Easter Questions

[thir]

Well, here goes:

Assuming that Jesus existed, how did a mulitute of people get fed by 2 fish and 5 loaves? Was it because coming from afar, those who could brought food, and they shared it?

Why did the crowd cry 'hosiana' on the entrance to Jerusalem, and 'crucify him' a few days later? Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

How did he resurrect? Was he never crucified? Or did he not die?

What did the Romans want with Palestine anyway? There cannot have been a lot to tax??

[Thorne]

Assuming that Jesus existed, how did a mulitute of people get fed by 2 fish and 5 loaves? Was it because coming from afar, those who could brought food, and they shared it?

Even if he DID exist, why are there no reports of his so-called miracles from people other than his followers? There were thousands who supposedly saw them, but no one bothered to write them down?

Why did the crowd cry 'hosiana' on the entrance to Jerusalem, and 'crucify him' a few days later? Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

Again, you are assuming that the reports in the gospels are true. And they don't even agree with each other!

Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

If I recall (and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) the gospel of Judas claims that he was selected by Jesus to betray him, to fulfill prophecy. And the kiss is a major problem. If Jesus was so famous, why did one of his own have to identify him? Hell, if some of the Christians around here are to be believed, he would have been the only white guy in the whole damned country!

Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

WAS he crucified? The descriptions of his crucifixion in the gospels are very different from standard Roman practice. Crucifixion was intended to be a humiliating, slow, painful death by suffocation, followed by an ignominious disposal of the body. He should have been on the cross for days, struggling for each breath, not allowed to die in mere hours. His followers and/or family would NOT have been permitted to take his body for burial.

How did he resurrect? Was he never crucified? Or did he not die?

Again, the only evidence for his resurrection comes from his followers. Not exactly uninvolved witnesses. There are no extant accounts from the Romans or the Jewish temple of his existence, much less his execution. The ONLY evidence we have for his existence are texts written at least 30 to 50 years after his death (Matthew), or even longer (Luke, John, Mark). And remember these are the four texts which the RCC decided, hundreds of years later, were good enough to include in their dogma. Other texts were tossed aside and ordered destroyed! How many of those would contradict the gospels as we know them?

What did the Romans want with Palestine anyway? There cannot have been a lot to tax??

The Middle East has always been a major crossroads between the riches of India and the Mediterranean. And the Romans taxed EVERYTHING! I just saw a program the other day about an outpost on the Red Sea that handled shipments of spices and goods from India. People traveling TO the fort had to pay a tax! The equivalent of $25 for the wife of a soldier, hundreds for merchants, taxes on donkeys hauling goods, and if memory serves, the equivalent of $2500 for a prostitute! The Romans got plenty of money out of Palestine, believe me!

[thir]

Again, you are assuming that the reports in the gospels are true. And they don't even agree with each other!

Ok, for the sake of argument then. I am just trying to avoid a very short discussion ending with 'but it never happened, so there.'
It is an experiment in thought, a way to try to understand Chrisitianity, the things I have never understood.

If I recall (and I'm too lazy to look it up right now) the gospel of Judas claims that he was selected by Jesus to betray him, to fulfill prophecy. And the kiss is a major problem. If Jesus was so famous, why did one of his own have to identify him? Hell, if some of the Christians around here are to be believed, he would have been the only white guy in the whole damned country!

Hm. Come to think of it, the story says (bear with me) that only Jesus and the disciples were there - that was the point, to arrest him at a time when he was not in the midst of thousands of followers. Threfore someone would have to point him out, but it could have been anyone of a number of people, I guess.

WAS he crucified? The descriptions of his crucifixion in the gospels are very different from standard Roman practice. Crucifixion was intended to be a humiliating, slow, painful death by suffocation, followed by an ignominious disposal of the body. He should have been on the cross for days, struggling for each breath, not allowed to die in mere hours. His followers and/or family would NOT have been permitted to take his body for burial.

Even the romand cannot decide when a person dies. But it is curious that is was so short, giving ideas that maybe he was not, in fact, dead.

Again, the only evidence for his resurrection comes from his followers. Not exactly uninvolved witnesses. There are no extant accounts from the Romans or the Jewish temple of his existence, much less his execution.

The ONLY evidence we have for his existence are texts written at least 30 to 50 years after his death (Matthew), or even longer (Luke, John, Mark). And remember these are the four texts which the RCC decided, hundreds of years later, were good enough to include in their dogma. Other texts were tossed aside and ordered destroyed! How many of those would contradict the gospels as we know them?

There is also Jesphus, the jewish historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
But you are of course right, in that it is hard to know anything for ceratain. The whole discussion is on the basis of if it happened - then what happended? As well as what is Chrisitanity about, really?

The Middle East has always been a major crossroads between the riches of India and the Mediterranean. And the Romans taxed EVERYTHING! I just saw a program the other day about an outpost on the Red Sea that handled shipments of spices and goods from India. People traveling TO the fort had to pay a tax! The equivalent of $25 for the wife of a soldier, hundreds for merchants, taxes on donkeys hauling goods, and if memory serves, the equivalent of $2500 for a prostitute! The Romans got plenty of money out of Palestine, believe me!

