night to me!

I grok you.

OP, there were a lot of gods around in those days, not just the Phoenician ones. The Jewish Yahweh has some features in common with Baal and El (Canaanite), but a lot of the bible stories are obviously influenced by Mesopotamian myths (e.g. the Flood). This has been recognized since scholars started deciphering Mesopotamian tablets in the mid 19th century.

My point was there's a commonality to all the myths and stories about deities. And those commonalities were there at a time when communicating with one another or handing shit down, was not possible. I'm of the belief that there were actually ancient aliens.

I think we are animals with consciousness programmed to survive. The physically weak but intelligent realized cooperation benefitted them so they created religion.

[quote]I'm of the belief that there were actually ancient aliens.

Maybe somewhere out there, but certainly not here.

Ba’al wasn’t omnipotent but he was a storm/sky god, which may have contributed to the notion of the good God being in heaven and the clouds — like kings of pagan gods.

The Jews took most of their inspiration from Zoroastrianism — believing in a good god of the sun/sky, an evil god of the underworld and revelatory scriptures.

Many commandments and Bible stories were copied from Ba’al and Marduk worshippers, however. Noah and the flood, several commandments and the Virgin Birth goddess were all widespread in the Middle East before Genesis was written.

The description of Hell as a “lake of fire” is also thought to have come from Levantine landfills that were burned or the Ba’al cult’s furnaces for human sacrifice.

Oral traditions of memorized poetry recited by professional bards existed many thousands of years before writing, R64.

There are still bards who sing matters of historical fact and legend that have been passed down at least 5,000 years.

Nope

If God were any other god, He would have made Himself known as such, so indeed God is God.

A LOT more than foreskin used to get sacrificed to Ba'al ...

The Greek word for "son" sounds nothing like the English "son," r19. Nor does their word "helio" sound like the English "sun."

Shame on your Deplorable brain.

"Attis" is what they called "Adonis" in Anatolia, r27.

[quote]The Jews took most of their inspiration from Zoroastrianism — believing in a good god of the sun/sky, an evil god of the underworld

R67 Uh, no. Jews do not believe in an "evil god of the underworld". That's what the thieving Xtians believe.

Wrong, r30.

The Jews primarily plagiarized the character of Satan from Angra Mainyu in Persian Zoroastrianism, after which the Christians and Muslims plagiarized the Jews.

Remember remember that The Jews and Christians interpret ALL pagan deities as aspects or demons of Satan. It is simply that the cruel cults of Ba'al / Moloch were the most reviled by the Jews and nearby them. That's how Ba'al/Moloch came to typify what Satan looked like or was called.

But the Phoenecians and other, original worshippers of Ba'al saw him as a potential beneficial, just and good god — not just the wrathful aspect that ate babies, which Judeo-Christians like to interpret as proof that Ba'al was Satanic.

Satan's concept, role and character = Angra Mainyu. Satan's looks and aliases = Ba'al, Moloch and others.

A lot of the commonalities in religions are due to the spread of the Indo-Europeans and their religion.

You're all forgetting the flying spaghetti monster. In all seriousness, Christianity is a mishmash which is probably why it made no sense to me as a kid or as an adult. It's not just "one thing" ---believing that is as bad a believing anything else. Virgin birth stories have been around forever. Judaism was a convenient starting place----you need a messiah, we got a messiah, we also have all these other complicated stories, too.

It makes sense that the existence of God would be known throughout the world.

[quote]Christianity is Mithraism with a new name (link to Tertullian.org)

R25, the link you offered is to a website run by Roger Pearse, and it is dedicated to defending Christianity from claims that it is in any way derived from paganism.

This link will do better:

Eshmun (Sidonian city god) is actually relatively obscure. The Greeks equated him with Asclepius, whereas neighboring Melqart in Tyre was equated with Heracles. Both are "dying gods," i.e. they received some kind of ceremonial lament, but that category shouldn't be applied too broadly or absolutely.

Current thought among historians is that Mithraism wasn't *quite* as significant in the Roman empire as 19th and 20th century historians made it out to be; they were looking for explicit parallels to and precedents for Christianity and exaggerated some of Mithraism's features to that end. Be that as it may, Roman-era Mithraism was very different from the original Persian version.

[quote]Both are "dying gods," i.e. they received some kind of ceremonial lament, but that category shouldn't be applied too broadly or absolutely.

Of course not, R80 - why, someone might observe that Jesus Christ is not as unique as Christians make him out to be, and we can't have that, right?

[quote]Current thought among historians is that Mithraism wasn't *quite* as significant in the Roman empire as 19th and 20th century historians made it out to be; they were looking for explicit parallels to and precedents for Christianity and exaggerated some of Mithraism's features to that end.

