Egyptian Moses II

The latest response by my sister was pretty awesome, so I decided to make a new post on the same discussion.


Thanks for the thoughts,
As I mentioned, I will look into some of the sources that you mentioned Travis. I like the learning. For you I would recommend a book called “On the reliability of the Old Testament” by Kenneth Kitchen if you are loo...king for reading (The Times of London has called Kitchen the “very architect of Egyptian chronology”) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Kitchen. I do not have time currently to address all of your statements but my main thought to you would be that a similarity of beliefs in other places does not mean that those beliefs in any way influenced the Bible. Is it possible, yes. Is it possible not, yes as well. It seems to me that you are assuming that if there is a similarity of beliefs (obscure or otherwise) then the beliefs must be related. Do you apply this standard to everything?

I see your point about the “Eight witnesses” and concede that you must be discerning about “witnesses” (I of course reject Mormon doctrine). My point in making the witness statement was simply to make the obvious distinction (at least in my mind) from ancient pagan mythology and the founding and growth of Christianity. The accounts are much different.

K C, I have done a little more than just listening to “what my church has told me”. I have a history degree from UW and am a year away from completing my second Master’s degree. I have done extensive studies of both church and ancient history. I have seen and studied the Dead Sea scrolls (even read them in the Hebrew). So, from what I know after hearing statements like “Eusebius basically got to choose which ones were included” it makes me believe that it is you that have not read (I’m sure you have but then why make a statement like that). Certainly he played a major role, there is no doubt about it. But there were certain guidelines which the church leaders used to determine what they believed to be Scripture and what was obviously not. The church was already established by this time, now they were just organizing (not creating) what is called the canon of Scripture. A task much easier once they did not fear for their lives. There is much to say on this but for time sake (both yours and mine) I recommend “The Story of Christian Doctrine” by Roger Olson as a good general resource.

You say that I am not looking at evidence, I say you are doing the same thing but from your point of view. You are taking accounts and saying they discredit other accounts, I am doing the same. i.e. you say there is no historical data that supports Herod killing children or of a census, I say of course there is – the Bible. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. You are starting from the presupposition that the bible is not true, I am starting from the opposite position. You also come across as if you believe that all ancient evidence refutes or contradicts the Bible, do you believe this?

I see no altered contradictions within the gospel accounts, any “so called” ones you have (or the ones you’ve heard about in a class once or magazine but not read for yourself) are easily answered. I have done much study in this. None of these questions are new; Biblical scholarship has been around for quite a while and has dealt with them all. I do not mind discussing them with you civilly, feel free to send me a friend request and if you would like to discuss these issues I’m open to it. I have studied, but I of course do not presume to know everything and still have much to learn. I appreciate threads like this because they do challenge me to read and learn new things.

All of this aside, consider a moral question which cannot be answered by ancient evidence. Surmise with me, IF the God of the Bible exists and judges you at the end of your life, would you be good enough to go to heaven?

K C: J B, I am glad to hear you have researched quite a bit into the historicity of the bible and the church. However, and I can agree with you on this, we are both likely biased because of our beliefs--you start from a point of faith and fin...d and logicize things supporting the truth of the bible, and I like to read about things that show a lack of support of the truth of the bible. However, I was on the other side for many, many years. I was a very strong Christian. It is partially, probably in large part really, thanks to the Christian university I attended that I became non-Christian. Analyzing the original text of the bible in classes opened my eyes up to doing more of my own research on all things Christian and made me face facts that I for some reason at that point in my life could no longer logicize away. This is just something where we will never convince each other of our side, but I do appreciate the discussion as well. I assure you I have read numerous books supporting the historicity of the bible and Jesus, but when I allowed myself to read books from the opposing side, the arguments were just so much more convincing to me. They refuted each and every point the Christian books had made. I had quite a crisis of faith, but I was (I think luckily) able to overcome it and come out on the other side a better person. Just my personal journey.

