On reincarnation of God

[Samson]

Sorry can you expand on this. Genetics say the conquest didn't happen? What did the conquest require? I don't think I'm understanding you clearly.

My understanding is that we have sequenced archaeological human remains in was was Canaan and there is no evidence of an abrupt change in the genetic distribution that would be consistent with a population replacement on the scale of that described in exodus. I have not gone to the primary literature.

What did the conquest require?

The instructions that it is reported God gave the Israelites was to kill everyone in Canaan.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

My understanding is that we have sequenced archaeological human remains in was was Canaan and there is no evidence of an abrupt change in the genetic distribution that would be consistent with a population replacement on the scale of that described in exodus. I have not gone to the primary literature.

Ah okay, I hear that archaeology also says this. But perhaps this is for the best. It means the migration into Canaan was likely on a smaller scale and less genocidal then originally implied in the Bible perhaps!

 

[Samson]

Ah okay, I hear that archaeology also says this. But perhaps this is for the best. It means the migration into Canaan was likely on a smaller scale and less genocidal then originally implied in the Bible perhaps!

Actually I think it may never have happened. This is what I was reading the other day:

Ariel Lewin says, in The Archaeology of Ancient Judea and Palestine, page 8, that researchers have concluded that there could not have been a mass exodus from Egypt followed by a dramatic conquest of Canaan in the fifteenth and fourteenth centuries BCE, the period the Bible attributes to the Exodus. Lester L. Grabbe says, in Ancient Israel, pages 86-88, a careful look at the text shows that it does not reflect the fifteenth or thirteenth centuries BCE but the seventh or eighth, and goes on to say that despite the efforts of some fundamentalist arguments, there is no way to salvage the biblical text as a description of a historical event. Carol A. Redmount says in 'Bitter lives', published in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, page 63, recent research indicates that even more of the extant Exodus account than previously thought comes from periods during or after the Israelite monarchy or even the Exile. She believes that the biblical Exodus account was never intended to function or to be understood as history in the present-day sense of the word.​

 

[Birdjaguar]

Sorry can you expand on this. Genetics say the conquest didn't happen? What did the conquest require? I don't think I'm understanding you clearly.

Part of that story is that there was no actual conquest. They just moved in and co existed.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Actually I think it may never have happened.

Perhaps. Though there is some archaeology which suggests it did. The most notable are the ruins of Jericho.

"During early archaeological excavations by the British archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a stone retaining wall was found at the base of the tell associated with Jericho, but a mudbrick wall wasn’t found. However, a deposit of collapsed mudbrick was found at the base of the retaining wall at certain locations around the tell. This is surprisingly consistent with the account in the Book of Joshua. This collapsed wall would have also created a ramp for the Israelite warriors to march up the embankment to take the city. In this way, the archaeological record makes the Biblical account surprisingly believable. It supports the idea that the walls tumbled “below themselves” as well as the statement that the Israelites went “up” to take the city.

Another specific part of the narrative that is also made plausible by the archaeological record is the account of Rahab’s house being spared. In the Biblical narrative, two spies were sent into the city and they were harbored by a prostitute named Rahab. For helping the spies, Rahab was promised that she and her family would be spared when the city was destroyed. It is implied in the Biblical text, when the walls collapsed that her house was not destroyed even though it was connected to the wall.

During an early excavation in 1907-1909, German archaeologists found that, although most of the wall had collapsed, a portion of the wall had not entirely collapsed and appeared to have been preserved. They also found evidence that houses had been built along the wall. These houses typically had a thickness of only one brick, suggesting they were built for the poorer inhabitants of the city. Although this may not have been the location of Rahab’s house, it is consistent with the Biblical narrative.

Another detail that is also of interest in the archaeological site of Jericho is the presence of pots of charred grain that were burned from when the city was attacked and destroyed. What is unusual about these grain pots is that grain would probably have been eaten during a siege if it had been prolonged over a long period of time. The siege of Jericho by the ancient Israelites is said to have lasted only seven days. The fact that the grain pots were still full is consistent with a short siege. This also supports another part of the Biblical narrative, which mentions that the battle of Jericho happened in the spring, shortly after harvest time."

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/walls-jericho-0012893

Naturally there is rarely full agreement on such matters as whether the archaeology does fully support the bible account or not. For example archaeologist William Gwinn Dever says it doesn't, archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon says it partially does, and Professor Tom Meyer says it fully does.

Also there is some archaeology which supports the Exodus from Egypt, primarily seen with the site of Avaris. Avaris is known to have had a high migrant population, with possible suggestions of a Jewish population due to a higher amount of Canaanite style artifacts and food remains which matched Jewish customs. The part of Avaris which housed these migrants was abandoned at the time of Ramesses II, which fits the Biblical account.

