Political Crossfire Forums

[psholtz]

Praise Jesus!

oops! Not supposed to say that name on this forum.. :shifty:

At any rate, I managed to clear off more disk space on my Web server, and got the Genesis commentary posted. You can download it here:

http://www.paulsholtz.com/genesis2.pdf

Debate away! :-D

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: Praise Jesus!

oops! Not supposed to say that name on this forum.. :shifty:

At any rate, I managed to clear off more disk space on my Web server, and got the Genesis commentary posted. You can download it here:

http://www.paulsholtz.com/genesis2.pdf

Debate away! :-D

So, as a proponent of Bible Criticism theory (as I understand you to be), what are your objections so far to the arguments presented?

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: Praise Jesus!

oops! Not supposed to say that name on this forum.. :shifty:

At any rate, I managed to clear off more disk space on my Web server, and got the Genesis commentary posted. You can download it here:

http://www.paulsholtz.com/genesis2.pdf

Debate away! :-D

So, as a proponent of Bible Criticism theory (as I understand you to be), what are your objections so far to the arguments presented?
Not sure what Bible Criticism theory is, although I do know for a fact that the Hebrew Bible is not what it purports to be, and that it was not written by the people claimed as its authors, at the time when its claimed that it was written..

Probably the best way to start would be to review the JEPD theory, since this author seems to be trying to refute it, and go from there.. :wink:

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: Praise Jesus!

oops! Not supposed to say that name on this forum.. :shifty:

At any rate, I managed to clear off more disk space on my Web server, and got the Genesis commentary posted. You can download it here:

http://www.paulsholtz.com/genesis2.pdf

Debate away! :-D

So, as a proponent of Bible Criticism theory (as I understand you to be), what are your objections so far to the arguments presented?
Not sure what Bible Criticism theory is, although I do know for a fact that the Hebrew Bible is not what it purports to be, and that it was not written by the people claimed as its authors, at the time when its claimed that it was written..

Well, you've pretty much described the theory. Not bad for not being sure of what it is.

Quote: Probably the best way to start would be to review the JEPD theory, since this author seems to be trying to refute it, and go from there.. :wink:

So do you see any problems with his refutation?

[psholtz]

I just re-read the PDF, and as before, the arguments are so weak that I barely think they are worth taking the time to refute. The author is either a fool, or he's completely unfamiliar w/ the criticisms leveled by people who subscribe to JEPD, or he possesses no powers of logical deducation whatsoever..

Probably it's a combination of all three..

Note also that in the third-to-last paragraph, the author manages to prove quite nicely and succinctly that which I've been saying all along: that the Jews ARE Babylonians; that they come from Chaldea (originally) and that they are little more than a branch of the Chaldean Magi who moved into the Levant circa 500 BC.. I dunno Duchi.. Using this guy to back up the Torah is kinda like having that kid on your soccer team who always winds up kicking the ball into your own goal.. I think he does more damage than good.. :lol:

If he brings up specific arguments you'd like to discuss, we can do so, but like I said, I think most of his arguments are neglible to non-existant. Probably the best way to proceed on this thread would be to discuss (a) the (alleged) two versions of Creation found in Genesis; and (b) the (alleged) two versions of the Flood found in Genesis; and to do so in the context of JEPD, since that seems to be what this author is trying to refute (rather badly, though).

[Mailech]

Paul

Your theories are not self consistent, either the Jews and the Bible is from Persia / Babylon from 500 BCE, or J and E are tribal stories from Northern and Southern Israel from the 800 and 900 BCE, you can't have it both ways.

If the first is true then the JEDP theory is crap and someother way of having this information brought into the collective conscounce has to be found.

If the second is true, then there should be know reason why J and E should be similiar to the Babylonian story, if they are similiar, that suggests some link that is not explained by JEDP.

[psholtz]

Mailech wrote: Your theories are not self consistent, either the Jews and the Bible is from Persia / Babylon from 500 BCE, or J and E are tribal stories from Northern and Southern Israel from the 800 and 900 BCE, you can't have it both ways.

If the first is true then the JEDP theory is crap and someother way of having this information brought into the collective conscounce has to be found.

If the second is true, then there should be know reason why J and E should be similiar to the Babylonian story, if they are similiar, that suggests some link that is not explained by JEDP.
You raise a good point..

But my theory is that Yahweh was a local cult diety in Palestine, and that the Jews brought w/ them a form of Zoroastrian fire worship (compliments of the Persians) when they immigrated from Chaldea and that they tried to blend the two (or three?) cults together into one..

