RSS

Monthly Archives: September 2009

The Exodus and Passover

The current Torah (“Law”: the first five books of the Tanakh or Old Testament) was redacted somewhere around 500 BCE, somewhere around the return from the Babylonian exile by the Persians. Prior to the Babylonian exile, there isn’t very much archaeological evidence for the events presented in the Torah. This includes Passover celebrations.

As the story in Exodus goes, Passover is a celebration of the Angel of Death “passing over” the firstborn sons of the Jews in Egypt and killing every other firstborn. This leads to the curiously anonymous Pharaoh deciding to release the Jews. Subsequently, Moses gets the 10 commandments from Mt. Sinai, establishing YHWH’s monotheistic covenant, and the Jews wander the desert for 40 years. Joshua then leads a successful campaign to invade Canaan and the Jews receive their promised land.

The problem is, there’s no evidence of any Jewish presence in Egypt, no archaeological evidence of 600,000 able bodied men (with all of their wives, children, and livestock, thus over 1 million people) wandering the desert for 40 years, and no archaeological evidence of an invasion of, and mass dislocation of, any large popluations in Canaan.

In the area between Egypt and Canaan, if there was over 1 million people with all of their livestock wandering around for 40 years, there would have been massive amounts of garbage left behind. Pots, pans, fire pits, animal bones, excrement, clothes, etc. There’s no evidence for any sort of large group of people living nomadically in the area between Egypt and Canaan.

Excavations of modern Palestine reveal that there had not been a large influx of people around the time period that the Book of Joshua describes. Ancient Canaan shows periods of relative flux, but never a massive invasion. This means that the ancient Israelites had been native to Canaan all along. They were just Canaanites who developed a distinctive culture.

Thus no Exodus. Thus no Passover.

While there’s no evidence of invasion by a large group of people (or even any invasion at all), there appears to have been a sudden transformation of demographics around 1,200 BCE where villages sprout up in previoulsy unpopulated highlands. These settlements might have once been pastoral nomads forced to take up farming due to the collapse of Canaanite city-culture. The idea of a unified kingdom prior to the exile might be a myth, and the historical existence of the beloved David and Solomon are thrown into serious doubt. I use the term “beloved” in front of David’s name for ironic contrast; that is what DVD means in Hebrew. Because of this ambiguity, it’s uncertain whether an inscription to “DVD” in archaeological ruins of ancient Palestine refer to the historical personage, or just someone/something that was beloved.

When the Judean elites returned from exile due to the messiah Cyrus of Persia’s conquering of Babylon, they had to organize the peasant class of native Israelites. The farmers. Thus the Passover celebration was created; to coincide with the first harvest of spring. These Judean elites crafted a miraculous story explaining the newfound monotheism (one inscription from the Shephelah, dating from the period before the exile, refers to YHWH and his female consort Asarah) to these peasants to coincide with the spring harvest. Thus every Passover occurs on the first Friday after the first full moon of the first day of spring. The problem is, these returning Judean exiles were lackeys of the Persians.

Persians never attempted to root out prior religions by force, but simply “infected” them with their theology. Zoroastrism was the religion of the Persians, and the concept of monotheism is more Zoroastrian than pre-exilic Israelite. The christ Cyrus might have allowed Jews to return to their homeland, but he changed their polytheistic religion as well. The Torah book Deuteronomy (Greek for “second laws”) was “found” (i.e. written) by the returning Judean-Persian elite priestly class to further Persianize and assert monotheism to the average Jews. Ezra was more than likely an employee of the Persians, and the one who probably organized the Torah into the version that most resembles our current one; fusing the separate Elohist, Yahwist, Priestly, and Deuteronomist accounts of the pre and post exilic Israelites into one unified Bible.

This process also further separated the Northern Kingdom Jews – who weren’t exiled – (thus becoming Samaritans) from the Southern Kingdom Jews who were exiled and returned.

Source: “The Bible Unearthed” by Israel Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University, and Neil Asher Silberman, a contributing editor to Archaeology Magazine.

Baruch Halpern, professor of Jewish Studies at my alma mater Penn State calls this book “the boldest and most exhilarating synthesis of Bible and archaeology in fifty years”.