Sigh. And everybody finds them sooo cilvilized..

[denuseri]

Well, here goes:

Assuming that Jesus existed, how did a mulitute of people get fed by 2 fish and 5 loaves?

In short...it was a miracle.

Was it because coming from afar, those who could brought food, and they shared it?

Thats perhaps one interpretation...and a very good one at that imho.

Why did the crowd cry 'hosiana' on the entrance to Jerusalem, and 'crucify him' a few days later?

Because most of them thought he was coming to free them from the Romans but latter after hearing him preach in the synagogue how they were all messing up what God wanted from them (being greedy and corrupt and sinfully full of themselves etc) they were easily swayed by his detractors who would loose the most if he was right (the high priests etc).

Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

There was an active sub-sect/ cult element in their society that sought a violent solution from Roman oppression yes, but its purely speculative as to how many of them were present and influencing events.

Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

Ahh but would the guards recognize him? In some versions outside the commonly accepted cannon Jesus has even been attributed to telling Judas to betray him. In others Judas was indeed part of the more militant cultists seeking freedom from Rome and dissatisfied.

Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

Crucifixion was the commonly accepted punishment for anyone who wasn't a Roman citizen who pissed off the Romans. The High priests were accusing Jesus of attempting to usurp Rome's auctoritas.

How did he resurrect? Was he never crucified? Or did he not die?

Lots of possibilities bounce around out there...like his body was stolen from the tomb etc...but amongst the faithful its basically back to divine intervention, IE a miracle. Again...one can take a non-literal interpretation and assume whats being given in the bible is an example (hold faith in god and receive eternal life) but that's up to you as an individual to answer for yourself imho.

What did the Romans want with Palestine anyway? There cannot have been a lot to tax??

Outside of all the major trade routes with Asia passing right smack through the middle of the area (making it rather rich btw) it also sat in a strategically important region for the Romans to defend against Parthia and help keep a secure hold over Egypt.

[thir]

Was it two different crowds, that of Barabas's followers, assuming he was a freedom fighter, and those of Jesus?

There was an active sub-sect/ cult element in their society that sought a violent solution from Roman oppression yes, but its purely speculative as to how many of them were present and influencing events.

The zealots, I assume. But all of this is speculative.
I speculate that the reputation of the zealots as violent and rogue may have come from their not being lead by religious leaders, and not being upper class. They do not sound a lot like the movement of Jesus, but who knows? Some say Jesus was a descendant of David, and so royal, others that he was a carpenter, a man of the people. If a man of the people, might he not have had contact with the zealots?

Why did Judas betray him? Was he disappointed as some explanations would have it, that Jesus could not save them from the Romans? And why the kiss? There must have been many people who knew him by sight.

Ahh but would the guards recognize him? In some versions outside the commonly accepted cannon Jesus has even been attributed to telling Judas to betray him. In others Judas was indeed part of the more militant cultists seeking freedom from Rome and dissatisfied.

I see Judas as one of the most enigmatic figures of the whole tale. If he were a zealot, why become a disciple of Jesus? Did he only join to ruin a competitive movement - an undercover agent? Or was the learning of Jesus not quite as peaceful as the new Testament would have it?

If Jesus told Judas to betray him, it becomes even more complex. Why? So Jesus could become a martyr? Did he not think his learning would survive without that? In that case poor Judas was an even bigger martyr!

In the musical 'Jesus Christ Superstar' Judas asks god: why did you choose ME for your horrible murder? I will be damned for all eternity!

Why did he get crucified? Did he get caught in an uprising at the same time?

Crucifixion was the commonly accepted punishment for anyone who wasn't a Roman citizen who pissed off the Romans. The High priests were accusing Jesus of attempting to usurp Rome's auctoritas.

But as I understand it, he did not actually piss off the Romans, only the high priests, who tried to involve the Romans because they themselves could not order any executions. Because his learning was a threat to their learning? It would not seem so, according to what is said about Jesus' learning. Because they feared a riot and a Roman massacre on jews? Then why not go after the zealot leaders? How was Barrabas caught?

[ksst]

Well, Master said I got my interpretations of the doctrine all wrong.

Jesus died on the cross to appease God, because humans were sinful - is that true?

No, Jesus died so we could be freed from our sins.
Our sins were so great that only a blood sacrifice would work, not a spanking or a "naughty people, stop that" lecture.
Even if you are sinful, you can repent and still go to heaven. That is because of Jesus. Without him, you could have repented all day long and still go to hell.
Why try not to sin then? Because Jesus asked us to.

So there you go, one more interpretation.

Just have to add that neither of us believe this stuff. And no, it doesn't have to make sense, it's religion for God's sake.

[Thorne]

No, Jesus died so we could be freed from our sins.