As far as would I be good enough to go to heaven, that just opens up a huge can of philosophy worms. I'll put aside the fact that I don't believe in heaven. But there is always the argument that how could a loving god send people to hell. And knowingly send people to hell. It is illogical. God is omniscient, so even though we have "free will", god knows what our decision will be. If god knows I am going to hell in the end, for one thing, why bother with "being good"? Yet I do bother with it. For another, I'm guessing you believe, since I am a non-believer that I would think heaven requires "being good enough" of a person. Yet, I know this is not the case. The bible says one has to accept Jesus as savior. And requirement #2 MAY be baptism (not a belief of everyone, but it DOES say that). And that's how we show we are "good enough" to get into heaven? I could have lived a life like Jeffery Dahmer, but if, in the end, I truly believed in god, I would get in to heaven merely because of a belief? Yet one of the people he murdered may have been a non-believer who was condemned to hell, but, if his life had not been taken prematurely, might have changed his mind and one day believed in god. This is how a supposedly loving god judges people, on whether they accept his narcissitic need to be believed in? Doesn't that seem kind of juvenile? Especially when combined with the "jealousy" god shows and even admits to in the Old Testament, and the genocide he requires the Israelites to perform. Jealousy and ordering murder isn't exactly loving. Regardless of all this, even if I somehow started believing again, I would possibly be screwed anyway, as mentioned in Hebrews 6: 4-6. So what would be the point of believing again anyway? Apparently, that is the one unforgiveable sin, unforgiveable type of person that a loving god cannot redeem. Shouldn't an all-loving being have UNCONDITIONAL love?

Me: So let me get this right. In one paragraph you're accusing me of assuming nonexistent correlations between religions, which, for many religions many scholars can see, and have written documentation, of the transition from one deity to the n...ext. However, in the very next paragraph you're telling me that, in fact, certain eye witnesses accounts are actually much different than others, depending upon what you believe. And you never really even say how these vary. I think you're assuming just as much as I am.

As for the Council of Nicea and their choices of which books make the cut for the Bible and which don't, why wasn't Bel the Dragon considered? I mean it has our protagonist of the Lions' Den fame, and it has a deity that stands to be disproved. This sounds like a great story! I bet it was just dismissed because of the living nature of the deity. It wasn't an idol. It was likely just a large lizard captured somewhere down south or out east and brought back to Cyrus' court. This animal was deified as Bel (Lord) the Dragon, which was later said to be correlated with Marduk, another interesting deity, as he was known as the "solar calf"... But not to tangent to another deity story, my guess (yes, again I'm assuming) is that this story was eliminated just because it even suggested the existence of a "real-life" pagan deity, even as false of one as it could be. And this kind of judgment as to what should or should not be included in the Bible is just silly.

And don't even get me started on the New Testament Apocrypha...

"You also come across as if you believe that all ancient evidence refutes or contradicts the Bible, do you believe this?"

No. I think there is plenty of fictional history depicted in the Bible. Places and people mentioned (maybe not all, but some, or in one form or another -- there may be temporal skewing) were likely real people from past events. What I do suggest is that viewpoints may have been changed to fit a certain perspective, one that shines a good or better light on the story trying to be told. For instance, the previously explained Moses coming from down the mountain scenario, or the attempt to further vilify Herod, when in fact, the act of killing "Innocents" wasn't likely a one-time deal, but a tradition. But by making a story in which Herod is scared of losing his through based on prophesies made in the Bible, there is more of a story to tell, when in fact, Herod had nothing to do with the call for the slaughter. Or if he was, it wasn't a great surprise or novel idea for anyone of the time.

All I'm saying is that it might pay to cross-reference the Bible with other sources that depict the traditions and stories of the people of the same time period. All of your suggested readings are, not surprisingly, Biblically related. But why would you want a different perspective on something when you "know" that all you have to do is turn to others who have committed their lives to furthering this mindset?

"Surmise with me, IF the God of the Bible exists and judges you at the end of your life, would you be good enough to go to heaven?"

I may live by my own moral standards -- which are also suggestively formed by local and federal law, but I don't think they would be much different than what the God of Moses suggested (although I'm not much for an eye for an eye and all of the other antiquated rules on how to live. I suggest to you A.J. Jacobs' "A Year of Living Biblically" http://www.ajjacobs.com/books/yolb.asp).

As for going to heaven, well, if I don't believe in it, why would I want to go? Sure it would be nice, but really, there is exactly a 50/50 chance that it doesn't exist at all. Let me ask you this, though I'm sure I already know the answer. Would you be happy with your life if you knew that you dedicated it nearly in its entirety upon an ideology that was invented to simply mark celestial cycles and to form a cohesive congregation of people to further someone else's position of power?