 
2 Comments

Posted by on September 29, 2009 in archaeology, canaan, exodus, passover, polytheism, samaritans

 

The Morning Star

How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cut down to the earth, You who have weakened the nations.

– Isaiah 14:12

I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this testimony for the churches. I am the Root and the Offspring of David, and the bright Morning Star.

– Revelation 22:16

This is one of the first tricky/wacky Biblical translations I discovered when I first started reading the Bible critically back in 2000. Many conservative Christians say that Isaiah 14:12 is talking about a being that the Jews thought was called Lucifer. But the actual translation of the Hebrew would be “day star” (helel). How did this happen? Well, back when Jerome translated the Hebrew Tanakh into Latin around 400 CE, he used his vernacular Latin to describe the “day star” of the Hebrew. At the time, the commonly known Day Star (or Morning Star) wasn’t called Venus, it was called Lucifer.

Lucifer comes from the Latin “lucem fer” which means light bringer. The lucem fer was a herald for the sun in Latin, thus a “morning star”. We now call this morning star Venus. In actuality, this passage of Isaiah is talking about a Babylonian king who persecuted the Jews. The title “day star” given because he wore a lot of exuberant jewelry, much like how Louis XIV got the title “Sun King”. This chapter of Isaiah is part of a larger taunt song against this Babylonian king. In the LXX version of Isaiah, “helel” is rendered as εωσφόρος (eosforos [or ewsforos]), and the rest of the passage reads “ο πρωι” which would be “[of] the morning” in Greek. Εωσφορος is a proper name which comes from φωσφορος (phosphoros) which literally means φως (light) φέρω (I bring) – light bringer. Thus the passage in Greek is faithful to the Hebrew – light bringer of the morning.

Wikipedia:

Isaiah promises that the Israelites will be freed and will then be able to use in a taunting song against their oppressor the image of the Morning Star, which rises at dawn as the brightest of the stars, outshining Jupiter and Saturn, but lasting only until the sun appears. This image was used in an old popular Canaanite story that the Morning Star tried to rise high above the clouds and establish himself on the mountain where the gods assembled, in the far north, but was cast down into the underworld. […] As the Latin poets personified the Morning Star and the Dawn (Aurora), as well as the Sun and the Moon and other heavenly bodies, so in Canaanite mythology Morning Star and Dawn were pictured as two deities, the former being the son of the latter.

Unfortunately (or humerously), Jesus apparently uses the same title for himself in Revelation 22:16 – “[bright] star of the morning” (αστήρ ο πρωίον). 2 Peter 1:19 also uses the phrase “morning star” but uses the one closer to the LXX version of Isaiah – φωσφορος, which is literally light bringer. Each case it is understood to mean the morning star.

Satan falling from heaven is strictly Christian theology, Judaism has no concept of a fallen, rebellious angel. This is due to this misunderstanding and conflation of Hebrew culture and language, Greek, and Latin culture and language. Quite literally lost in translation. But if you want to get overly literal, you could say that Jesus himself is Lucifer. You would technically be right according to the literal translation of the Latin “Lucifer” and Revelation 22:16 / 2 Peter 1:19.

 
Comments Off on The Morning Star

Posted by on September 29, 2009 in jesus, lucifer, morning star

 

Does παρθενος mean "virgin" in Greek?

και προσεσχεν τη ψυχη δινας της θυγατρος ιακωβ και ηγαπησεν την παρθενον και ελαλησεν κατα την διανοιαν της παρθενου αυτη

μετάφραση μου – translation

His heart was drawn to Dinah daughter of Jacob, and he loved the girl and spoke tenderly to her

– Gen. 34:3

According to the LXX, Genesis 34:3 also defeats the claim that παρθενος (parthenos) is used exclusivly for “a virgin”. Dinah, who was raped by Shechem, is referred to as a παρθενος after being raped, which is contrary to the claim on the exclusivity of παρθενος for identifying “a virgin”

http://www.messiahtruth.com/isa714b.html

Quite possibly, the meaning of the word changed. The LXX, at least the Torah portion of it, was composed because the Greek king Ptolemy II Philadelphus, who reigned 285–246 BCE, wanted to read Hebrew scriptures. So in the span of about 400 years, the meaning of the word παρθενος might have changed from simply a young woman (like Dinah) to mean specifically “virgin” in Matthew’s lifetime.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 28, 2009 in gospel of matthew, isaiah 7:14, parthenos, virgin

 

Liberal Christianity

Most rational people can agree that Conservative/Fundamentalist/Whatever Christianity is a plight on humanity. That level of dogmaticism isn’t good for anyone since it is immune to dialog or ever admitting to being wrong. But what about Liberal Christianity? I think that Liberal Christianity is ultimately as doomed as Conservative.