It's all worth looking into more deeply, though... I'll be posting more info as I find it! :wink:

[Mailech]

psholtz wrote: But my theory is that Yahweh was a local cult diety in Palestine, and that the Jews brought w/ them a form of Zoroastrian fire worship (compliments of the Persians) when they immigrated from Chaldea and that they tried to blend the two (or three?) cults together into one..

It's all worth looking into more deeply, though... I'll be posting more info as I find it! :wink:

First then where is Elokim from?

Second, while Zoroastrianism may be an primitive form of monotheism, there are no references of the good verses evil struggle in the Jewish relgion. The Christians manage to read it into the text, but in general when they do it is very far-fetched.

[psholtz]

Mailech wrote: psholtz wrote: But my theory is that Yahweh was a local cult diety in Palestine, and that the Jews brought w/ them a form of Zoroastrian fire worship (compliments of the Persians) when they immigrated from Chaldea and that they tried to blend the two (or three?) cults together into one..

It's all worth looking into more deeply, though... I'll be posting more info as I find it! :wink:

First then where is Elokim from?
Not sure, could be a local Canaanite cult as well.. let's use this thread to find out! :wink:

Quote: Second, while Zoroastrianism may be an primitive form of monotheism, there are no references of the good verses evil struggle in the Jewish relgion. The Christians manage to read it into the text, but in general when they do it is very far-fetched.
Sure, but there are all kinds of references to "god-as-fire" in the Old Testament, which is the essence of Zoroastrianism.. In fact, the Hebrew God never manifests himself in any manner *other* than fire (burning bush, burning pillar of smoke, etc).

[cap'n queasy]

First of all, Zoroastrianism did not yet exist at this time. Your timing's off.

Second of all, Zoroastrianism is worship of the Sun, Ahura Mazda. His opposite, Ahriman is darkness. They do use fire ritually but they do not worship it, as such.

This tradition is dualistic, with Ahura Mazda and Ahriman being exact opposites. This is not monotheism. It is two equal and exact opposite gods each of whose advantage goes back and forth effecting mankind's fate. But it all balances out in the end.

It is the religion of the Parsi's and is related to Hinduism.

If anything I would say it is a form of Indo-Aryan Hinduism that was influenced by monotheism and developed through Persian contact with Israel. Because this is right when it emerged.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: It is the religion of the Parsi's and is related to Hinduism.
You raise good points and I'll address them in due time..

In the meantime, meditate for a moment on just how similar the words "Parsi" and "Pharisee" are, and consider for a moment what that might mean about any common ancestry between the two groups.. Consider also that the Parsis are widely regarded as the "Jews of India".. :wink:

[cap'n queasy]

As I said, Zoroastrianism is obviously the result of Israel's influence on Persia, and not the reverse.

Probably via Daniel, as he was Grand Vizier of both the Babylonian and Persian Empires and was thus a man of enormous prestige and influence in that part of the world. It seems to me basically a garbled version of the worship of the Living God thus imparted, syncretized with Indo-Aryan sensibilities.

[psholtz]

cap'n queasy wrote: As I said, Zoroastrianism is obviously the result of Israel's influence on Persia, and not the reverse.
You mean to say, Judah's influence on Persia.. the other 11 tribes were long gone by then.. :wink:

(at least, according to the legends they were)..

[Mailech]

psholtz wrote: Sure, but there are all kinds of references to "god-as-fire" in the Old Testament, which is the essence of Zoroastrianism.. In fact, the Hebrew God never manifests himself in any manner *other* than fire (burning bush, burning pillar of smoke, etc).

No because in the dessert on the Mishkan, G-d is manifest as a cloud, the Hebrew word used is Anan, not Ashan which meaning smoke. So the manifestation is not just fire.

Also, I am not that informed about Zoroastrianism, but G-d in Exodus demonstates before the Egyptians, that He is the G-d of land, water and sky, and G-d that controls all living beings, from the beasts to things as small as lice even bacteria and viruses. I don't know if Zoroastrians believe the same thing?

[Mailech]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: It is the religion of the Parsi's and is related to Hinduism.
You raise good points and I'll address them in due time..

In the meantime, meditate for a moment on just how similar the words "Parsi" and "Pharisee" are, and consider for a moment what that might mean about any common ancestry between the two groups.. Consider also that the Parsis are widely regarded as the "Jews of India".. :wink:

Well what doed Parsi mean?

[psholtz]

Mailech wrote: psholtz wrote: Sure, but there are all kinds of references to "god-as-fire" in the Old Testament, which is the essence of Zoroastrianism.. In fact, the Hebrew God never manifests himself in any manner *other* than fire (burning bush, burning pillar of smoke, etc).