That sounds like you're being told what to think and not thinking for yourself. You can believe that God exists, I'm perfectly cool with that. But all I'm saying is that in order to fully understand it, you need to question it and think outside of what is thought to be common knowledge on the subject. Be a cynic rather than a blind follower. I know this goes against Biblical teaching (for some odd reason), but if you really want to understand the Bible, I think it's the best way to do it. Even though you "know" it's "true", presume it to be false and you'll discover a lot more answers.

Egyptian Moses I

I have had another encounter of the religious kind on the facebook. But because these interactions tend to get lost in the ether, for my sake I've chosen to post this here. Just so it's known I respect the person who I was speaking with, but I've whittled their name and others down to initials. Here goes:

Initial Post:

Wait. Three Creation stories in the Bible and one of them counters another???

The Generations of the Heavens and of the Earth: Egyptian Deities in the Garden of Eden
Presented at the annual meeting of the American Research Center in Egypt, St. Louis 1996.

‎"[In] Genesis 2:4-5, we are told that when dry land was formed, no plant life existed because no man existed to till the ground. The next Genesis verses in sequence tell us: a mist rose up to water the dry land, God created 'the Adam' out of the dust, (note that the bible says 'the Adam', not 'Adam'), then he planted a Garden and put 'the Adam' in it. Observe here 1) Adam appears before the plant life on Day Three and 2) that woman has not yet appeared. This is contrary to the sequence in the seven days of Creation, which places man and woman on the sixth day. Eve, or 'the woman', which is how she is described until after the expulsion from the Garden of Eden, appears later in the sequence, after plants and after other animal life."

Genesis 2:4-9.

Comments:

K G: Yeah, we discovered this in my Contemporary Issues in Anthropology class at CU. Craziness, right?

P S: My current favorite retarded bible nonsense is Ezekiel 23.

Me: Yup. And the talking serpent was likely Apep, who morphed into Set/Seth when the two Kingdoms combined. He became the Prince of Darkness.

http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/apep.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apep

http://www.aldokkan.com/religion/seth.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Set_%28mythology%29

Me: ‎23:20? Yeah. I'm glad that's finally getting some face time.

J B: Don't be silly, these are old questions with easy answers. Send me a message if you want to discuss. I hope you are well!

Me: Not sure why it can't be discussed here, but I'm game.

M Y: This should be interesting...

L M: I knew there were 2 creation stories in the Bible but I didn't know about the third one.

J B: I don't mind discussing it here, I just didn't want everyone on the thread to receive notice after every post - as a courtesy.

The accounts are not “different” accounts; they are just a retelling of the same account with more detail.

Chapter 1 gives a summary of what God created each day.
Chapter 2 simply goes back and provides more details. This is a common Near Eastern writing technique which is also used in our society as well (i.e. newspaper articles often give the all the main points at the beginning and then fill in the details following). Practically speaking there is no reason to doubt this since a contradiction this close together would be too obvious for a genuine author or too stupid a mistake for someone simply making it up or faking it.

I don’t understand your question about “the Adam”, the Hebrew word for “man” is “Adam” so the text literally reads “God formed the man …”

Concerning your question about Egyptian mythology influencing the Bible, I’m afraid that view has it backwards. Since the beginning, the creation account was often passed down orally (another common Near-Eastern method). Therefore it should come as no surprise that after time the truth became distorted among various people. This is why we see certain aspects of the true account twisted into various pagan mythologies (i.e. the snake in Egypt, Babylon has the same seven day creation order, various flood accounts from many cultures etc). We see this in our society as well; true stories that over time become distorted and or embellished.

J M: You need to take a look at the Feb 14 2011 issue of Newsweek ... "Sex and the Bible" ... don't look if you are Southern Baptist ... unless your preacher holds your hand. The preacher man responding to the two books says ... paraphrased ... churchgoers are not really able to understand the Bible ... they need to have the preacher tell them what it is all about.

Me: L M, there are two obvious creation stories in Genesis, but the third that the author argues about is Noah's story. He says it is also a creation story, as it mimics one known from Thebes. And as most people know, this is also a close correlate to the Sumerian story, The Epic of Gilgamesh.

L M: Yeah it was the two in Genesis I knew about. I did know about the similarities with The Epic of Gilgamesh I guess just never thought about it much dealing with creation. Course it's been years since I read that part.