And what if we don't HAVE any sins? Oh, that's right! We are BORN with sin, because a "just" God cursed all of Adam's descendants for Adam's sin! So Jesus (who IS God) had to be sacrificed TO God to save us from a sin which was inflicted upon us BY God?

no, it doesn't have to make sense, it's religion for God's sake.

It's religion, all right. Therefore it DOESN'T make sense! By definition.

[thir]

Well, Master said I got my interpretations of the doctrine all wrong.

Ok - let's have it :-)

No, Jesus died so we could be freed from our sins.
Our sins were so great that only a blood sacrifice would work, not a spanking or a "naughty people, stop that" lecture.
Even if you are sinful, you can repent and still go to heaven. That is because of Jesus. Without him, you could have repented all day long and still go to hell.
Why try not to sin then? Because Jesus asked us to.

So there you go, one more interpretation.

.. I tried to get my head round the difference between appeasing god's anger because of our sins, which we should go to hell for. And being freed of them, meaning we do not have to if we repent. Doesn't that still mean that Jesus's sacrifice made god forgive us, and we would not have been otherwise?

Then..what did this sacrifice do, if not appease anger???

Just have to add that neither of us believe this stuff. And no, it doesn't have to make sense, it's religion for God's sake.

True, but I am trying to get my head round that religion. I do appreciate your trying to help - I just do not quite understand. This is difficult stuff.

[ksst]

Why tempt people? God is obviously a sadist.

[IAN 2411]

Naive and uneducated? Somehow this implies that people of our times are less naive and more educated. The latter perhaps, but I do not see good behaviour by people of our times. Does this then mean that we need religion to behave?

No, I never meant that. Two thousand years ago and more all governing bodies used religion as a Mark to adhere to. They used the laws of their religion to punish, hence the [eye for an eye] etc. If you were caught thieving you lost your hand, and this was not just isolated to the Middle East and their barbaric laws, it was here in Old England before and during and after the holy wars.

Religion guided the Kings, Queens Governments etc that guided the people. The common uneducated man “Was” naive, he believed in Trolls, Goblins and Fairies. He believed that the wicked burnt in hell. He believed in monsters, curses, chants and witches.

Do we need religion now to behave? No, it should be after all this time installed in us to abide by the same moral code. However because we are all born with equal amounts of good and evil, it depends on how strong our minds and abilities are to make one of these senses dominant and push aside the other. Most people get it right, but there will always be a small percentage that are weak and travel the wrong path.

Or is it simply because greed and violence is now our religion, in place of some sort of code of honour? In other words, we do not seem to have a code of honour that fits the 21th century.

I don’t understand this question. Each person has his/her own code of honour, whether right or wrong but they all differ in some minute way.

I think that there is a good point here. Technology is changing our ways of thinking, mostly in terms of not thinking, because we do not need to, to survive.

We all need to think to survive even the lazy. To use the technology to give you the maximum benefit you have to learn the basics. Technology is a prop, to help us achieve our goals in life and advance our leisure time, it will not work without someone pushing the correct buttons.

In fact, few of us would be able to do what the smallest fielld mouse can: find food and shelter. This way a lot of meaning has fallen out of our mental Universe, and nothing new has come back in. Or so I speculate.

No i think that has to wrong in my opinion, because survival is in our DNA. If needed, we can revert back to the animal in us and live of the land. There are only the weak, lazy and infirmed that might have problems surviving in a hostile environment. We all want to live to see the sun coming up the next day.

Be well IAN 2411

[thir]

Do we need religion now to behave? No, it should be after all this time installed in us to abide by the same moral code.

Do you mean the moral code of the 10 commandments?

However because we are all born with equal amounts of good and evil, it depends on how strong our minds and abilities are to make one of these senses dominant and push aside the other. Most people get it right, but there will always be a small percentage that are weak and travel the wrong path.

Each person has his/her own code of honour, whether right or wrong but they all differ in some minute way.

Are we really born with evil and good? But what is that exactly? And how does that get into our genes?

Maybe one problem is that in the absense of religious codes or any other commonly accepted codes many people go astray and do weird stuff, like killing other people, or wrecking the planet.

I believe that regions can agree perfectly well on codes and do by and large abide by them, but the problem arises because the world is so small now, and power is so concentrated. People in power hardly ever abide by any codes. (That is one reason I could never be a soldier, even if I had what it took, I would fear to make myself a tool for untrustworthy trouble makers.)

No i think that has to wrong in my opinion, because survival is in our DNA. If needed, we can revert back to the animal in us and live of the land. There are only the weak, lazy and infirmed that might have problems surviving in a hostile environment. We all want to live to see the sun coming up the next day.
Be well IAN 2411

To be sure survival is in our genes, but we simply no longer know how to live off the land. It does take skill and knowledge. Without electricity, heating, tools, very few people would know what to do. How many can farm? How many can hunt with weapons made off the land directly? How many people know what you can or cannot eat of what you may find?

[Thorne]

Do you mean the moral code of the 10 commandments?

No, the moral Code of Hammurabi, from which the 10 commandments derive. Or maybe just the basic moral code of people: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It doesn't take a god to know what's right.