There is also interesting linguistic features seen in the Bible. The book of Exodus shows an unusually high Egyptian influence, with 1.391% of the words being Egyptian loan words, compared to the rest of the bible which has 0.122% of its words being Egyptian loan words. The Hebrew language also has noticeably more Egyptian loan words then comparable nearby languages such as Ugaritic, Phoenician, Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomoite languages.

I will admit not amazing evidence! However when you see the event of Exodus as being relatively small scale, it does make things like the lack of Egyptian records regarding it at least a bit more plausible.

Anyway I always tend to favor (perhaps you might say biased towards) old historical accounts being based on some truth with likely exaggeration and embellishments rather than being entirely fictional, whether it be the accounts in the Bible, or Troy or Atlantis.

 

[Narz]

Not in Christianity, where the idea is more that you're supposed to love God. You can't 'be like God', because you're not God. Even "supposed to" is the wrong word, more that you'd love God if you knew Him fully. "Obedience" is merely the outcome of that love, in the same way that we put down the toilet seat for our partner out of love more than anything else. Her having asked is merely how we were alerted to the fact that we should. Some of that obedience is along the lines of "trust me, it's better if you just do it this way". I don't punish my kid with car accidents when I tell him to not run in the road, but it will happen if he doesn't listen to me.

I have a strong dislike for the word "obedience".

I don't put the toliet lid down out of obedience anymore than I'd want my partner to cook me dinner to be an obedient woman.

It's beyond absurd to think there's a creator of the entire universe who programmed us a certain way (or created natural selection to do so) and gets really upset like some autistic guy if we don't follow his arbitrary rules just so. Even believing in horse**** like virgin births & parting seas is more plausible.

Now other religions also have guidelines. Buddhism for example has precepts but they come acorss less as "Yo do as your told b**** & don't ask why" & more as "If you follow these you'll get along better w others, see things more clearly, have a calmer mind, etc.". In other words Buddism treats it's constituents more like adults.

 

[El_Machinae]

Yeah, I don't follow Christianity. Mainly because I think its metaphysics are false and its tenets are less moral than I'd like. But, you'd asked if we were 'supposed to act like God' in Christianity. We aren't. There are even open questions as to when we're supposed to 'act like Jesus'.

 

[Farm Boy]

I don't think that's it, either. You're off into the weeds on servility. It's not like a lightning bolt is coming for messing up the Hail Mary. Kneeling is a choice every time it's done.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Yeah, I follow Christianity. Mainly because I think its metaphysics are false and its tenets are less moral than I'd like.

I feel like there is a negation missing from this statement!

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

But aren't we supposed to be like God? And God does an awful lot of judging, condemning, encouraging genocide including of babies when "he" gets really mad at a group of people.

This whole "God (Christian) doesn't judge" is as crazy as saying Islam is a religion of peace.

My quote said God does not want us to judge. But yes, you're right he does judge us. I guess it's like if you commited a crime a judge in a court of law would judge your case? If you didn't commit a crime there is nothing to judge. Same thing with God.

 

[Moff Jerjerrod]

...

Here's a question that I've asked numerous times that nobody has ever answered satisfactorily: Since Jesus' followers included men who could read and write, why didn't any of them write anything down during the three-year time period that they were wandering around with him? Why wait decades and cast doubt on the veracity of the story because there are parts that should agree but don't, and therefore lead to suspicion that the Gospels were actually written much much later by people who weren't actually witnesses and made some details up?

Primary sources matter and count more if written/created as the events in question were going on. This is why I have no doubt at all that Augustus was real, for instance (someone actually asked). People wrote about him during his life, he wrote about himself, and numerous artifacts including statues exist that prove he was real and did at least some of the actions attributed to him. By the time later historians were writing about him they had a wealth of primary sources to draw on.
...

Now that's a good question. From what I've seen there is nothing in the bible that says the apostles didn't take notes on what they observed. Unfortunately there is also nothing in the bible that says they did take notes either. The bible does say however that all scripture is given by God for inspiration. Meaning that the apostles and all writers in the old testament were divinly inspired by God to put down the words in writing. I don't think the bible contradicts itself but it could appear that way due to one apostle remembering details of an event different from another apostles memory of said event.

Do you have any specific examples of where you found contradictions in the bible?

...

It's beyond absurd to think there's a creator of the entire universe who programmed us a certain way (or created natural selection to do so) and gets really upset like some autistic guy if we don't follow his arbitrary rules just so. Even believing in horse**** like virgin births & parting seas is more plausible.

...

I hear what you're saying. All of us I think don't like to be told what to do or else.