Me: J B, I remember learning that in my college Doctrine class -- Adam = Mankind. I think what the author was insinuating was that it was a generic reference, rather than to the man, Adam, himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam#Individual/humanity_and_etymology

Well, Moses was a product of the Egyptian culture, as was any Jewish person after Joseph, so things may have passed one way or another down the religious turnpike. On that, we can agree to disagree.

And yes, oral tradition is and was a great mechanism for preserving culture, but anything written in the Bible came from the time of Moses or beyond. But the issue is that things like the Epic of Gilgamesh coming 1000 to 1500 years before Moses is a little suspect. I suppose you could argue that the story was with the people verbally before that time, but there's no proof for either of us to actually say. You can hold your beliefs that that's just the way it is, but I'm a Doubting Thomas. Sorry, I need proof.

Oh and as for your first point, if it was a recap, then it was written or translated poorly, having Adam created before plants.

Me: J M, have you ever seen the two items that the pharaoh holds? It's a crook and flail. The crook is the symbol of the shepherd, the pastor, leading his "flock". Sounds familiar. The flail was a symbol of a tool using for threshing grains, symbolizing his ability to feed his people.

I'm sure his ideology was also imposed in anyway deemed necessary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crook_and_flail#Flail_and_crook

Me: L M, they're all three in Genesis, just the first two are really early (1&2 vs 6-8).

Here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epic_of_Gilgamesh#Parallels_to_Noah_and_the_Flood

"What is particularly noticeable, according to another scholar, is the... way the Genesis flood story follows the Gilgamesh flood tale "point by point and in the same order", even when the logic of the story permits other alternatives."

L M: Oh sorry I just said in Genesis didn't I? I meant the two that are at the very beginning.

Me: But I guess my overarching point would just be that the Jewish people, especially during the time of Joseph to Moses were not living in a Jewish bubble. They had to interact with the general Egyptian public and be subjugated to all of their beliefs. So if you really want to know what it was like living back then, it might behoove people to reach for sources outside of the Bible. Those who are ardent believers in the Bible may not believe what the Egyptians believed to be "true" but that doesn't mean that the Jewish people weren't affected by it. It's a bit like Asian religions. Feng shui and being zen may not have the religious connotations that they do across the Pacific, but they have still permeated our English vernacular.

So really, what I'm saying is that if you don't look outside of the Bible or Biblical texts you'll never find curious things like how the first person created, according to the Egyptians, was Atum. And Atum had three children with the first woman created and they had three sons, one of which was killed by another and one who was named Seth -- the other two being Osiris and Horus. The only difference here is that the Egyptian see these players as deities when the Bible sees them as people -- who happen to live really, really long lives.

The Egyptians, during the time of Akhenaten, who's reign (1353 BC-1336 BC or 1351 BC–1334 BC) oddly correlates with the lifetime of Moses (1391–1271 BC) also had a monotheistic belief system. And in this belief in a single deity, Aten/Atun/Atum/Amen (depending upon who you talk to), there happened to also be a supported trinity. The aforementioned god was the deity, but there was also the younger, Ra, who is a well-known Egyptian deity, but was the younger and associated with the sun rise, the resurrection of a new day. The third deity was Ptah, which is seen as the "breath of life" and seems to have a similar role as God in the creation stories.

So really, it seems odd for a monotheistic religion to have had a short-lived stint in Egypt, only going back to the polytheistic beliefs once Akhenaten was removed. And this is why I get intrigued. There's more than meets the eye and there's really more questions than the Bible can answer. But in this instance when it's always going to come down to a disagreement between how far back each oral tradition goes, well, then we're just going to have to leave it at that. But just know that the Pyramid Texts go back to 2400-2300 BC, about a thousand years before Moses.

J B: Travis,
Thanks for your response. I see what you are saying, and I certainly agree that reading extra-biblical texts is valuable, I have done much such reading. I also certainly do not argue that the Jews were not influenced by the Egyptians in anyway. In fact the Bible clearly teaches they were in Exodus 32:4 when the Jews made a golden calf and erroneously worshiped it as the God who brought them out of Egypt. However, this does not mean that the writings of Moses were based upon or influenced by them. In fact, there is no evidence of this. To me your mentioning of the Egyptian beliefs simply affirm my prior statement about the corruption of oral tradition from truth to mythology. I know we disagree about this and thats fine. I do find it interesting that ancient religious views from all over the world (places like Babylon, China, South America, totally unrelated to Israel) believe in common aspects of things like creation, the flood, mixing of languages (tower of Babel) etc. It would seem that these beliefs although altered come from a single true account. I believe the Bible records this true account chiefly because it was given to man (inspired) directly by God. Again, I know we may disagree on this and thats fine.