The problem is modern Christianity itself. Modern Christianity is a very historical religion. It claims that certain events happened in history. If these events didn’t happen (like the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus), then modern Christianity is simply false. A religion like Buddhism, however, is not a historical religion. The teachings of Buddhism, whether you agree with them or not, are simply a tool used to improve your life. Whether the First Buddha lived is unimportant to the message of Buddhism. Unfortunately, Christians have combined “true” with “useful”.

In Christianity, the tool, or the message, is Jesus himself. And it says so in the first line of what was probably the first gospel written: “αρχη του ευαγγελια ιησου χριστου::[the] beginning of [the] good news [of] Jesus Christ“. In the Greek, Jesus isn’t preaching any good news, or it isn’t the good news according to Jesus, he is the good news. This same sentiment is expressed in Paul’s authentic letters. Jesus never preached any gospel according to Paul, Jesus was the gospel according to Paul.

But what if Jesus never existed?

I’m an agnostic on the issue of the historicity of Jesus the Nazarene (or maybe the Nazarite?). However, modern Christianity hinges on this one belief. This dogma. There’s still the dogmatic clinging towards certain historical uncertainties: the existence, death, resurrection, and ascention of Jesus. If someone doesn’t believe in those particular dogmas, then are they a Christian? Would any other modern Christian consider someone who didn’t believe in those things to be a Christian?

Early Christianity was more fluid though. The gospel of Thomas, for example, opens with “whoever interperets these sayings will not taste death”. This good news has nothing to do with the resurrection of Jesus, his death on the cross, or any other historical detail about him. It’s the interpretation of sayings that brings salvation. And these sayings are calls to some sort of action (like verse 48). I’d sum up Thomas as being a Gnostic gospel, or one where knowledge of the true, inner spark is what leads to salvation (verse 3). Other Christians simply said they were Christians because they were anointed with the oil of God.

Gnostic Christianity, like I’ve written before, is more like Buddhism. It’s about correct action and not correct belief. If Christianity is to survive, then it has to get rid of dogmas. Focus more on being “Christ-like” instead of being “Christ-believers”. If Christians were more about some sort of Ebionite Christianity (striving to help the poor, humility, and other “action” traits), and not simply about correct beliefs, then it might survive. But is that liberal Christianity? Can a Christian be a Christian and, for example, be an atheist as well (thus Christian Atheists)?

This is why I secretly call myself a Christian Gnostic, but in public I’m now an atheist. Not because I believe Jesus existed, but because I follow teachings, like many of the early Gnostics did. The message is important, not the messenger. And on the internet, I debate against the validity of modern Christianity, because that dogma has to go; I’ve personally been seared by that dogmaticism one too many times. Karen Armstrong, for example, thinks that modern Christians have become too literal in their beliefs, and that mythos was (or is) the way religions should work. Myths used stories (not necessarily true stories) to provoke emotions, or to teach a moral lesson. If we allowed Christianity to be the myth that it’s supposed to be, it might not have done (or continue to do) the damage that it has done. If the world was filled with Karen Armstrongs instead of Rick Warrens, then it would be a better place.

The gospel of Mark being read as history makes no sense. There are glaring historical inaccuracies. But when I read it in what might be its original context – mythos – it is actually a pretty good story.

 
3 Comments

Posted by on September 24, 2009 in atheism, gnosticism, liberal christianity

 

Dating the Book of Daniel

A favorite prophet for Christians (mainly because of the apocalyptic “Son of Man” language and the Abomination causing Desolation in chapters 7 and 8 which Jesus invokes, cf. Mark 13:14), Daniel isn’t aprophet in Judaism. Daniel was written during the Maccabean revolt c. 165 BCE, the outcome of which is still celebrated to this day with Hannukah. Daniel attempts to be writing in the 6th century BCE but was really written in the 2nd centry BCE.