Not sure about other religions but in order to come to a saving knowledge that spares you from punishment no matter how much you have messed up past, present, or future you have to come to the end of yourself and realize you're not perfect. None of us are, myself included. But when you put your trust and faith in Jesus Christ all of your sins are forgiven and you are saved. Which means that even if you mess up in the future you are still saved because of your faith and belief in Christ. If all of this sounds preposterous it just means that it's a concept you're either not ready to accept yet or just think it's a waste of time. And that's ok. No one should force you to believe in all of this.

People will tell you things but you alone have to decide what to accept and what not to accept. But at least spend time studying the message thoroughly. Don't let rumors or hearsay make you decide or let others tell you "hey man this is what this is all about and it sucks". Study for yourself and see if you can find the answers.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Do you have any specific examples of where you found contradictions in the bible?

There are many, but that is a battle that has been ongoing for centuries. Refutations and rebuttals have been widely publicized. The only situations where non theological contradictions are relevant are when the inerrancy card is played and that is a game changer for discussion. At that point one side says "I believe." and the other says "I don't." Impasse. Best to shake hands or hug and then go get something to eat or drink together.

One of many:
https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Biblical_contradictions

 

[Rg339]

I don't think that's it, either. You're off into the weeds on servility. It's not like a lightning bolt is coming for messing up the Hail Mary. Kneeling is a choice every time it's done.

Is it really? If I have inescapable power, and judge everyone, determining their eternal future, doesn’t the power differential compel servility? There’s no other real rational choice.

It’d be different if god allowed independence, but I don’t see that. If people could retreat from the world/social contract god places us into, and create something new, with individuals free to come and go between the realms as they pleased, yeah, servility would be a choice. Since in the theology all roads lead to God, though, independence seems fleeting and servility is the inevitable conclusion.

No real room for freedom in Abrahamic faiths that I see

 

[Birdjaguar]

Is it really? If I have inescapable power, and judge everyone, determining their eternal future, doesn’t the power differential compel servility? There’s no other real rational choice.

It’d be different if god allowed independence, but I don’t see that. If people could retreat from the world/social contract god places us into, and create something new, with individuals free to come and go between the realms as they pleased, yeah, servility would be a choice. Since in the theology all roads lead to God, though, independence seems fleeting and servility is the inevitable conclusion.

No real room for freedom in Abrahamic faiths that I see

Prior to the "good news" of 33AD the power differential you talk about did not exist. In addition, belief is optional and without it, there is no power differential. The actual consequences of disbelief are stillat this point hearsay.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

Now that's a good question. From what I've seen there is nothing in the bible that says the apostles didn't take notes on what they observed. Unfortunately there is also nothing in the bible that says they did take notes either. The bible does say however that all scripture is given by God for inspiration. Meaning that the apostles and all writers in the old testament were divinly inspired by God to put down the words in writing.

I would add to this that they were expecting the second coming of Jesus soon, like in their lifetime soon. Why write something down when you will be around to tell someone in person. Their focus was not on sitting around and writing a book. It was on telling the good news to as many people as possible as quickly as possible. As the years went by and first hand witnesses started to drop off, and Jesus did not reappear presumably the need to document what they had witnessed increased. The gospel of John even makes reference to the belief among some that Jesus would return in his life time, and that this was incorrect.

Also when people moan about a lack of archeology for Jesus, I do wonder what they are expecting. A minor Jewish prophet in a backwater Roman province is unlikely to have many coins or statues made in his name.

 

[Narz]

My quote said God does not want us to judge. But yes, you're right he does judge us. I guess it's like if you commited a crime a judge in a court of law would judge your case? If you didn't commit a crime there is nothing to judge. Same thing with God.

But the judge didn't create me.

It's more like a computer programmer getting angry at his Sims even tho he designed them.

But when you put your trust and faith in Jesus Christ all of your sins are forgiven and you are saved.

But why do we need to be forgiven in the first place?

If a friend or girlfriend told you "just have 100% faith in me and I'll forgive you for being inadequate in my eyes" would you want to have a relationship w them?

Ok but they're your equal you might argue. God being superior is bound to be disappointed... but I don't agree. Would I judge a cat or a bird for not having the wisdom I do and behaving like animals? Course not.

Needing forgiveness implies judgement but someone who created us or even set us in motion at some point has no reason to need to forgive us or be angry w us. We can't hurt him anyway. If he is God nothing can be given or taken away from him.

Like if I had 100,000,000 fishtanks in my room and the fish in one of them were behaving oddly I wouldn't think to judge them. I'd wonder why I did wrong w their design or environment.