Sociology teaches that the simpler account is usually the earlier and or more accurate. This truth is applied to ancient texts (of any type) and historical accounts with authority all of the time. So, actual men who lived to a really old age after time and embellishment suddenly become gods etc. So, older texts are not necessarily more accurate or the source of other peoples beliefs.

By the time the Jews (through Joseph) moved to Egypt they already had a religious identity through Abraham. In fact before he died Joseph told his people that God would visit them and bring them out of Egypt, he made them promise to carry his bones with them (Genesis 50:25). So the concept of Monotheism (and belief in Yahweh) was already firmly established well before Moses came. Again, it is clear as noted that some of the Jews were influenced by Egyptian beliefs (and were condemned for it) but it is also clear that their monotheism did not originate with Moses. On a side note, the Jews are still well known today for holding strong to their religious beliefs despite living in foreign lands and being surrounded by other religions. Unfortunately I believe many of them have rejected their promised Messiah, but it goes to show that they as a people group can live in a foreign land and not be influenced by foreign religion.

I will do some reading up on the Egyptian beliefs and consider the things that you mentioned. I was a history major and find it all fascinating as well - I've been to Egypt, seen their wonderful museums and loved every minute of it. The British museum is awesome as well.

K C: Or maybe the "prophecies" that came true in the bible were actually written after the fact to "prove" that they were true. That would be the simpler explanation. And very likely when actually looking at the dates when things were written. This is fairly easy to see in "prophetic" books like Isaiah.

As for what Travis is saying about Egypt and the Old Testament, there is also such a strong case for it in the New Testament concerning Jesus.

The cultures surrounding Judea and Palastine had all kinds of Jesus-like mythos that preceded the Jesus story. The dying god-man story was very popular in the centuries before and leading up to the time when the Jesus story was written. It just took Constantine wanting a unified version of it so he could solidify his reign and control of the people for it to take off and develop into Christianity today.

J B: Concerning your thoughts about prophecy, the evidence says the opposite. The Old Testament prophecies concerning the coming Messiah (especially in Isaiah) were clearly written before Christ’s time. The Dead Sea scrolls confirm this. There is no evidence that suggests the prophecies that were given and fulfilled in the OT were written after the fact as well, this is merely conjectured due to lack of belief.

Concerning the development of Christianity, the church was already well established hundreds of years before the time of Constantine (the New Testament was completed by the end of the first century). Secular Roman history is clear about putting to death thousands of Christians because of their belief. Although there may have been prior stories of a “god-man” dying none had the message that the god-man would willingly die a humiliating and dishonorable death for the sins of others and then rise again from the dead. Death on a cross at the hands of gentiles was a repulsive thought to the Jews (1 Corinthians 2:23) and the message that He rose from the dead was foolishness to both the Greeks (Acts 17:32) and Romans (Acts 26:24). The message was not based on romantic mythology or made up just to get a following. That would be silly; the gospel message is naturally offensive to everyone. Despite being offensive, the question is “is it true?’ It does come down to faith certainly (no matter what side you are on), and that’s a choice everyone must make for themselves.

K C: The evidence actually doesn't say opposite in a lot of those prophecies.

What I was referring to in Isaiah, actually, were not the prophecies of Jesus, but the prophecies about, for one example, the coming of King Cyrus, which WAS written after his arrival and leads readers to believe it was prophecy fulfilled.

Also the Jesus story was altered later to "prove" the prophecies as true. For example, his "birth" in Bethlehem, as Isaiah would suggest, yet he is often referred to as "Jesus of Nazareth", for just one example. The stories in the gospels vary in details quite a bit.

I am well aware of church history. I wouldn't say "the church" was well established in the first century as you claim. There were dozens if not more different factions with different books and teachings, Essences and Gnostics, for two examples. Sure these writings were all there in the first century, however, there was no cohesive "church" or "christianity" for that matter until after Constantine and the Council of Nicea. Those "gospel" writings in the New Testament now were simply the winners of this process. The Dead Sea Scrolls among other archaeological findings supports this idea.