Well,. it depends upon who exactly one means by 'historians.' The ones which were educated at Christian universities and teach from such institutions have some skin in the game.

While it's true that many of the common internet lists of comparisons between Christ and various pagan gods have a lot of exaggeration and disinformation in them, the material published by the late D.M. Murdock (which I linked at R79) is much more cautious and reliable.

[quote]Be that as it may, Roman-era Mithraism was very different from the original Persian version.

True enough, but both versions have many commonalities with Christianity. Apologists try to game the two, playing the one off against the other, meanwhile playing up the differences and contesting or minimizing the similarities.

The 𝑘𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑝ℎ𝑜𝑟𝑜𝑠 statues common to the cults of Magna Mater and Mithraism were carried directly across into Christianity, where they were called 'the Good Shepherd.' The 𝑘𝑟𝑖𝑜𝑏𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑢𝑚, a sort of poor man's version of the 𝑡𝑎𝑢𝑟𝑜𝑏𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑢𝑚 (lambs are less expensive than bulls, you see) is what gave rise to being "washed in the blood of the lamb" (Revelation 7:14, 12:11, 22:14).

Child sacrifice has continued down to this day, that child trafficking is all about.

Oh good Lord, R81, you're back with your false conflations and ad hominem arguments. You'll never get it through you're thick skull what the terms of debate are because you reduce everything to an all-or-nothing question. Suffice it to say that the historians I'm talking about are mostly non-believers (and that's the perspective I'm coming from, although my research is in an adjacent area, not early Christianity). Put down the Frazer and learn the broader background to the questions and talking points you fixate on. Maybe start with your belief that krio- means "lamb" (clue: you're always a *little* bit correct).

In any case your whole starting point that I'm trying to defend the absolute exceptionalism of Christian myth, rather than simply offering refinements on some of the generalities and outdated truisms posted here, betrays your monomania.

[quote]Oh good Lord, R81, you're back with your false conflations and ad hominem arguments. You'll never get it through you're thick skull what the terms of debate are because you reduce everything to an all-or-nothing question.

I haven't reduced it to anything; I merely gave some nuance to your reductive reference to unnamed 'historians.' I'm not sure why that has caused you to fly into a fit of ad hominems yourself. I haven't called you anything, or insulted you at all.

[quote]Child sacrifice has continued down to this day, that child trafficking is all about.

QAnon much, R82?

Wrong, r74.

The Torah and Talmud mention “The Adversary” multiple times and Medieval Jews embraced some of the Satanic stuff popularized by Christians.

If you’re lucky enough to be a Reformed Jew and have dispensed with much Biblical silliness, good for you.

But that’s a modern development.

R84, my comments are directed toward your posts and aren't ad hominem. My reference to your own ad hominem arguments is to your chronic refusal, here and elsewhere, to entertain that historians of religion who see early Christianity as arising mainly out of Judaism and a historical Jesus (rather than strictly out of some sort of a non-Judaic conflation of polytheistic elements after the 1st century CE) could be anything but apologists for the supernatural elements of Christianity. That's illogical, demonstrably not true, and is anything but nuanced, given the historical background.

You seem like a smart guy from some of your comments, but on this topic you become a rabid polemicist who constantly betrays a narrow learning and no inclination to improve your knowledge of the historical context. And I have no idea why, because the historians who accept a historical Jesus coming out of Judaism (the vast majority) offer a lot of support to your general skepticism and interest in the pre-Christian sources for Christian imagery and ideology.

R80 Eshmun wasn't obscure. There was a very important temple of Eshmun in Carthage too, so his following survived beyond the Phoenicians. In fact, the Acropolium aka Saint Louis Cathedral is built on top of its ruins.

Religion is really astrology all tricked out with crowd control and money.

In the olden times (2016-2019) you could have these conversations and the biggest reaction, other than a few oddballs, was, hmmm-- that's curious.

R85, child trafficking for the elites to sacrifice predates Qanon. Kubrick is said to have filmed a deleted scene in EWS that indicated this.

[quote]R84, my comments are directed toward your posts and aren't ad hominem.

R83/R87, references to "you're thick skull" (Oh, Dear!!!) and my supposed "monomania" are incontestably ad hominem. My pointing out that there's different kinds of scholarship, and that the majority of 'historians' who weigh in on issues germane to religion tend to be religious themselves is not 'ad hominem'; it's simply a fact. (see link)

It's notable that you never seem to cite specific scholars, arguments, or evidence - you confine yourself to indefinite allusions to such; "historians" or "context" as an abstract. When I've cited specific scholars, your responses to these have always been ad hominem (i.e., 'I know Dennis MacDonald personally, and he's a crank whom nobody likes'; 'Richard Carrier is a pervert', etc.)