If one is all powerful it doesn't make any sense to be so controlling and needy.

To summarize, if one is an all power being it doesn't make any sense to be disappointed in anyone but yourself.

 

[Narz]

Also when people moan about a lack of archeology for Jesus, I do wonder what they are expecting. A minor Jewish prophet in a backwater Roman province is unlikely to have many coins or statues made in his name.

Kings visiting from afar, miracle cures, water into wine... you'd think there'd be some record of the guy.

 

[Farm Boy]

<shrugs> Seems like nothing but the world you're in and what to do with it, from here.

 

[Samson]

Perhaps. Though there is some archaeology which suggests it did. The most notable are the ruins of Jericho.

"During early archaeological excavations by the British archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon, a stone retaining wall was found at the base of the tell associated with Jericho, but a mudbrick wall wasn’t found. However, a deposit of collapsed mudbrick was found at the base of the retaining wall at certain locations around the tell. This is surprisingly consistent with the account in the Book of Joshua. This collapsed wall would have also created a ramp for the Israelite warriors to march up the embankment to take the city. In this way, the archaeological record makes the Biblical account surprisingly believable. It supports the idea that the walls tumbled “below themselves” as well as the statement that the Israelites went “up” to take the city.

Another specific part of the narrative that is also made plausible by the archaeological record is the account of Rahab’s house being spared. In the Biblical narrative, two spies were sent into the city and they were harbored by a prostitute named Rahab. For helping the spies, Rahab was promised that she and her family would be spared when the city was destroyed. It is implied in the Biblical text, when the walls collapsed that her house was not destroyed even though it was connected to the wall.

During an early excavation in 1907-1909, German archaeologists found that, although most of the wall had collapsed, a portion of the wall had not entirely collapsed and appeared to have been preserved. They also found evidence that houses had been built along the wall. These houses typically had a thickness of only one brick, suggesting they were built for the poorer inhabitants of the city. Although this may not have been the location of Rahab’s house, it is consistent with the Biblical narrative.

Another detail that is also of interest in the archaeological site of Jericho is the presence of pots of charred grain that were burned from when the city was attacked and destroyed. What is unusual about these grain pots is that grain would probably have been eaten during a siege if it had been prolonged over a long period of time. The siege of Jericho by the ancient Israelites is said to have lasted only seven days. The fact that the grain pots were still full is consistent with a short siege. This also supports another part of the Biblical narrative, which mentions that the battle of Jericho happened in the spring, shortly after harvest time."

https://www.ancient-origins.net/ancient-places-asia/walls-jericho-0012893

Naturally there is rarely full agreement on such matters as whether the archaeology does fully support the bible account or not. For example archaeologist William Gwinn Dever says it doesn't, archaeologist Dame Kathleen Kenyon says it partially does, and Professor Tom Meyer says it fully does.

Also there is some archaeology which supports the Exodus from Egypt, primarily seen with the site of Avaris. Avaris is known to have had a high migrant population, with possible suggestions of a Jewish population due to a higher amount of Canaanite style artifacts and food remains which matched Jewish customs. The part of Avaris which housed these migrants was abandoned at the time of Ramesses II, which fits the Biblical account.

There is also interesting linguistic features seen in the Bible. The book of Exodus shows an unusually high Egyptian influence, with 1.391% of the words being Egyptian loan words, compared to the rest of the bible which has 0.122% of its words being Egyptian loan words. The Hebrew language also has noticeably more Egyptian loan words then comparable nearby languages such as Ugaritic, Phoenician, Moabite, Ammonite, and Edomoite languages.

I will admit not amazing evidence! However when you see the event of Exodus as being relatively small scale, it does make things like the lack of Egyptian records regarding it at least a bit more plausible.

Anyway I always tend to favor (perhaps you might say biased towards) old historical accounts being based on some truth with likely exaggeration and embellishments rather than being entirely fictional, whether it be the accounts in the Bible, or Troy or Atlantis.

Interesting. There is also this bit of the same answer quoted above:

The Emergence of Ancient Israel', published in The Oxford History of the Biblical World, page 97, that of the thirty one cities said to be taken by Joshua and the Israelites, twenty have been plausibly identified with excavation sites. Of these, only Bethel and Hazor exhibit synchronous discontinuities such as destruction layers, and it is even debated whether the destruction of Hazor XIII was as late as that of Late Bronze Age Bethel.
​

I guess that is consistent with it being a real but more minor event.

 

[citizenofdoom]

If a friend or girlfriend told you "just have 100% faith in me and I'll forgive you for being inadequate in my eyes" would you want to have a relationship w them?

Yes!
Given I am below that creature.
And that creature seems like has goodwill for me.
100% faith.