Maybe one problem is that in the absense of religious codes or any other commonly accepted codes many people go astray and do weird stuff, like killing other people, or wrecking the planet.

Do you really think religious codes change that? Look at the Inquisition, the mess of the Middle East, Ireland, 9/11, or pedophile priests/rabbis/preachers. I'm not saying religions CAUSE all of these things, but they don't seem to do anything to prevent them, either. If you think it's okay to kill someone because God told you to, you belong in an asylum, not a church.

[thir]

No, the moral Code of Hammurabi, from which the 10 commandments derive. Or maybe just the basic moral code of people: Do unto others as you would have others do unto you. It doesn't take a god to know what's right.

It isn't simple, is it? People do different things all over the world, and they all think they are doing the right thing!

Do you really think religious codes change that?

No. I just think that, since we live the way we do, we need some sort of codes. We do not have the natural behaviour of small tight communities any more, so we need something. I am not talking religious codes, just codes. Rather than greed and violence and total lack of respect for others.

Look at the Inquisition, the mess of the Middle East, Ireland, 9/11, or pedophile priests/rabbis/preachers. I'm not saying religions CAUSE all of these things, but they don't seem to do anything to prevent them, either. If you think it's okay to kill someone because God told you to, you belong in an asylum, not a church.

You are preaching to the converted ;-))

[rocco]

Interesting fact I read, since this discussion began. Well I say "fact" but then again, most history is written by winners!!

Anyway, if Im wrong please direct me. I read that "Easter is "NOT a christian celebration after all!! It was indoctrinated during the rule of Augustus, for fear of a
Christian uprising! During his rule it was found that there were more "christians" than romans, sending worry amongst the high officials.

Under the Jewish calender. Nissan 14, so its called. falls before the celebration of what was known as "eastradom??!" which was pagan festival to the goddess of fertility. [thats why we have the easter bunny and chocolate eggs] all symbols of fertilisation.

So in order to pacify the people, roman beliefs were mixed in with christian beliefs in order to keep a status quo.

So am I right in believing that in those times, the "Christian Faith" was looked on as a left wing "terrorist organisation" considering it was set up after Jesus was executed?? These people were hated by the Jewish leaders and Romans, like today I suppose. With any organisation being frowned on because of indifference!
i.e. us for example!! A lot of people believe that anyone involved with "bdsm" are "not" normal or "perverted" as such. Does that make sense?

Like most readings it is up to interpretation. BUT! I cant understand why people dissect so called holy books, when its written in plain english for anyone to read! If you are a "christian" then should you not believe everything written down in the bible?
People like William Tindell, were burnt at the stake for translating the bible from latin to english! Yet we as a whole rip it to pieces, just because it doesnt fit in with what we want to believe! Strange really!!!

Funny old thing religion!!!!

But thanks for letting me get involved in this topic!! I love you guys!!!

[denuseri]

Anyway, if Im wrong please direct me. I read that "Easter is "NOT a christian celebration after all!! It was indoctrinated during the rule of Augustus, for fear of a
Christian uprising!

During his rule it was found that there were more "christians" than romans, sending worry amongst the high officials.

Actually there were no Christians what so ever during the reign of Augustus since Jesus and his ministry didnt even begin until the rule of Tiberius. Maybe the Romans hand was involved a couple hundred years later though when their was a larger following of Christians prevalent in the Empire.


So in order to pacify the people, roman beliefs were mixed in with christian beliefs in order to keep a status quo.

Oh yes but the process didn't begin until some point far (a couple hundred years) after the events inspiring Christianity.

So am I right in believing that in those times, the "Christian Faith" was looked on as a left wing "terrorist organisation" considering it was set up after Jesus was executed?? These people were hated by the Jewish leaders and Romans, like today I suppose. With any organisation being frowned on because of indifference!
i.e. us for example!! A lot of people believe that anyone involved with "bdsm" are "not" normal or "perverted" as such. Does that make sense?

Yep

Like most readings it is up to interpretation. BUT! I cant understand why people dissect so called holy books, when its written in plain english for anyone to read! If you are a "christian" then should you not believe everything written down in the bible?

Depends on how literal one wishes to be. Personally I believe the entire book being a concoction of men is fallible, and symbolically rife with allegory.


People like William Tindell, were burnt at the stake for translating the bible from latin to english! Yet we as a whole rip it to pieces, just because it doesnt fit in with what we want to believe! Strange really!!!

Thomas Jefferson went so far as to remove entire pages and re-write passages in his to suit his own personal interpretation.

[Thorne]

I read that "Easter is "NOT a christian celebration after all!! It was indoctrinated during the rule of Augustus, for fear of a Christian uprising!

Most of the early Christian holy days were timed to coincide with the Roman celebrations of their gods: Christmas around the time of the winter solstice, Easter around the time of the spring equinox, and others. Primarily this allowed them to celebrate their holy days under cover of the Roman celebrations. Later, it helped in the conversion of the Romans to Christianity, letting them celebrate at familiar times of the year, even to the point of incorporating some of their pagan symbols into the Christian celebrations. But denuseri is right, this took place long after Augustus.