[quote]on this topic you become a rabid polemicist who constantly betrays a narrow learning and no inclination to improve your knowledge of the historical context.

You don't have any basis for assuming that I'm unfamiliar with the arguments and purported evidence pertaining to this issue - you seem to leap to this conclusion simply because I don't share your beliefs (because it's simply impossible that one could know what you claim to know and not come to the same conclusions you do, right?). You also project onto me your own polemicism and inflexibility. Your responses generally betray a degree of emotional hysteria, as having been 'triggered', and you've claimed elsewhere that you feel you have a sort of duty to protect others from the ideas that I post, that I represent some kind of grave danger, the nature of which you refuse to define. (𝑃𝑠𝑠𝑡! - it seems clear that it's religious in nature, but you refuse to cop to that.)

I'm perfectly capable of expressing and defending my own positions without reference to the 'thick skulls' of others.

[quote]The Torah and Talmud mention “The Adversary”

R86 Wrong. As usual, mistranslated and so wrapped up in Xtian concepts as to lose all meaning of the source text. Both mention יצר הרע, the bad inclinations in man which cause him to deflect or temporarily turn away from the path of righteousness. That the devil made him do it shit is completely Xtian and has nothing to do with Jewish law.

There’s nothing new under the sun. Ancient Jews were basically Bedouin Arabs who would wander through civilized peoples’ lands and pick up their traditions.

They got the flood myth from Mesopotamia for instance.

Hahahahhahahahah. Imagine that.

[quote]Both mention יצר הרע, the bad inclinations in man which cause him to deflect or temporarily turn away from the path of righteousness. That the devil made him do it shit is completely Xtian and has nothing to do with Jewish law.

R93, what's your take on the body of literature surrounding 1 Enoch ('Jubilees,' 'Lives of Adam and Eve', etc) and Talmudic enlargements, which reference characters like Samyaza and Lilith, which function in these narratives exactly like analogues to the Christian devil and his minions, as tempters? You can only get just so far with that "mistranslation" schtick.

Why is there a rich Jewish folklore including exorcisms, spells and other apotropaics intended to ward off dybbuks, evil angels or spirits?

[quote]Ancient Jews were basically Bedouin Arabs who would wander through civilized peoples’ lands and pick up their traditions.

Uh, no. They were twice exiled from their land, once by famine and once by conquest. In both cases, the laws of the people of Israel were established before exile.

[quote]They got the flood myth from Mesopotamia for instance.

If it's a myth, then why did thieving Xtians steal it?

Back then, a really good storyline only came around every 1000 yrs or so!

So there was a little recycling especially with the sketchy copyright laws.

Guess people still simp for Abrahamic religions, even on DL.

Don’t know why I’m surprised and disappointed.

[quote]what's your take on the body of literature surrounding 1 Enoch ('Jubilees,' 'Lives of Adam and Eve', etc) and Talmudic enlargements,

R96 You're back yet again to dictate about Jewish law and commentary based on someone else's TRANSLATION and OPINION. And you keep exerting authority about source texts you can neither read nor understand.

[quote]Why is there a rich Jewish folklore including exorcisms, spells and other apotropaics intended to ward off dybbuks, evil angels or spirits?

1,500 years of living as a despised minority among non-Jews. The dybbuk concept was popular in 19th century Eastern Europe, which is hardly an all-encompassing "Jewish folklore". "Evil angels" and "spirits" are the Xtian influence on Jews rather than derivative from Jewish law or custom.

We haven't even begun to discuss how Jewish law was diluted and - yes - mistranslated/misinterpreted to pander to the sensibilities of the Xtian/Muslim majority. Starting with Vayikra 18:22.

[quote]Talmudic enlargements,

R96 What in the living fuck are "Talmudic enlargements"? You mean פרשנות? איגרות? שאלות ותשובות?

To follow up on r92's post, I would also recommend the Vridar blog as a very interesting resource for anyone interested in a deeper discussion about bible studies, Christian origins, etc.

[quote]You're back yet again to dictate about Jewish law and commentary based on someone else's TRANSLATION and OPINION. And you keep exerting authority about source texts you can neither read nor understand.

I'm sorry you're so upset over a mere question, R100.

[quote]1,500 years of living as a despised minority among non-Jews.

The Enochian literature I cited is earlier than that, and seems to have informed Christian concepts, rather than the other way around.

[quote]Starting with Vayikra 18:22.