Those reasons include the following:

1. Daniel contains a number of historical inaccuracies regarding Baylonian history- the era during which it is alleged by traditionalists to have been written. These include such things as the erroneous belief that Nebuchadnezzar had a son named Belshazzar, that this Belshazzar was the last king of Babylon during the Jewish captivity, that Babylon under Belshazzar fell to Darius and that Darius was a Mede. Every single one of those points is wrong. There were four kings of Babylon after Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel thinks there was only one, and the one he names never existed. Nebuchadnezzar did not have a son named Belshazzar and no one by that name was ever king of Babylon. The guy who was king when Babylon fell was named Nabonidus and he was not related to Nebuchadnezzar. Interestingly, Naboninus had a son named Belshazzar but that son was never king and he died before his father did.

2. Daniel is also wrong about both the name and nationality of the person who conquered Babylon (and liberated the Jews from captivity….something which a contemporary Jew should not have gotten confused about). Babylon was not conquered by “Darius the Mede” but by Cyrus, who was Persian. There was no such person as Darius the Mede and (contrary to Daniel, who was evidently trying to backfill failed prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah) Babylon was never conquered by the Medes.

Cyrus had a grandson named Darius who eventually became king, but he, like his grandfather, was a Persian, not a Mede. Daniel also says that “Darius the Mede” was the son of Xerxes, but Xerxes was actually the son of Darius, not his father. It is quite implausible that any Jewish person who survived the entire exile would get this many things wrong but would be entirely to be expected by anyone who was writing historical fiction several centuries later.

3. The Book of Daniel contains a number of historical anachronisms which date it well after the Exile and into the Hellenistic period. It uses Greek words and references a Greek musical instrument which didn’t exist until the 2nd century BCE (Dan 3:5 contains “psaltery”, which is Greek). it contains Aramaic dialect which dates well after the exilic period. It contains an anachronistic use of the word “Chaldean” to refer to astrologers. That word was only an ethnic indicator during the era of the exile and only came to be used for astrologers much later. Daniel contains post-exilic eschatological ideas about such things as a resurrection and judgement of the dead. Daniel also references the book of Jeremiah as a “sacred book” (i.e. as scripture) but Jeremiah would have been a contemporary of Daniel and the Book of Jeremiah did not become part of Jewish Canon until c. 200 CE.

4. Daniel is very accurate about the Greek period and makes historically sound “predictions” regarding Alexander’s conquest and subsequent dynasties up to and including the reign of Antiochus, his installation of a statue of Zeus in the Temple (167 BCE – the Abomination causing Desolation) and the Jewish revolt against him. Once Daniel gets past 164 BCE, though, the predictions all fail. Daniel predicted that Antiochus would be killed in Palestine by a Ptolemaic king from the south and then the end of the world would come. Antiochus died not in Palestine, but in Persia, not by a king from the south but by an illness. Obviously, the world never ended either.

This is a clear indication that Daniel was written after the installation of the “abomination” in the Temple (167 BCE) but before the death of Antiochus (164 BCE). Christians have a lot of problems understanding Daniel. They even think the text is a prophetic text, but the Jews place it amongst the other writings (Ketuvim). Christians should give the Hebrew bible back to the Jews and stop making such a mess with it.

If we turn to ch.11 we find a series of conflicts between the kings of the north and the kings of the south immediately after the time of Alexander, the warrior king of 11:3 and the diadochi in 11:4. The king of the north is clearly Seleucid and the king of the south is Ptolemy and chapter 11 describes the Syrian Wars.

The fulcrum is the stopping of temple sacrifices (and the persecution of the Jews from 167 to 164 BCE), 11:31, 9:27 and 8:11 – this last is done by the little horn, who we also see is the culmination of the fourth beast in chapter 7, who attacked the Jews and attempted to change the seasons and the laws.

The four beasts of chapter 7, the lion (Babylon), the bear (Media), the panther (Persians), the unnamed beast – the elephant to us – (Greece), is the same progression in the statue of Dan 2, which has the Greek empire dividing into two legs, the Seleucids and the Ptolemies. The feet made of iron and clay indicate the varying power that the two empires were able to wield.