Like most readings it is up to interpretation. BUT! I cant understand why people dissect so called holy books, when its written in plain english for anyone to read! If you are a "christian" then should you not believe everything written down in the bible?

Well, the Bible wasn't originally written in English, of course. It has undergone many translations and retranslations, all of which introduced errors. There have also been shown to be some passages which were deliberately changed by those making the copies in order to bring more in line with their dogma at the time. Add to that standard copying errors and you have a serious problem. And when you compound these errors with contradictions and historical fictions, well, it becomes pretty hard to believe EVERYTHING! But the intent of the Bible is not to be taken literally, but to be interpreted by the priesthood, for the betterment of the ruling classes, which included the priests, of course.

People like William Tindell, were burnt at the stake for translating the bible from latin to english! Yet we as a whole rip it to pieces, just because it doesnt fit in with what we want to believe! Strange really!!!

Not so strange, actually. Since I've started reading about it, I've been astonished at the number of people who admit that the primary reason they gave up on religion was that they actually read the Bible! The Church leaders did NOT want the common people to actually read what Jesus said, as that might give them dangerous ideas. It's my understanding (based on anecdotal evidence, I freely admit) than even now most preachers do NOT recommend that their congregations actually read the whole Bible, but only selected portions of it. They would much rather their flocks rely on THEIR interpretations rather than formulating their own.

Funny old thing religion!!!!

I only WISH it were funny. When you look at the idiocy of the Westboro people, the stupidity of that preacher in Florida burning the Quran, the things only now being learned of the atrocities of the Catholic Church, I find it very hard to laugh at any of it.

[rocco]

Thorne and Denuesri, Thank you! Its interesting to understand or try to any way, how it all began! And I understand the idea of how things were written and re-written too. Like chinese whispers I suppose!

Thorne, I agree. And I didnt mean it to come across as literally "funny"! It seems that the very thing that is supposed to draw us closer to God, actually causes SO much grief!
When you look at any conflict, religion seems to play a massive part!

Thanks again for the instruction, who needs history lessons. When you can come here!!!! *big grin*

[Thorne]

Thanks again for the instruction, who needs history lessons. When you can come here!!!! *big grin*

You're welcome, rocco. But please, don't just take my word for it, or denuseri's or anyone's! Research it, look it up for yourself. And don't just use one source, use multiple sources from both sides of the issues and see which side has the evidence to back up their stories. I don't claim to be 100% accurate. The best tactic, IMO, is to ask yourself the questions, then search for the answers.

[lucy]

There is also Jesphus, the jewish historian: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
But you are of course right, in that it is hard to know anything for ceratain. The whole discussion is on the basis of if it happened - then what happended? As well as what is Chrisitanity about, really?

But that is exactly what this religion - all of them, in fact - is about, isn't it? About belief. Not about facts. If there'd be a video on youtube of the whole crucifixion (or is that crucifiction) of Jesus, there most likely wouldn't be a religion based on him. Instead we might have a couple gazillion conspiracy theories.

[Thorne]

But that is exactly what this religion - all of them, in fact - is about, isn't it? About belief. Not about facts.

There's no problem with believing things. Where I have a problem is when people's beliefs fly in the face of the facts. Denying evolution, for example, simply because it feels better to believe that you are God's special child is insane.

[ksst]

thir,

According to my Master, yes there is a difference. Jesus' sacrifice allows us to repent, which allows God to forgive us and let us into heaven. We were all born of original sin, so we were all going to hell. No matter how good we were were and blameless in life, because of the original sin doctrine. Fair? No. Kind? No. But that is God, from the Christian viewpoint. Jesus represents that forgiveness is possible.

[thir]

thir,
According to my Master, yes there is a difference. Jesus' sacrifice allows us to repent, which allows God to forgive us and let us into heaven. We were all born of original sin, so we were all going to hell. No matter how good we were were and blameless in life, because of the original sin doctrine. Fair? No. Kind? No. But that is God, from the Christian viewpoint. Jesus represents that forgiveness is possible.

Original sin being the apple? Disobeying?

As I said above, and no disrespect to any Christians meant here, truly!, but in that case I think God should delete this experiment and start again, with people without original sin. Give it another chance.

Thanks again for explaining, I find these things enormously complicated.

[IAN 2411]

Do you mean the moral code of the 10 commandments?

1. You shall have no other Gods but me.
2. You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
3. You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
4. You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
5. Respect your father and mother.
6. You must not kill.
7. You must not commit adultery.
8. You must not steal.
9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Let’s be fair thir, that apart from first four that are only relevant to the religion of Moses, the other six are basic laws that even in those days most people adhered to. How big do you think those tablets of stone would have to be, to have written on them all it states in the bible? Moses had to walk off the mountain with these. I think that if the truth was known he went up the mountain with his papyrus and wrote them himself. Remember, Moses was brought up and educated by the Pharaohs and all the people he was leading were uneducated slaves. This leaves us with only hear say and the word of Moses that it had ever taken place.