You've steadfastly refused to offer any translation of Leviticus 18:22, or any other Jewish text. You can't cry that it's mistranslated if you won't say how, or offer what you think it ought to be.

[quote]R96 What in the living fuck are "Talmudic enlargements"? You mean פרשנות? איגרות? שאלות ותשובות?

Enlargements upon scripture, R101. Yes, interpretations, letters, stories, questions & answers, and opinions.

You're not impressing anyone with your use of Google translate.

Have you ever read 𝐻𝑒𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑤 𝑀𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑠: 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠, by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai?

Uh, no dog in this race, and I don’t actually know any Jewish people IRL, but are you all this fixated and pedantic? What is with the hyperfocus on discrepancies on text? This is like a shitty Comp Lit class.

Wrong, r93.

You have cited one interpretation and it differs from what what was historically taught or believed by most Jews for most centuries, which has changed over the centuries in different locales, no matter how pure the competing rabbis or opposing sects try to paint themselves and their history. Satan is, in fact, described as an agent of God prosecuting sinners all throughout the Book of Job in the Jewish Tanakh and you cannot erase his personification there. Satan appears as an agent of God in Numbers 22, and you cannot erase that. Satan appears in 1 Chronicles Chapter 22 of the Jewish Tanakh as a personified agent of God and you cannot erase that.

Every Jew is taught the story of Eve tempted by the serpent in the Garden of Eden from Genesis in the Torah and you cannot erase that, or the fact that the serpent has been interpreted as Satan by LOTS and LOTS of rabbis for thousands of years.

"The Devil made me do it" is very Christian, yes, but it's even more Zoroastrian, which the Jews were appropriating to reshape their religion after the Babylonian Captivity some 500 years before Christ.

[quote]In the apocryphal Book of Jubilees, Yahweh grants the satan (referred to as Mastema) authority over a group of fallen angels, or their offspring, to tempt humans to sin and punish them.

The Book of Jubilees was found among the Dead Sea Scrolls. It was copied more frequently than most books in the Tanakh. And scholars agree this abundance shows it was observed and practiced in a widespread manner among Jews in the West Bank from earlier than 100 B.C.

[quote]During the intertestamental period, possibly due to influence from the Zoroastrian figure of Angra Mainyu, the satan developed into a malevolent entity with abhorrent qualities in dualistic opposition to God.

So r93 needs to quit acting like modern Jews believe exactly what Moses believed and every Jew that has come since. r93 also needs to stop denying Hebrew scriptures that plainly depict Satan.

[quote] Uh, no. They were twice exiled from their land, once by famine and once by conquest. In both cases, the laws of the people of Israel were established before exile.

Don’t uh me. The stories of the Jews in Egypt are a fairy tale with no basis in fact. The Habiru were wandering Arabs just like many other tribes.

Dear r100,

r96 is not me.

So r100 admits that Jews adopted beliefs similar to the Christians they were beholden to and that beliefs and interpretations change over time.

[quote]ou're not impressing anyone with your use of Google translate.

You have no idea whether or not I speak, read and write Hebrew. But it serves your purposes to believe I don't. Or never assume. You will invariably ERR.

( מותק אני מדבר קורא וכותב עברית מגיל 5 אבל תמשיך לחשוב שלא)

[quote]Have you ever read 𝐻𝑒𝑏𝑟𝑒𝑤 𝑀𝑦𝑡ℎ𝑠: 𝑇ℎ𝑒 𝐵𝑜𝑜𝑘 𝑜𝑓 𝐺𝑒𝑛𝑒𝑠𝑖𝑠, by Robert Graves and Raphael Patai?

"This exhaustive exploration of the Hebrew myths and the book of Genesis resulted from a remarkable collaboration between one scholar raised as a strict Protestant and one raised as a strict Jew." And neither of whom know Hebrew. Yeah, just what I want to read, more misinterpretations based on ignorance.

[quote]What is with the hyperfocus on discrepancies on text?

R104 Not discrepancies, simply correct translation/interpretation. There have been a tremendous lack both over the past 2,000 years.

[quote]modern Jews believe exactly what Moses believed and every Jew that has come since. [R93] also needs to stop denying Hebrew scriptures that plainly depict Satan.

R105 hasn't a clue in hell what "modern Jews" or any other type of Jew "believes" (psst, Jewish law encompasses exactly what Moshe Rabbeinu brought down from Har Sinai as well as תורה שבעל פה.) "Hebrew scriptures" do not depict Satan. That's Xtian interpretation.

[quote]The stories of the Jews in Egypt are a fairy tale with no basis in fact. The Habiru were wandering Arabs just like many other tribes.

That's one opinion. There are others.