Also, the stories of god-men actually did include risings from the dead. And "saving" people. It's really fascinating stuff if you really look into it.

Maybe the fact that Jews found death on the cross repulsive is one reason they didn't accept Christ as their savior (among other reasons, such as there were many "saviors" during that time, even others named "Christ"!

Using the bible to support your arguments is circular reasoning and therefore not convincing. It is a biased document. Other sources are required to confirm the things it says, and those other sources from historians at the time do not confirm the biblical descriptions of the events.

Also, your quotes from Acts that Jesus rising from the dead is foolishness to the Greeks and Romans is untrue. It was a popular belief in that time, and there were many different ones to choose from: Asclepius, Orpheus, Mithras, Osiris, Tammuz, Zalmoxis, Dionysus, Odin, Ishtar, Persephone to name some.

J B: Again, there is no evidence that the prophecies about Cyrus were written after, I reject this. Certainly there is scholarly debate over this with many reputable scholars on both sides. I hold to the early date of Isaiah, so do many others. Also, there is no evidence that the story of Jesus was altered in anyway, in fact the thousands of ancient manuscripts from regions all over the ancient world prove otherwise. Your question about Jesus being from “Nazareth” but being born in “Bethlehem” is easily cleared up of you read the bible. Joseph and Mary were from Nazareth but had to travel to Bethlehem because of the Roman census, which is when Jesus was born. Some time after Jesus was born they moved back to Nazareth which is where Jesus grew up. There is no contradiction here, why is this difficult to understand?

There is zero real evidence that they the story of Jesus was altered. I also disagree with your statement that the church was not established until Constantine. I agree there were groups such as the Gnostics but they were in the minority and the writings of the apostle Paul and apostle John attack and condemn their beliefs – Scripture makes it clear that they are unorthodox.

Using the bible is not circular reasoning; it is a valid ancient document which records historical events. You cannot say that it is biased but the other ancient texts are not. What evidence is there for this? Are you saying that all ancient historical accounts contract the accounts of the bible? This is certainly not true.

I will do some more reading about some of the pagan “gods” that you mentioned. I appreciate learning. A big question I would have for them is “who witnessed their life and resurrection?” where are the people that will attest to literally seeing them in life, seeing them die and then seeing them alive again? Where are the accounts? Where is the evidence? Jesus appeared openly and to many after His resurrection and many people were willingly killed because they believed it. I know the same is not true with the other “gods”. As far as other “Christ’s” are concerned, sure there where others. Christ simply means “Messiah” and there were many that claimed to be “the Christ”. But only Jesus fulfilled all that was prophesied about the Messiah, only Jesus performed miracles to substantiate that He was God and only Jesus literally rose from the dead. There is no one else. Again, your presuppositions and my presuppositions will determine how evidence is viewed, but one thing is certain, they cannot both be right.

Me: Thanks for the response. The golden calf example is an intriguing one. It is thought by scholars to be the bull, Ihy, who, by Egyptian beliefs was the divine son of Hathor, who was also a bull and usually represented with a solar disk between her horns. It seems that solar deities were always the most high ranking in the pantheon of gods not only in Egypt, but around the world. Anyway, Ihy represented youth and took the role of the protector. So in our storyline here, what seems to have happened was that Moses did not return back from the mountain on the day that he had said, or somewhere along the way communication got misconstrued. But when Moses didn't come back, the people had turned to celebrating how they had in the past. And it just so happened that the 17th of Tammuz was this day of this mid-summer celebration -- the first summer harvest. This also happened to be the Egyptian New Year, which was known to have been in of Hathor and Ihy. So it wasn't just that the people got anxious in his absence, it would just be like if someone told you you couldn't celebrate how you usually did on sacred days, or even (today) secular ones, like New Years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egyptian_calendar#Ptolemaic_and_Roman
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tammuz_%28Hebrew_month%29
http://library.thinkquest.org/08aug/00507/English/CELEBRATIONS.htm

Today, however, Jewish tradition sees the 17th of Tammuz as a day for fasting, remembering not only Moses' valiant return with the 10 commandments, but also in remembrance of the day when Jerusalem's walls came down.