Are we really born with evil and good? But what is that exactly? And how does that get into our genes?

I believe we have these senses not inside of us at birth, but when we are young and innocent the teachings we are given indoctrinates us with both.

Example: - teacher to a class full of infants, you must not kill it is evil, love thy neighbour...ok that’s all well and good saying that, but up until that point they were loving their neighbour, but the teacher has now has implanted in their mind, evil.

That is a little harsh and things are probably indoctrinated into the infant mind in more subtle ways, but you have to learn evil to know evil.

Maybe one problem is that in the absence of religious codes or any other commonly accepted codes many people go astray and do weird stuff, like killing other people, or wrecking the planet.

In most cases greed causes the going astray, take killing, it is for money, or because a person loves another and needs freedom. Killing in anger could be put down to the need of a better and quieter life, but it is still greed for something the killer has not got of some type. Very few crimes throughout the world are not related to greed, even wars.

To be sure survival is in our genes, but we simply no longer know how to live off the land. It does take skill and knowledge. Without electricity, heating, tools, very few people would know what to do. How many can farm? How many can hunt with weapons made off the land directly? How many people know what you can or cannot eat of what you may find?

I have no choice but disagree on this point thir, remember the aircraft that crashed on the mountain. The survivors were a mixed bunch of ordinary people of any street in the world. However after all the food on board the aircraft had been eaten, they turned to cannibalism and started to eat the flesh of the dead. A revolting thought? Yes it is, but that is survival being shown at its best. As I stated earlier, we all want to see the next sunrise.

I would like to point out that all the above is only my opinion, and in no way am I rubbishing anyones religious belief's.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

This leaves us with only hear say and the word of Moses that it had ever taken place.

Not even that. Evidence seems to indicate that Moses and the Exodus are complete fictions. They are the tales of priests used to teach their god's laws to the uneducated.

[thir]

5. Respect your father and mother.
6. You must not kill.
7. You must not commit adultery.
8. You must not steal.
9. You must not give false evidence against your neighbour.
10. You must not be envious of your neighbour's goods. You shall not be envious of his house nor his wife, nor anything that belongs to your neighbour.

Let’s be fair thir, that apart from first four that are only relevant to the religion of Moses, the other six are basic laws that even in those days most people adhered to.

I don't think so, different people different rules. As far as I know, with many tribes it is a sport to steal from each other, including women. Honor killings are an old system, as well as revenge killings. So are wars.

How big do you think those tablets of stone would have to be, to have written on them all it states in the bible? Moses had to walk off the mountain with these. I think that if the truth was known he went up the mountain with his papyrus and wrote them himself. Remember, Moses was brought up and educated by the Pharaohs and all the people he was leading were uneducated slaves. This leaves us with only hear say and the word of Moses that it had ever taken place.

Interesting thought. Where did Moses get his ideas from? Apparently these things were not self-evident, or there would have been no need to present them like that. He must have needed to unite the tribes as one people in much the same way as Mohammed did in his time. But from where did he get his ideas?? He did come from a polytheistic culture like the Egyptian one was at that time, and the Hebrews themselves were not mono-theistic.

As a matter of fact, the whole story about Moses is so interesting! Why did he do what he did? What about the 7 plagues? What happened with the Red Sea? And where on earth did he think he was going with all these people??

In most cases greed causes the going astray, take killing, it is for money, or because a person loves another and needs freedom. Killing in anger could be put down to the need of a better and quieter life, but it is still greed for something the killer has not got of some type. Very few crimes throughout the world are not related to greed, even wars.

So what can we do about it? Maybe stop having greed as a celbrated life-style, for one thing. Maybe start to value other things.

[Thorne]

Where did Moses get his ideas from? Apparently these things were not self-evident, or there would have been no need to present them like that. He must have needed to unite the tribes as one people in much the same way as Mohammed did in his time. But from where did he get his ideas?? He did come from a polytheistic culture like the Egyptian one was at that time, and the Hebrews themselves were not mono-theistic.

As a matter of fact, the whole story about Moses is so interesting! Why did he do what he did? What about the 7 plagues? What happened with the Red Sea? And where on earth did he think he was going with all these people??

As a matter of fact, the whole story about Moses seems to be fiction! There's no independent evidence that he ever existed, no evidence that there were ever Jews enslaved in Egypt, at least not in the vast numbers portrayed in the Bible, no evidence of a Hebrew Exodus, no evidence of millions of people spending 40 years in Sinai. Last I heard, even some Jewish scholars now doubt that Moses, even if he existed, ever wrote the first five books of the Bible, as has been traditionally believed. It's all myths and story telling, teaching tools for uneducated people. Aside from some of the more arcane dietary and clothing laws of the Bible, there is nothing in there that wasn't common in most of the earlier cultures around the world at the time. The Hebrews/Jews just adopted those that worked for them, changed those that needed to be changed to agree with their own beliefs, then wrote it up as if they invented it.