The usual Christian view is to interperet that the Medes and the Persians were really one empire, despite the fact that the Persians conquered the Medes. The Jews of course saw Media as separate from the Persians, Isaiah 13:17-19 prophecying that the Medes would destroy Babylon.

The Romans are obviously not the legs of the statue in Dan 2. The Seleucid and Ptolemy kingdoms explain the data correctly and the struggle between them, the kings of the north and south, is outlined in Dan 11. Dan 2:43 deals with the marriage of Berenice with Antiochus II, which was an attempt to unite the two kingdoms, an attempt which failed.

(The major primary sources are Polybius’s history and 2 Maccabees. More information about the struggle between the Seleucids and Ptolemies can be found in any history of the Hellenistic period.) In addition, the canon of the Prophets (Nevi’im) was closed by about 200 BC with the composition of Malachi. The apocryphal book of Jesus ben Sirach (who I wrote a bit about here), written about 180 BCE, contains a long section (chapters 44-50) in praise of “famous men” from Jewish history that does not include Daniel. However 1 Maccabees, composed about 100 BCE, repeats much of that list with the addition of Daniel and the three youths in the fiery furnace, leading to the conclusion that these stories were likely added to Hebrew literature sometime after 180 BCE.

However, Daniel could be a “prophecy” of the events of the Maccabean Rebellion… that means it wasn’t a prophecy about Jesus.

This interpretation of Daniel fits Maccabees (specifically 1 Maccabees 1:54) where the desecrating idol of Antiochus is referred to as an “Abomination of Desolation” (see Daniel 9:27). Also, Josephus identified the “little horn” as Antiochus (Antiquities 10:11).

Daniel was intended to be read as a “prophecy” of (or writing about) the Maccabean Rebellion, so it was more than likely written during this time period. Though later Christians have Jesus reinterpreting it to make it a prophecy about Jesus.

Incidently, the events in the Maccabean rebellion and the Bar-Kochba rebellion are similar. Just like Daniel was more than likely written during the Maccabean revolt, the Christian gospels might have been written during the Bar-Kochba rebellion. Both events have a pagan statue being erected on the sacred ground of the temple insigating Jewish rebellion. Though to be fair, Hadrian erected a statue of Jupiter on the grounds of the temple mount in 132 CE (since the temple had been destroyed in 70 CE) and Antiochus erected a statue of Zeus actually inside of the still standing temple in 167 BCE.

 

Jews vs. Samaritans

The war of 70 CE wasn’t the first time the Jewish Temple was destroyed. Jews had their first Temple destroyed by the Babylonians. Though each destruction transformed Judaism into a new creature each time:

  1. Israelites (polytheists with a national God, possibly with traditions found now in Pentateuch)
  2. 587 BCE – destruction of the First Temple. Now Judeans; monotheists, super strict monotheists after 164 BCE (the Civil War between Traditionalist Jews and Hellenistic Jews; Traditionalists won and started celebrating the clearing of the Temple of Hellenistic desecration with Hanukkah), now venerating Prophets and later Writings like Daniel and books fictionalizing/idealizing the history of their judges, kings and rulers.
  3. 70 CE – destruction of the Second Temple. Now Rabbinic Judaism; moralistic religion without a temple, crystallized around 200 CE with the Mishna, essentially an idealized study of what temple life should have been like, with universal lessons drawn from that idealized study.

According to James D Purvis, The Samaritan Pentateuch and the Origin of the Samaritan Sect (1968), the Pentateuch was brought back by the returning Judean exiles, who were installed by the Persians to replace the local Babylonian appointed elite classes (more in depth in my more recent post about Passover and the Exodus and a slight digression in my post on the History of Early Christianity).

This Pentateuch was accepted more or less by the Israelite “people of the land” (those who had not been exiled but remained to tend to the land as royal tenants) both in Judah and in Samaria (the remains of the old kingdom of Israel. In the Dual Monarchy period, the two were the Northern Kingdom of Israel and the Southern Kingdom of Judah. The Northern Kingdom was actually about to invade the Southern Kingdom in Isaiah 7, v14 is the Sign of Emmanuel where by the time the child in v14 grows to puberty [Isaiah 7:15], the Northern Kingdom [Isaiah 7:16, one of the two kingdoms in that verse] will be defeated), but more especially by those in Judea as the exiles ruled that province directly, but did not rule the province of Samaria.