What strikes me odd, however, is that this month is called Tammuz. Tammuz, in Hebrew, and Dumuzid, in Sumerian, means "faithful or true son", just as Ihy was the forever youthful son of Hathor. Tammuz is known to the Sumerians as the SHEPHERD-god and is often coupled with Innana, who in Assyrian is Ishtar, and in Greek is Astarte. Many people have thought that this is where the word Easter comes from, as the Old High German is Ôstarâ.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%92ostre
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Is_Astarte_and_Easter_the_same

The reason both are mentioned, is because Inanna, in pursuit of helping her recently-passed brother-in-law, went to plead with the goddess of the underworld, Ereshkigal, to release him. Instead Inanna gets trapped in the underworld and all Tammuz can do to save her is to make a deal with Ereshkigal to keep him in the underworld for six months, allowing Inanna to return to the surface. In doing so, in every six months they would switch. This just so happens to coincide with the summer solstice, and at this time Tammuz is met with a six-day funeral. This tradition was even witnessed in the book of Ezekiel. "Then he brought me to the door of the gate of the Lord's house which was toward the north; and, behold, there sat women weeping for Tammuz. Then said he unto to me, 'Hast thou seen this, O son of man? turn thee yet again, and thou shalt see greater abominations than these." —Ezekiel 8:14-15

The point in saying all this is to show that these traditions are based on the solar cycle. The solstice comes and coincidentally everyone has a reason to celebrate because of their religion.

But what's more interesting is Tammuz' Phoenician counterpart. As with most religions, aside from Christianity, people can easily deem one deity from one culture to represent one known in another culture's religion. So Adonis was a lady's man and is often tied to Venus, or Aphrodite, who is in turn seen to also represent the aforementioned Astarte. Adonis, however, met his fate at the end of a boar's tusk -- not so honorable nor altruistic as Tammuz, but he too gets remembered with lamentations that lasts two days in a festival called Adonia, as after the second day Adonis was said to be resurrected so he could be reunited with Aphordite. He actually receives two festivals, one six months after the other. It does sound rather like our friend, Tammuz.

So, religion, is it just to keep track of celestial events and to give really good excuses to party? Of course not. There's another side to it. Take for instance, our Greco-Egyptian friend, Serapis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serapis

This was a deity who is today known to be a fabrication by the Ptolemic Kings and had a temple built in his honor in Alexandria. Why would someone do this? Well, there was a bit of strife between the two factions of Egypt. Upper Egypt enjoyed the gratefulness of Amun, but Lower Egypt had long felt the impact of Greek invaders. Between the two a combination of Osiris, the god of the afterlife, and Apis, the bull with the solar disc were combined to make Osiris Apis, or Serapis. He was known as "the renewal of the life", which was once Ptah's name (previously mentioned in past comments as the "breather of life"), but his prominence among this trinity faded.

So I can understand why the Ptolemic Kings wanted to unite a giant empire, but I think it's odd about how they went about doing it -- using religion? Is that all religion is? A means to manage agriculture meanwhile unifying the culture iteself....? I mean, does anyone else find it odd that people are generally in agreement that Jesus' birth was no where near the date we celebrate it, which just happens to be days away from the winter solstice??? And Easter happens to fall in spring when everything is seeing signs of rebirth.... There's too much that's too coincidental to just ignore.

But in response to other things you said, let me ask you this. If there are universal "truths" based on oral traditions that seem to be found around the world, what makes you so sure that it is the Bible that is the "most true"? You just happened to be born in the country that celebrates the "true" religion of all mankind? That was rather lucky.

And you also mentioned this: "Sociology teaches that the simpler account is usually the earlier and or more accurate."

See, now to me, I don't know if I buy this. For one, how do you decide on "accurate", and secondly, aside from this monotheistic belief system which somehow also involves both a trinity and an everlasting antagonist, this is of course going to be more simplistic than the stories of a pantheon of deities. This is especially true when there are places where very different cultures are found in very small spaces, such as Mesopotamia.

Furthermore, I'm very unsure of this statement's validity. If I learned anything in history, or in my readings on the collapses of empires, there's never just a single, simple answer, there's always a dynamic that brings about the ultimate unfolding of history. If one account tells a story about how an entire city wall fell to the ground by marching and horn blowing, I'd be disinclined to believe it. Answers aren't always simple. Simple answers usually contain lots of holes.

Me: And as for Kelly's comment regarding prophecy, it may have been regarding this statement:

"By the time the Jews (through Joseph) moved to Egypt they already had a religious identity through Abraham. In fact before he died Joseph told his people that God would visit them and bring them out of Egypt, he made them promise to carry his bones with them (Genesis 50:25). "

You forget that Moses wrote Genesis. This seems an awful lot like an example of post-determined prophecy. "Moses said that Joseph said..."