[thir]

As a matter of fact, the whole story about Moses seems to be fiction! There's no independent evidence that he ever existed, no evidence that there were ever Jews enslaved in Egypt, at least not in the vast numbers portrayed in the Bible, no evidence of a Hebrew Exodus, no evidence of millions of people spending 40 years in Sinai. Last I heard, even some Jewish scholars now doubt that Moses, even if he existed, ever wrote the first five books of the Bible, as has been traditionally believed. It's all myths and story telling, teaching tools for uneducated people. Aside from some of the more arcane dietary and clothing laws of the Bible, there is nothing in there that wasn't common in most of the earlier cultures around the world at the time. The Hebrews/Jews just adopted those that worked for them, changed those that needed to be changed to agree with their own beliefs, then wrote it up as if they invented it.

What I have a real problem with is the way in which science so often seems to be the victim of fads of one kind and another. Decades back, there were all these findings that this or that from the bible was now proven, or partly proven, or explained - by both Christian and non-Christian archelogists. This decade the fad seems to be that it is all just smoke and mirrors. I am extremely sceptical about these all-or-nothing waves.

Hold on to your hat Thorne - I believe in the bible! What I mean is, I do not believe that things written down there were taken completely out of the thin air. The archeologists now want us to believe that nothing happened, Moses did not excist, the jews were never in Egypt, nobody emigrated, it is all just a methaphor or allergory about freedom. I note that when archeologists are at loose ends, the word allegory thends to pop up a lot, because they know darn well that things are written down for a reason and they feel they have to come up with some sort of explanation.

Now, I believe that when something is written down, it is because something happened. It may be embellished, exaggerated, given a specific meaning, get garbled over the years, be partiallly inspired by myth (themselves distant account of who knows what) but they did not just get pulled out of thin air.

The latest is that no traces can be found of people wandering about in the dessert for 40 years - well, maybe that would be extremely difficult with tribes that had few things that would survive, and in a big dessert too. Maybe be they did not take 40 years to cross - why should they have? They say millions cannot survive in these areas with sheep and what not - well, maybe it wasn't millions - maybe it was thousands.

Some say thousands of jews were taken to Egypt as POWs in wars - there are always wars going on in these areas. Some say thousands more emigrated from Canaan to Egypt because there was a famine and Egypt was fertile. Maybe thousands left centuries later because of whatever natural disasters or plagues wreacked havoc in the country, and maybe Moses lead number of them out by way of a new, mono theistic religion and various promises of a better place.

Or maybe something different happened. But obviously (to me) something did.

[Thorne]

What I have a real problem with is the way in which science so often seems to be the victim of fads of one kind and another. Decades back, there were all these findings that this or that from the bible was now proven, or partly proven, or explained - by both Christian and non-Christian archelogists. This decade the fad seems to be that it is all just smoke and mirrors. I am extremely sceptical about these all-or-nothing waves.

First of all, one of the things that science does is to correct itself. You generate a hypothesis that explains the data, then find evidence to support your hypothesis. Very often that evidence will DISprove your hypothesis, so you have to change or discard it. That's how science works.

Second, you have to remember that, until very recently, the Bible was considered to be an archeological tool, and many scientists tried to prove its accuracy by digging through the Middle East. And there were indeed things in the Bible that were historically real. There are other things in the Bible that are obviously fictitious. And there are things in the Bible that are fictional stories based upon real events. Just like the movie Titanic was based upon an actual event, but the character Jack Dawson and the story around him is totally fictional.

Hold on to your hat Thorne - I believe in the bible! What I mean is, I do not believe that things written down there were taken completely out of the thin air. The archeologists now want us to believe that nothing happened, Moses did not excist, the jews were never in Egypt, nobody emigrated, it is all just a methaphor or allergory about freedom. I note that when archeologists are at loose ends, the word allegory thends to pop up a lot, because they know darn well that things are written down for a reason and they feel they have to come up with some sort of explanation.

Not wearing a hat! Oh no!

I never said nothing happened. Something probably DID happen. There may have been a group of people, the ancestors of the Hebrews, who emigrated from Egypt after a series of natural catastrophes. There may have been a person which the character of Moses is based on. But there is no evidence that the Moses of the Bible, like Jack on the Titanic, ever existed. And the story behind Moses, born of slaves, placed into the river, found by a princess, was a fairly common religious story that long preceded the Biblical account. Just like many of the stories of Jesus (virgin birth, son of a god, murder of innocent children, etc.) were told in heroic stories of other cultures before the rise of the Hebrews.

Now, I believe that when something is written down, it is because something happened. It may be embellished, exaggerated, given a specific meaning, get garbled over the years, be partiallly inspired by myth (themselves distant account of who knows what) but they did not just get pulled out of thin air.

Not true! Writers make things up out of thin air all of the time! Look at Mormonism, or Scientology. Both fabricated from nothing by their founders. Song writers make things up all of the time, having nothing to do with reality, just to entertain the crowds. Don't you think that bards and singers in ancient times were trying to entertain their listeners? Of course, it can be far more entertaining if there's just a hint of truth in there, if your listeners can recognize a place or a person. That doesn't make the story true, just more believable.