Tensions arose between the political objectives of the Judaite elites and the Samaritan elites, who did not seem to see eye to eye. The Judean elites thought they were much better representatives of the old Israelite tradition, and the Samaritan elites thought the same of their traditions. They survived in a kind of symbiotic tension through the Persian and Hellenistic periods, each maintaining competing temples, until the Judean rebellion against the Syrian king Antiochus IV Epiphanes ignited super nationalism among the Judaites. The Hasmonean prince John Hyrcanus attacked Samaria and destroyed their temple in 128 BCE, and from that point on, Samaritan Israelites severed their relationship with Judaic sponsored religion and redacted their edition of the Pentateuch.

 
Comments Off on Jews vs. Samaritans

Posted by on September 17, 2009 in first temple, israel, jews, judea, northern kingdom, samaria, samaritans, second temple, southern kingdom

 

επεγεγραπτο αγνωστω θεω

Inscribed To An Unknown God
1. The Hebrew writings are translated into Greek (LXX) c. 280 BCE for the Greek general Ptolemy Philadelphus

2. Gentiles find a mystery, hidden within the text

3. This mystery is that there is a greater god apart from and unknown to the Hebrew god and that this hidden god has sent his son to act as a ransom to free humans from the law of the creator.

4. Originators such as “Paul” preached this message as revealed gospel.

5. Later, as the religion fractured, certain groups discounted the idea of a separate god from the creator, instead fusing the character of this unknown god onto the Hebrew god, Yahweh.

6. This fusing accounts for three central quirks of Christianity:

a) A noticable change in the character of god from the orginal Hebrew version to the later Christian version

b) The fact that god, who in the past has no issue dealing directly with his creation, now needs a mediator.

c) The interesting and quite ridiculous “bottom line” of Christianity being that God sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself.

This all clears up once one realises that the original Christian god was another god entirely and makes the entire religion make, as much as any relgion can, sense.

Isn’t there a story in Acts of the Apostles where Paul says to some Greeks that the sacrifices they made to the “unknown god” was in fact the Christian god?

Acts 17:23

23For as I walked around and looked carefully at your objects of worship, I even found an altar with this inscription: TO AN UNKNOWN GOD (επεγεγραπτο αγνωστω θεω). Now what you worship as something unknown I am going to proclaim to you.

Why would these Greeks be unaware of the Christian god if he was supposed to be one and the same to the Hebrew god? The Greeks most certainly knew about the Jews and their god. This was probably put in to fuse the once separate Christian god and the Jewish god, which would be an attack on the Marcionites. Another line of evidence that Acts of the Apostles was written in the mid to late 2nd century, since there was no Marcionism in the 1st century.

 
Comments Off on επεγεγραπτο αγνωστω θεω

Posted by on September 15, 2009 in acts of the apostles, marcion, marcionism, unknown god

 

The Literal Adam

Romans 5
12Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— 13for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. 14Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

20The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Here Paul outlines the basics of the “Original Sin” doctrine of Christianity. The entire point that Jesus was sacrificed. It seems as though Paul thought that there was a literal Adam. The one man through whom all sin and death entered the world. Paul’s argument can only make sense if there was a literal “first human being” since he juxtaposes it with how the other “one man”, Jesus, nullified Adam’s transgression of bringing death into the world.

Unfortunately, the existence of a literal Adam is impossible. The Christian creation story is absurd, and doesn’t answer why death “entered” the world.

If Adam and Eve couldn’t die before getting kicked out of Eden, then you’re left with a ridiculous situation. Why do we get hungry? Because we are dying. If Adam couldn’t die, then he couldn’t have possibly gotten hungry. This means that Adam must not have had a digestive system. No esophagus, no stomach, no gall bladder, no small intestine, no large intestine, no rectum, no anus. Since he didn’t have any of that stuff, then there’s really no reason for a circulatory system either. So no blood.

If he had no blood then there’s no purpose for having lungs. This makes “sense” (lol) since Adam couldn’t die. Therefore he couldn’t have ever suffocated or drowned before the Fall.

What you’re left with is some sort of inhuman homonculous Adam that is simply filled with smaller “Adams” until you get to a G. I. Joe sized Adam that is filled with creamy nougat.