Me: Oh and I forgot to mention in my Tammuz story that the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem is ironically said to be built over a cave that was originally a shrine meant to honor Tammuz. I may have also not explicitly mentioned his resurrection.

Me: "A big question I would have for them is 'who witnessed their life and resurrection?'"

This is of no concern to me. I don't care if they were real or not. My issues are correlates from the past that make the Biblical story seem a bit.... borrowed.

K C: It's clear to me that James is not open to examining the evidence from anywhere else besides the bible, has not really examined any other evidence about the Dead Sea Scrolls except what he has been told by his church, and has not studied church history from any other perspective except through the Bible either! There are plenty of writings from other scholars during this time, even "Christian" scholars which contradict your statements.

It is not clear that the Gnostics were in the minority. The writings that are placed in the Bible were determined AT THE COUNCIL OF NICEA which CONSTANTINE ORDERED to occur and leaders who chose not to conform to the "consensus" were tortured or then excommunicated. There were tons of writings floating around that were popular, but Eusebius basically got to choose which ones were included in the bible, so POPULAR ones like the Gospel of Mary Magdalene were not included because they did not conform to what he wanted in the bible.

There are alterations in the story of Jesus within the four gospels! I don't know how you could say there is zero evidence with this fact staring right at everyone in the face. They were written at different times with additions to later gospels. Mark was obviously the first between it, Matthew, and Luke.

There is no historical corroboration that King Herod ordered all babies to be killed or that a census was done at the time near Jesus' birth requiring people to travel to their birthplace.

I never stated other ancient texts are not biased. All historical texts are biased because they are written by people. Just like the bible. That's why you need multiple perspectives to corroborate outrageous claims.

If you want to learn about the religions of the ancient Mediterranean there were lots of religious groups, such as ones I mentioned, called "Mysteries". The dying and rising were metaphorical. Dying and rising again to one's earthly desires for example. Some believe that the story of Jesus was another one of these "mysteries". Then, decades after his supposed death, this story began to be taken literally.

There is absolutely no concurrent historical evidence that that Jesus figure performed miracles different than any other magician of the time, as well as no other evidence that he literally rose from the dead. He merely "rose from the dead" figuratively, like the the "mystery religions" of the time. A really fascinating book I enjoyed discussing this is called "The Jesus Mysteries".

And Travis! Are you really going to spell your own sister's name wrong!!??!!

Me: HA! Sorry, K. I'm not used to writing it.

Oh, but J, as for eye witnesses, are you going to say that any eye witness account deserves authenticity? For instance, the Eight Witnesses.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight_Witnesses

These people were all said to have seen the golden tablets that held the Book of the Mormon that Joseph Smith translated before they were taken back to heaven by the angel Moroni. If any eye witness account is credible, then I sure would like to add this to the list.

Me: And as for the ordering of the death of babies, the Massacre of the Innocents seems to be a throw-back to a time when children were offered as sacrifice. This was at one time particularly to the Semetic deity, Moloch, known as "the king", and who is even mentioned in the Bible in Leviticus 18:21.

"Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech, for you must not profane the name of your God. I am the LORD."

An illustration of his set-up is actually quite crazy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch

A stone inscription has been found that connects Moloch to the Moabite god Chemosh.
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/cgodsandgoddesses/a/chemosh.htm

Chemosh is said to be associated with Astarte (previously mentioned) and a temple was built in his honor by Solomon himself: "On a hill east of Jerusalem, Solomon built a high place for Chemosh the detestable god of Moab, and for Molech the detestable god of the Ammonites." -- I Kings 11:7

Human sacrifice, and particularly child sacrifice, continued later with the Romans who celebrated Saturn's rebirth with his regaining of power at the winter solstice, as the sun (Saturn's iconography) gained more light with the coming days. This tradition was known as Saturnalia, was a festival that lasted in a week-long celebration where social roles were reversed. Slaves lounged and were served by their masters.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moloch#Classical_Greek_and_Roman_accounts

My guess is that it wasn't so much Herod who personally ordered the killing of these children, but just that it was a general practice during Roman times that has since ceased and most knowledge of it has been swept under the rug for obvious reasons.