The latest is that no traces can be found of people wandering about in the dessert for 40 years - well, maybe that would be extremely difficult with tribes that had few things that would survive, and in a big dessert too. Maybe be they did not take 40 years to cross - why should they have? They say millions cannot survive in these areas with sheep and what not - well, maybe it wasn't millions - maybe it was thousands.

One thing that archeologists know is that people, ALL people, create garbage. Broken pottery, burned hides, shattered bones. And feces, of course. Even thousands of people create a lot of shit, every day. And they didn't just wander through the Sinai. The Bible claims they stayed in some areas for years. There would have to have been a LOT of garbage. Yet none can be found! Now you can say that maybe there were only hundreds, or dozens, small camps that would vanish in time, but such a small group of people would be unlikely to have enough warriors to conquer Canaan as the Bible says they did. The Bible says there were millions, but even many thousands would have left something behind.

Some say thousands of jews were taken to Egypt as POWs in wars - there are always wars going on in these areas. Some say thousands more emigrated from Canaan to Egypt because there was a famine and Egypt was fertile. Maybe thousands left centuries later because of whatever natural disasters or plagues wreacked havoc in the country, and maybe Moses lead number of them out by way of a new, mono theistic religion and various promises of a better place.

Virtually all of these suppositions are based on the Bible. There are no records in Egypt that correspond to these events. Sure, some Jews were taken as slaves. Probably mostly women and children, who would eventually have integrated into the Egyptian population. As someone above noted, there's some evidence that a tribe of mercenaries called the Habiru may have left Egypt at about the time of the Biblical Exodus, and this could be the foundation for the stories. But the point is, the stories in the Bible did not happen as they were written!

[denuseri]

It may help if you didn't only look for information on such things from pro-aethiest /anti-religion sites Thorne and instead stuck to academic sources....your so far off base claiming the Exodus is completely fictitious and couldn't have happened it isn't even funny.

Is it contested? Yes.

Why is it still contested?

There is a long standing schism between the narrow minded fuddy duddies in the field who simply can't stomach anything in the Bible as being construed as right and a much more open minded group who has often found a root of truth in most myths and legends of the ancient world.

I would put more faith in the open minded group if I were you...afterall...they discovered whats now commonly believed to be Troy, the Hittites, Babylon, perhaps even Atlantis and the most likely site for the Garden of Eden itself etc etc.

And all with fully supported cross disciplinary peer reviewed science!

Early mistakes in interpretations of the dates in the Torah lead to a narrow focus within the field to search for evidence in one very narrow window of time.

Collaborating data from other periods however (proved the earlier assumptions about the dates were indeed wrong) and corresponding periods have shown that a group of non-eygptian people did in fact live in lower Egypt and left during a time of well documented great calamity (most likely brought on by the eruption of Thera in combination with a terrible series of droughts and other terrible things some of which match the "10 plages" in great detail ) who subsequently migrated into Cannan (becoming a huge well documented pain in their assess instead).

[Thorne]

There is a long standing schism between the narrow minded fuddy duddies in the field who simply can't stomach anything in the Bible as being construed as right and a much more open minded group who has often found a root of truth in most myths and legends of the ancient world.

There is usually a root of truth in all myths and legends. Story tellers take a normal but unusual occurrence and start adding bells and whistles until you have the makings of a rollicking tale of wonder. The problems start when people start accepting the story as true rather than just a story.

Yes, there were several groups of people who left Egypt at times, for various reasons. They weren't slaves, and they weren't Hebrews, although they may have been the group which eventually became the Hebrews. Most assuredly there weren't millions of them and they didn't spend 40 years in one of the most desolate wastelands on the planet. Kernels of truth, inflated like popcorn to fuel the myth. But people aren't worshiping the truth, they worship the myth!

It's the same with the Ark stories. There are similar stories all over the world, because people tended to build their cities near water, which sometimes flooded, sometimes catastrophically. That doesn't mean there was a world-wide flood that wiped out all but a handful of people. And it doesn't make all those fools spending their money searching Mount Ararat "open minded". They are far more concerned with proving the myth than with finding the truth behind the myth.

Certainly there are historical people and places in the Bible. Most good authors will include such things in their fictions. They add a certain degree of believability to the tales. But just because someone has located a place that, with a lot of imagination, just might resemble the Biblical description of Eden, doesn't mean that the human race was started there by two people who suddenly realized they had no clothes. Just because a Roman governor named Pontius Pilate actually ruled in Judea in the first century doesn't mean that he condemned an itinerant rabbi to crucifixion and that rabbi was miraculously raised from the dead according to prophecy. Especially when those telling the tale have to distort the truth so immensely to try to fit those prophecies, even though the prophecies weren't intended as prophecy!

So yes, use the Bible as a starting point to find the bits of truth behind the myths. Don't use it as proof that the myth is truth.