Why information about Biblical occurancies were written in records that predate the Bible

[Sunday21]

I was trying to explain to a nonmormon that knowledge of Biblical ceremonies and Biblical occurrences in records that predate the Biblical record do not disprove the Bible. I am not sure that I have our position straight. What do you think? 

Nonmormon: There are legends of Christlike figures from ancient legends and mythologies that predate the birth of Christ. Eg Osiris. Therefore the story of Christ is probably copied from these older legends.

Me: Since Adam, there have been various leaders who have been taught by God about the religious events that are going to occur such as the birth of Christ. As people in each dispensation fell away from the truth, the lessons that they had been taught became corrupted and turned into legends and stories that contained some elements of the truth. 

Adam taught by God. I assume about future Biblical events. • God instructed Adam and Eve (see Gen. 3:16–17).https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/what-modern-revelation-teaches-about-adam?lang=eng

So close enough? I gather that a major plank in the platform of aethists is that the story of Christ is built from old legends that predate the Bible.

[person0]

You are correct.  In my belief, the legends are built from the philosophies of men mingled with the true doctrine of Christ.  As you said, Adam knew of Christ; obviously he would not have based that on something else.

Regardless of the fact that this is true, it's not likely to be a compelling argument to an atheist, except for the fact that they will probably switch to a different complaint/argument if they intend to continue the topic of discussion.

[Just_A_Guy]

Is that like saying the Roman Empire never existed, and that ancient writers must have gotten the idea from tales of ancient Egypt and Assyria and Babylon?  

The fact that one ancient historical event has even older literary or historical precursors, does not disprove the event itself.

When we get into the *really* old scriptural tales that seem to have extra-scriptural ancient parallels—like the creation narrative or the flood narrative or the story of Job—I’m more open to the possibility that some of those scriptural passages may have been informed by, or responses to, or even attempts to improve upon older tales from the ancient near east; since I’m not sure a lot of those Biblical passages were intended to be “historical” as we understand that term today (anciently there was no problem with “history” containing a couple seeds of truth heavily dressed up with exaggeration and confabulation and outright propaganda to serve some larger morality tale).  

But when we get as late as the resurrection of Christ, it seems quite a stretch to suggest that Paul (who historians pretty universally agree to have been a real person) and several thousand other contemporaneous Jews only bought into the narrative of Christ’s resurrection because they were aware of the Egyptian pantheon.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Sunday21]

28 minutes ago, person0 said:

You are correct.  In my belief, the legends are built from the philosophies of men mingled with the true doctrine of Christ.  As you said, Adam knew of Christ; obviously he would not have based that on something else.

Regardless of the fact that this is true, it's not likely to be a compelling argument to an atheist, except for the fact that they will probably switch to a different complaint/argument if they intend to continue the topic of discussion.

True! My argument had no effect at all. Sigh.

[Sunday21]

13 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Is that like saying the Roman Empire never existed, and that ancient writers must have gotten the idea from tales of ancient Egypt and Assyria and Babylon?  

The fact that one ancient historical event has even older literary or historical precursors, does not disprove the event itself.

When we get into the *really* old scriptural tales that seem to have extra-scriptural ancient parallels—like the creation narrative or the flood narrative or the story of Job—I’m more open to the possibility that some of those scriptural passages may have been informed by, or responses to, or even attempts to improve upon older tales from the ancient near east.  But when we get as late as the resurrection of Christ, it seems quite a stretch to suggest that Paul (who historians pretty universally agree to have been a real person) and several thousand other contemporaneous Jews only bought into the narrative of Christ’s resurrection because they were aware of the Egyptian pantheon.

So contemporary historians mentioned Paul? I did not know this! Must google !

[Sunday21]

@Just_A_GuyI found some ancient contemporary references to Saul of Tarsus, but as they refer to Paul as ‘The Apostle of the Heathen’ ie Gentiles, I do not think that I will provide the link! 

Edited April 22, 2018 by Sunday21

[Just_A_Guy]

14 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

So contemporary historians mentioned Paul? I did not know this! Must google !