Even if I grant [you] that Adam got hungry, this still necessitates death being in the world prior to the Fall. Creationists like to claim that every animal prior to the Fall was a vegetarian. But this really betrays their ignorance of basic biology. Plants are alive. In order to eat them, they have to die. Therefore, “death” was in the world prior to the Fall if life forms got hungry.

Even if I allow all of this nonsense to be granted as true, you’re still left with a nonsense situation. Death enters the world because of sin. In order for there to be sin, there has to be this great, awesome, gift of free will. This gift of free will is so awesome, that god refuses to transgress it to prevent suffering.

So we have free will > sin > death.

So once we get to heaven, there’s ostensibly no death. But if there’s no death – and the only reason why there’s death in the first place is because of sin – then there’s no sin in heaven. But if there’s no sin in heaven, then there must not be free will in heaven. Since free will is the only reason why sin exists, right? Therefore when you get to your heaven, you are simply some sort of godbot without a soul. This great, awesome gift of free will isn’t so awesome once you’re in heaven.

All around, the Christian doctrine of “Original Sin” is patently absurd. If there was no literal Adam, then the first major premise of Christianity – as argued by Paul in Romans 5 – is done away with; and Jesus’ death makes no sense.

 
1 Comment

Posted by on September 8, 2009 in early Christianity, jesus, paul

 

My Name Is Legion, For We Are Many

This was posted by Joe Wallack over at FRDB. It is a more in depth explanation of the “Legion” I posted in my lengthy email about the history of early Christianity:

“We have also demonstrated that the “Gerasenes” or the area around the city of Gerasa does not fit the geographical requirements of the Jewrassic Pork story as Gerasa is about 35 miles from the Sea of Galilee. In addition, the story seems to be completely based on the Impossible and therefore has no Historical core. This opens up the Possibility that the author had a Literary reason for selecting Gerasenes and did not intend to narrate a historical event but rather intended to make a Theological point.

“Mark” is commonly thought to have been written shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem c. 70 CE. Looking through significant events leading to the destruction as documented by Josephus we see possible Parallel references between:

1) Rome’s Historical conquest of Jerusalem

and

2) Jesus’ Fictional conguest of Jerusalem


1) Start of Mission to Conquer Jerusalem:

—The Historical Roman campaign starts from Caesarea.

—Jesus Fictional campaign starts from Caesarea:

—–Mark 8:

“27 Jesus and his disciples went on to the villages around Caesarea Philippi. On the way he asked them, “Who do people say I am?”

28 They replied, “Some say John the Baptist; others say Elijah; and still others, one of the prophets.”

29 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
Peter answered, “You are the Christ.[b]”

30 Jesus warned them not to tell anyone about him.

31 He then began to teach them that the Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and after three days rise again.

32He spoke plainly about this, and Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him.”

2) Historical Roman capture of Roman built Gerasa temporarily taken over by Jewish Rebels

Mark 5:
“1 They went across the lake to the region of the Gerasenes.[a] 2When Jesus got out of the boat, a man with an evil[b] spirit came from the tombs to meet him. 3This man lived in the tombs, and no one could bind him any more, not even with a chain. 4For he had often been chained hand and foot, but he tore the chains apart and broke the irons on his feet. No one was strong enough to subdue him. 5Night and day among the tombs and in the hills he would cry out and cut himself with stones.

6 When he saw Jesus from a distance, he ran and fell on his knees in front of him. 7He shouted at the top of his voice, “What do you want with me, Jesus, Son of the Most High God? Swear to God that you won’t torture me!” 8For Jesus had said to him, “Come out of this man, you evil spirit!”

9 Then Jesus asked him, “What is your name?”

“My name is Legion,” he replied, “for we are many.” 10And he begged Jesus again and again not to send them out of the area.

11 A large herd of pigs was feeding on the nearby hillside. 12The demons begged Jesus, “Send us among the pigs; allow us to go into them.” 13He gave them permission, and the evil spirits came out and went into the pigs. The herd, about two thousand in number, rushed down the steep bank into the lake and were drowned.