No because in the dessert on the Mishkan, G-d is manifest as a cloud, the Hebrew word used is Anan, not Ashan which meaning smoke. So the manifestation is not just fire.
Sure, and lots of time lightning (i.e., fire) comes thundering down from those anan-s up in the sky, doesn't it? :-D

Do you have a reference for that verse?

Quote: Also, I am not that informed about Zoroastrianism, but G-d in Exodus demonstates before the Egyptians, that He is the G-d of land, water and sky, and G-d that controls all living beings, from the beasts to things as small as lice even bacteria and viruses. I don't know if Zoroastrians believe the same thing?
Like I said, I think Judaism is a blend of several different traditions, one of which is Zoroastrianism. That doesn't necessarily mean there's a one-to-one correspondence w/ every last aspect of Zoroastrianism. Even the Parsis of India probably don't line up one-for-one w/ *everything* about Zoroastrianism..

[Mailech]

psholtz wrote: Sure, and lots of time lightning (i.e., fire) comes thundering down from those anan-s up in the sky, doesn't it? :-D

Do you have a reference for that verse?

Actually most clouds are benign and don't have lightening coming out of them.

I think this is one of them: Exodus 40:38.

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: It is the religion of the Parsi's and is related to Hinduism.
You raise good points and I'll address them in due time..

In the meantime, meditate for a moment on just how similar the words "Parsi" and "Pharisee" are, and consider for a moment what that might mean about any common ancestry between the two groups.. Consider also that the Parsis are widely regarded as the "Jews of India".. :wink:

:rotf:

Did you know that Paul sounds like Gaul? Are you a Gaul, Paul?

Pharisee is an English pronunciation. I trust you can google for an explanation of where the Hebrew term comes from.

[psholtz]

Duchifas wrote: psholtz wrote: cap'n queasy wrote: It is the religion of the Parsi's and is related to Hinduism.
You raise good points and I'll address them in due time..

In the meantime, meditate for a moment on just how similar the words "Parsi" and "Pharisee" are, and consider for a moment what that might mean about any common ancestry between the two groups.. Consider also that the Parsis are widely regarded as the "Jews of India".. :wink:

:rotf:

Did you know that Paul sounds like Gaul? Are you a Gaul, Paul?
My understanding of the Gauls is that they were one of many Celtic tribes, and yes in fact I do have some Celtic blood in my veins.. :-D

Quote: Pharisee is an English pronunciation. I trust you can google for an explanation of where the Hebrew term comes from.
You mean the same way the English colonized India and came up w/ the English term "Parsi" to describe the Zoroastrians who were living there?

[Duchifas]

psholtz wrote: Mailech wrote: psholtz wrote: Sure, but there are all kinds of references to "god-as-fire" in the Old Testament, which is the essence of Zoroastrianism.. In fact, the Hebrew God never manifests himself in any manner *other* than fire (burning bush, burning pillar of smoke, etc).

No because in the dessert on the Mishkan, G-d is manifest as a cloud, the Hebrew word used is Anan, not Ashan which meaning smoke. So the manifestation is not just fire.
Sure, and lots of time lightning (i.e., fire) comes thundering down from those anan-s up in the sky, doesn't it? :-D

Do you have a reference for that verse?

Quote: Also, I am not that informed about Zoroastrianism, but G-d in Exodus demonstates before the Egyptians, that He is the G-d of land, water and sky, and G-d that controls all living beings, from the beasts to things as small as lice even bacteria and viruses. I don't know if Zoroastrians believe the same thing?
Like I said, I think Judaism is a blend of several different traditions, one of which is Zoroastrianism. That doesn't necessarily mean there's a one-to-one correspondence w/ every last aspect of Zoroastrianism. Even the Parsis of India probably don't line up one-for-one w/ *everything* about Zoroastrianism..

I don't quite get something. Your logic seems to go like this: because the two beliefs contain similar elements, one must have adopted (blended) those beliefs from the other.

Both English and Hebrew have nouns. Did English, therefore, adopt the concept of nouns from Hebrew?

Don't forget, that before Abraham, Isaac and Jacob came around, there was a common religion that recognized G-d. It was the original religion going back all the way to Adam, Shem, etc. So instead of claiming that Judaism adopted something from Zoroastrianism, it is just as plausible that both adopted certain elements from the original religion.

You are using the same approach is evolutionists use. The two things look similar, so one must have evolved from the other. Great. Lexus looks like a Camry. The Camry, therefore, begat Lexus.