I’m not sure what the basis is for secular historians conceding Paul’s existence.  It may be the fact that we have so many manuscripts of his written works that date to within a couple of generations of his actual lifetime.

I guess the point I was trying to drive at is that it’s one thing to copy or invent tales to dress up the deeds of long-dead ancestors and forge a national or religious identity.  It’s quite another to live and die according to one of these tales that your own parents or would have been in a position to, to some degree, debunk.

There is no cost to a sixth-century BC Jew accepting the story of a progenitor who survived a two-thousand-year-old flood; especially when that story serves to write Judaism into a much older Babylonian tale.  

There is a HUGE cost for a first-century AD Roman to buy into the story of a guy who lived, died, and rose from the dead fewer than twenty years ago; and especially for a non-Jew since Christianity originated from what was basically the armpit of the Roman Empire.  

I suspect your academic friends would acknowledge that “cultural appropriation” always serves a sociological purpose.  But therein lies the rub—primitive Christianity served virtually no sociological purpose at all; it was a liability.  Converting to it, and thus embracing its origin story, was a sentence to poverty and slavery and death for the first few decades of its existence.

Edited April 22, 2018 by Just_A_Guy

[Sunday21]

@Just_A_Guy Good point! Just like Joseph Smith’s life could hardly be called an ego trip. You really had to believe to ‘go like a lamb to the slaughter’! 

[zil]

43 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

confabulation

Is it lawful to speak such things on the Sabbath day?

[Vort]

Xerxes crossed the Hellespont.

George Washington crossed the Delaware.

Clearly, George Washington never really existed, and his exploits are just refittings of classic tales of Xerxes.

[Vort]

37 minutes ago, Sunday21 said:

@Just_A_GuyI found some ancient contemporary references to Saul of Tarsus, but as they refer to Paul as ‘The Apostle of the Heathen’ ie Gentiles, I do not think that I will provide the link! 

The Bible itself mentions that Paul was called the apostle to the Gentiles. He initially preached to the Jews, but after being thoroughly rejected by them numerous times, he decided the goyim were a more fertile ground for his efforts.

[NightSG]

7 hours ago, Sunday21 said:

As people in each dispensation fell away from the truth, the lessons that they had been taught became corrupted and turned into legends and stories that contained some elements of the truth. 

And then there were certain religions which shall remain nameless, that apparently just discovered some really good drugs.

I mean, when most of their scripture makes Ezekiel sound sane by comparison...

[warnerfranklin]

Check out CS Lewis’ book Mere Christianity. He goes a great deal in explaining this. 

The cliff notes are God sent visions to men alluding to the coming of his Son. These show up in various myths found around the world, the difference being Christ isn’t a “god of nature” he is the God of all Creation.  

CS Lewis make the point (far better than I) that these myths reinforces the divinity of Christ instead of detracting from it. Sort of along the same lines that various flood myths reinforce the story on Noah.  

 

[Traveler]

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 1:22 PM, Sunday21 said:

I was trying to explain to a nonmormon that knowledge of Biblical ceremonies and Biblical occurrences in records that predate the Biblical record do not disprove the Bible. I am not sure that I have our position straight. What do you think? 

Nonmormon: There are legends of Christlike figures from ancient legends and mythologies that predate the birth of Christ. Eg Osiris. Therefore the story of Christ is probably copied from these older legends.

Me: Since Adam, there have been various leaders who have been taught by God about the religious events that are going to occur such as the birth of Christ. As people in each dispensation fell away from the truth, the lessons that they had been taught became corrupted and turned into legends and stories that contained some elements of the truth. 

Adam taught by God. I assume about future Biblical events. • God instructed Adam and Eve (see Gen. 3:16–17).https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/what-modern-revelation-teaches-about-adam?lang=eng

So close enough? I gather that a major plank in the platform of aethists is that the story of Christ is built from old legends that predate the Bible.

 

I live much of my life dealing with atheists in the scientific community.  I would make some comments that I have learned in talking with those that have set aside religion because of scientific alignments (which I believe defines most atheists).  Science is base in empirical evidence – not opinion.  This trust of empirical evidence should not surprise anyone.  In our society, it is the complete definition of truth and justice.  Even the most ardent religious person would be most unhappy if convicted of a crime in our courts based on opinions when the all the empirical evidence proved otherwise.   We would rightly claim to be convicted unjustly. 