14 Those tending the pigs ran off and reported this in the town and countryside, and the people went out to see what had happened. 15When they came to Jesus, they saw the man who had been possessed by the legion of demons, sitting there, dressed and in his right mind; and they were afraid. 16Those who had seen it told the people what had happened to the demon-possessed man—and told about the pigs as well. 17Then the people began to plead with Jesus to leave their region.

18 As Jesus was getting into the boat, the man who had been demon-possessed begged to go with him. 19Jesus did not let him, but said, “Go home to your family and tell them how much the Lord has done for you, and how he has had mercy on you.” 20So the man went away and began to tell in the Decapolis[c]how much Jesus had done for him. And all the people were amazed.”

JW:
Note the following reMarkable common words/ideas with the Historical Roman campaign:

1) Gerasa – An especially noteworthy town as it was built by Rome, was populated mainly by Gentiles, was temporarily controlled by the Jewish rebels and was an important conquest on the way to Jerusalem. Also, a major rebel leader, Simon, was from Gerasa.

2) Legion – This name for the Demon is especially telling as it is also the primary name for units of Roman soldiers.

3) Pigs – Using pigs is telling as this would be the primary animal Jews associated with Gentiles. Also, one of the conquering Legions had a Boar as it’s standard.

4) Two thousand – This is close to a casualty figure from the Historical Gadara conquest (twenty-two hundred).

5) Drowned – In the Historical Gadara campaign the most horrific method of suffering and execution was drowning.

Thus with a Narrative that can not be Historical it’s quite Possible that “Mark” intended a Figurative comparison of Jesus’ Peaceful conquest of Jerusalem with Rome’s violent conquest of Jerusalem. And, in an Irony that I think “Mark” would really appreciate, “Jesus” did eventually conquer Rome peacefully which is probably the best evidence for Christianity.”

 
Comments Off on My Name Is Legion, For We Are Many

Posted by on September 3, 2009 in allegory, jesus, josephus, legion

 

The Definition of Sin

According to Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament (TWOT):

The root occurs about 580 times in the Old Testament and is thus its principle word for sin. The basic meaning of the root is to miss a mark or a way. It is used two or three times in Ugaritic to mean “sin.”

The verbal forms occur in enough secular contexts to provide a basic picture of the word’s meaning. In Jud 20:16 the left-handed slingers of Benjamin are said to have the skill to throw stones at targets and “not miss.” In a different context, Prov 19:2 speaks of a man in a hurry who “misses his way” (RSV, NEB, KJV has “sinneth”). A similar idea of not finding a goal appears in Prov 8:36; the concept of failure is implied.

The verb has the connotation of breach of civil law, i.e. failure to live up to expectations, in Gen 40:1.

In Greek translations of the OT (the LXX) and carried on into the NT, it is “hamartia” (άμαρτία) which was originally an archery term for missing the bulls-eye (from “αμαρτάνω” [hamartanō], I miss, fail). Essentially, it has a similar meaning to the Hebrew words.

I guess the feeling in antiquity was that if a god expressed his or her preferences for his/her own worship, or his/her expectations for his faithful followers, and you missed the mark, you deserved punishment.

Basically, sin is defined as transgressing the Law of Moses. If you are not bound by the Law of Moses, then you cannot “sin”. I wonder if Paul realized the irony of abrogating the Torah means that subsequent Christians really can’t sin any more, but not in the way that they think. Or on the other hand, that abrogating the Torah and not following the 613 commandments, while still claiming to follow the god of Moses, means that they are left in perpetual sin.
 
Comments Off on The Definition of Sin

Posted by on September 1, 2009 in archery, greek, hebrew

 
 
NeuroLogica Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

The Wandering Scientist

What a lovely world it is

NT Blog

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

PsyBlog

Understand your mind with the science of psychology -

Vridar

Musings on biblical studies, politics, religion, ethics, human nature, tidbits from science

Maximum Entropy

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Skepticism, Properly Applied

Criticism is not uncivil

Download PDF

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Research Digest

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

Disrupting Dinner Parties

Feminism is for everyone!

My ὑπομνήματα about religion

The New Oxonian

Religion and Culture for the Intellectually Impatient

The Musings of Thomas Verenna

A Biblioblog about imitation, the Biblical Narratives, and the figure of Jesus

The Syncretic Soubrette

Snarky musings from an everyday woman