[quote]Jews adopted beliefs similar to the Christians they were beholden to and that beliefs and interpretations change over time.

R108 Interpretation changed for many reasons, largely to pander to Xtians and Muslims sensibilities. The source text didn't change. Neither did the interpretation of that source text change for people who read it in the original.

Religion is an atrocity created by man to control a narrative.

We should be worshipping nature and the bounty it provides. Instead we pollute and desecrated this earth, which is truly our god.

AND YOU CAN'T ERASE THE JEWISH SOURCE TEXTS DESCRIBING SATAN AS A PERSONALITY IN THE TANAKH, r109. Satan's in the Torah and the Talmud, tempting Jews to commit evil deeds, prosecuting or torturing them.

Almost everybody has a clue what "any type of Jew" believes because gentiles live with them, read their books, watch their movies and learned from the same, damn scriptures!

Just admit you were ignorant and let go. You can't erase what is written in Hebrew in the Tanakh or the Book of Jubilees.

Hell is described in the Torah, too. What modern Jews think cannot erase the past.

You people make the Amish seem hip.

[quote]You have no idea whether or not I speak, read and write Hebrew. But it serves your purposes to believe I don't. Or never assume. You will invariably ERR.

[quote]( מותק אני מדבר קורא וכותב עברית מגיל 5 אבל תמשיך לחשוב שלא)

כל אחד יכול לטעון שהוא מסוגל לקרוא ולכתוב עברית. תרגום בגוגל מקל על כך.

R109, the position you've taken is that nobody but you can understand Hebrew, and that everyone else is permanently wrong - even cited Jewish sources. This is intended to be a conversation killer, and it's a troll's position.

[quote]AND YOU CAN'T ERASE THE JEWISH SOURCE TEXTS DESCRIBING SATAN AS A PERSONALITY IN THE TANAKH, [R109]. Satan's in the Torah and the Talmud,

R111 That's Xtian misinterpretation of Jewish text. "Satan" is neither in the Torah or Talmud.

[quote]כל אחד יכול לטעון שהוא מסוגל לקרוא ולכתוב עברית. תרגום בגוגל מקל על כך.

The HUGE diff is that I know whether that sentence is correct as to syntax, spelling and gender. Such as it should be בעברית. And that מקל על כך is Google translation nonsense, not correct Hebrew. Just like with your every comment about Jewish texts, you depend on someone else for translation/interpretation. And then use them as an "authority". Rather foolish.

Oh, and it's not that no one knows Hebrew but me, it's that *I* know how the Jewish Bible and commentaries were taught and learned over the centuries by Jews throughout the world. Something else you're clueless about. *I* also know that the vast majority of commentators were clueless as to Hebrew and its nuances, that much like you, knew what a word or verse meant because someone had told him that's what it meant.

The late גאון Rabbi Adin Steinsaltz spent most of his life "translating" the Bavli, the Babylonian Talmud. After 2,000 years, someone with complete knowledge of Hebrew and its nuances provided a highly accurate translation/commentary. Steinsaltz and I don't require someone to tell us what a word/verse means. We can read the source text ourselves and know.

Stick to Xtian texts. You'll look less like a complete idiot.

[quote]Just like with your every comment about Jewish texts, you depend on someone else for translation/interpretation. And then use them as an "authority". Rather foolish.

As opposed to what - consulting you? On the many occasions you've trolled these discussions, I've invited you to offer your expertise, and share what you feel is the proper translation. You've always refused. It's for that reason that I do not believe anything you say, particularly when it comes to the Hebrew language. You're a dedicated non-contributor.

[quote]Stick to Xtian texts. You'll look less like a complete idiot.

To whom? It isn't like your opinion matters - you've seen to that by your own behavior.

The usual troll rhetoric, boasting and disparagement, without offering anything of substance.

You don't command here; posters can discuss whatever they choose, including Jewish scriptural passages.

Show yourself worthy of inclusion in the discussion - offer something of substance, besides boasting and disparagement.

r109 is an Xtian fundie who trolls threads like these so he can insult people. He thinks he defending his faith but he's just bellicose.

R117, you think he's an evangelical? I took him for one of the Catholics, just trolling as a Jew. Although he has never offered an English rendering of any Jewish scripture, he seems to imply that certain passages (i.e. Leviticus 18:22, Deuteronomy 23:2) mean exactly what conservative Christians have insisted they mean.

Get a load of his behavior here:

Wish people wouldn't get so defensive about their religions. Delve into the weirdness of them all. Understand there is no purity anywhere. Everything has been tangled up with other things. It's not actually some flaw in religion. It's what makes them bearable, actually.