If a religious person intends to have a discussion with any person – it is important to understand their reality structure.  Unfortunately, we have all learned by sad experience that belief in Biblical scripture is not common ground.  The vast differences in interpretations of Biblical scripture has been the single most important least common denominator of wars and conflicts in Western civilization for at least 1500 years. 

Another great problem in Western civilization is the deplorable lack of education including history.  To make this simple – few even understand that the classical definition of historic verses pre-historic.  Pre-historic is defined with Homer and his writing of the “Iliad” and the “Odyssey”.  Before Homer is defined as pre-historic and anything after Homer is Historic.  Most pre-historic literature (stories) were maintained by oral tradition and are consider legend or fables – not as a matter of fact or not facts but of definition.

It is important when conversing with someone scientifically based (empirical and educated) to have your ducks in line.  That is to understand the empirical evidence at least as well as those we converse with – otherwise you will be discarded as not being very intelligent – especially if you want to establish a different interpretation or understanding of “things”.  

It is also important to understand that the Old Testament is “pre-historic”.  Interestingly the New Testament is “historic”.  If you are talking to someone that does not understand this distinction – you are talking to someone that really does not understand their opinions of history.  This will not provide any advantage in talking to someone religious (I will not explain why - especially if it is not obvious) – but to someone that claims to have discarded religion because of science – knowing this information will give you a great advantage – at least it will demonstrate that you have actually considered and studied history and you are not some religious nut job that holds to unfounded opinions despite empirical evidences.

Before I continue I would point out that scripture – including pre-historic scripture has two important elements – One is that by intent such is intended to be symbolic and the second is that such is intended to be prophetic – or point to somewhere in the future.   Anyone with any realistic studies of ancient pre-historic literature understand these two points dominate almost all pre-historic literature in Western civilization.   If they want to argue against these point – do now waist any more time with them – it will be just that – a waste of time because it will not be about empirical evidences as much as it is unfounded opinions.  Usually pre-historic literature dealt with the after life and the prophetic notion.

Since this post is getting overly long – I will now point out that there are common elements concerning all the Messiah type (demigods) that preceded Christ that included Zoroaster, Baal, Alexander the Great and many others.  I would also point out that most scholars do concede that there is some thread of “truth” in pre-historic literature – even if disguised in symbolism that we may not completely understand.  The fact that such stories of a Messiah exist in so many societies does point to a greater possibility of the truthfulness of the epoch story and that just the number of such stories that there is something important to the idea.  My suggestion in talking to athiests is rather than to dismiss the entire idea (as they may suggest) that we realize the importance of the Messiah story – not only to the building of morals and justice in human society but as prophetic; to look forward to the future - if nothing elase - as the means to resolve conflicts rather than commit them.

 

The Traveler

[JohnsonJones]

Not to detract, but I'm going to have to disagree with the definition of pre-history stated above.  Pre-history, simply put, is what occurred before written history.  Or, in otherwords, events that occurred before written history.

Human pre-history takes place somewhere between 3 million to 3 and half million years ago and the invention and when useful historical records can be found.  This varies from culture to culture.  For the European areas of Greece and Italy, I believe you are correct, but in regards to the Fertile Crescent and Egypt this occurred far earlier (around 3000 BC as a very rough approximation).

Anyways, continue on, just wanted to add my thoughts on this pre-history definition you placed above.

[Traveler]

11 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

Not to detract, but I'm going to have to disagree with the definition of pre-history stated above.  Pre-history, simply put, is what occurred before written history.  Or, in otherwords, events that occurred before written history.

Human pre-history takes place somewhere between 3 million to 3 and half million years ago and the invention and when useful historical records can be found.  This varies from culture to culture.  For the European areas of Greece and Italy, I believe you are correct, but in regards to the Fertile Crescent and Egypt this occurred far earlier (around 3000 BC as a very rough approximation).

Anyways, continue on, just wanted to add my thoughts on this pre-history definition you placed above.

 

This is not my opinion but is the classical definition that has been in place for well over 2000 years and was established and defined by the Greeks that invented the terms and the distinction.  There are many today that want to redefine pre-history as that which has taken place before writing was invented.  The problem with this (sort-of) definition is that it is vague and has no well-defined time that we can say and all agree that this was a pre-historic or historic event or time in the history of our planet. 

If you would like to propose are indicate some other definition – let’s consider and place a time (date) and say all things before are pre-historic and all after is historic.  Let us be exact and precise in our definition and distinction.  Saying something like 3 to 3 ½ million years ago is vague and not well defined at all.  The only reason to use these terms is so all will know and agree – rather that argue some point every time we discover something that was lost from or forgotten in our past. 

I will make another comment – within my life time (70+ years) I have seen education degrade.  This is not a brand-new phenomenon.  In my personal library I have gathered “old” books.  This collection began at a young age when I acquired my grandparents school books they had saved from the late 1800’s.   These books prove there has been a deliberate effort to change what is taught in our schools.  Simple things like – correct behavior should not be literally defined – many things have become undefined and indistinguishable.  Only math and the sciences remain well defined – everything else has become a matter a personal view and whatever someone wants it to be.  It has been well over 50 years since the meaning of historic and pre-historic has been documented in any text book for education that was well defined in text books written 100 years or more ago.  History is being rewritten and the teaching of “values” and “standards” as part of education has not just ended it is considered evil and appalling.  Something changed in history with the advent of Homer and for some reason there is an effort to hide that change – a change that for thousands of years would define “good” and “evil” in our human society.  That freedom and liberty is becoming a right to do what you want - and no longer a matter of disciplining and learning (being taught) to want what is right.

I will purport that this idea of vague personal opinion over clear definitions of terms is a process leading that will bring society to a state where nation will rise against nation, state against state, city against city, community against community, family against family and brothers against brothers (or sisters against sisters and so on) – that will come to the taking of arms against anyone of different opinion.  All of which is prophesy that we are in the “Last Day” approaching the final “Hour” before the L-rd returns.

 

The Traveler

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/22/2018 at 1:22 PM, Sunday21 said:

I was trying to explain to a nonmormon that knowledge of Biblical ceremonies and Biblical occurrences in records that predate the Biblical record do not disprove the Bible. I am not sure that I have our position straight. What do you think? 

Nonmormon: There are legends of Christlike figures from ancient legends and mythologies that predate the birth of Christ. Eg Osiris. Therefore the story of Christ is probably copied from these older legends.

Me: Since Adam, there have been various leaders who have been taught by God about the religious events that are going to occur such as the birth of Christ. As people in each dispensation fell away from the truth, the lessons that they had been taught became corrupted and turned into legends and stories that contained some elements of the truth. 

Adam taught by God. I assume about future Biblical events. • God instructed Adam and Eve (see Gen. 3:16–17).https://www.lds.org/ensign/1998/01/what-modern-revelation-teaches-about-adam?lang=eng

So close enough? I gather that a major plank in the platform of aethists is that the story of Christ is built from old legends that predate the Bible.

There are a ton of father with two sons, one good and one evil, myths out there. I think it is very plain that these ideas developed out of truth.

I think you're spot on in your explanation.

[The Folk Prophet]

On 4/22/2018 at 3:07 PM, Sunday21 said:

True! My argument had no effect at all. Sigh.

Yep. Arguments have no effect.

There is only one path to the truth. We must have it given us by the Holy Spirit. Until anyone humbles themselves and asks God if something is or is not true then they'll keep on keepin' on no matter what argument is made.

Edited April 26, 2018 by The Folk Prophet

[Traveler]

On ‎4‎/‎22‎/‎2018 at 3:07 PM, Sunday21 said:

True! My argument had no effect at all. Sigh.

Just because you did not think you observed any effect does not necessarily mean there were none.  Also - your friend may be thinking the same thing.  One great lesion I have learned in life as well as discussions - the only thing that you can change is yourself.  Thus, the realistic goal is not what you can teach others as much as it is what you can learn and apply from them.

 

The Traveler