Dedicated readers of the blog will know that I do not put much stock in the Old Testament and routinely take shots at it. I believe that the last two hundred years of scholarship have put to rest many of the claims that are advanced by the Old Testament itself and the traditions around it. For example, the claim that Moses wrote the Torah hasn’t been taken serious in the scholarly community for centuries and also simply makes no sense when one considers that his death is referenced by the writers. As for the origin date of the Old Testament, the claim that it is the first monotheist or at least the first document promoting monolatry is absolutely absurd. There is no way that it was written 6000 years ago, and, while the extreme minimalist view is new and still fringe in the academic community, I believe that scholars like Russel Gmirkin who date the writing of the Old Testament to either 2nd and 1st centuries BC have made a convincing argument that’s worth considering as well.
Thank you for bringing this info to your readers’ attention.
The Forum has exhaustively researched this same material over the years and SOTT has interviewed Gmirkin within the past few months.
Many of us have also read Laurent Guyenot’s “From Yahweh to Zion” and are familiar with most of the false claims of the jews which were adopted by the early roman church.
Beyond past time to discard these lies into the trash bins where they belong.
Especially appreciate what you say about the garden and a god who demands obedience rather than intelligence and seeking knowledge of the truth.
Not surprised yahweh wouldn’t encourage eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Might trigger the dangerous thought that yahweh himself is the evil one posing and impersonating the good guy. Tactics of psychopaths haven’t changed from then to now.
I was gonna ask you if you've read Fomenko but I guess that answers it.
I guess my next question would be,have you read Jesus was Ceasar by Francessco Carota?There's a good bit of evidence that the myth of Jesus was based on Julius Caesar and later corrupted to present a more pacified character.Having an actual historical, living being would be a revitalizing force for Christianity and on top of that the real Jesus was a warrior full of strength and vitality.The man was literally superhuman and constantly studied everything he could,was so charismatic that at times people refused to meet with him knowing that his charm would sway them,so capable in tactics,strategy and battle he has something like 150-1 win-loss ratio and was so fearless that even if his army would abandon the field he'd charge the enemy himself.That's quite the example for young men and to make it better no amount of kvetching from late night talk show hosts can change the fact that he actually existed.
Agree with you on Marcionism and the corrupting influence of the Old Testament on Christianity.
Unfortunately that ship has sailed. The time to have corrected the record and gone back to the Marcion Bible would have been at least 1000 years ago.
Too many Christian leaders and worshippers have too much vested in Christianity being an offshoot of Judaism.
However that does not mean that we can't create a Christian sect that rejects modern Christianity and returns it to its roots. As more men on our side of the divide seek traditional ways of thought, the Jewish version of Christianity will have too much baggage
I didn't even try to read the bible until the last fee years. I immediately rejected the old testament because it made no sense & clearly relates only to Jews. I'd been unable to reconcile the old testament god with Yeshua until just the other day, when it was suggested to me that they aren't one & the same.
So it's not just me! Phew...
I do question Paul, since he didn't walk the earth with Yeshua, is the only Apostle not named by Yeshua & unlike the other apostles, doesn't appear to have performed healing miracles.
Otoh, I want to learn more about apostles & disciples left out of the Bible/Nee Testament. Eg, Phontina, the Samaritan who was named an apostle, & whose children were involved with miracles.
I saw a really good series of youtube documentaries about the distinction between history and legend and one of its' conclusions was that much of the old testament and the "promised land" narrative was just a propaganda campaign. And that these "jews" in the middle of the story were serial infidels that everyone eventually kicked out violently.
Some people these days call these "jews" ashkinazi and point to the fact that prior to around 1860 "hebrew" was the standard label for these middle eastern folk who migrated to europe, and that these usurpers took that cloak and used it to hide themselves in the 17th century european aristocracy, and then rapidly moved towards today's "Great Reset" and the 300 years of fiat debasement and fraud currency and fraud government systems.
I'm very inclined to believe that it's impossible to trust any written document much over 600 years old and from there on it's legend until about 2000 years at which point it's completely mythological.
I mean, the archaeological record of Jericho just doesn't comport with the OT either. The evidence strongly suggests they had some kind of decentralised system of courts that was at the centre of life and no king. Where's the written record of that?
Jul 25, 2022·edited Jul 25, 2022Liked by Rurik Skywalker
Thank you for this! I tend to look for poisons and poisoners, and Laurent Guyénot's of analysis of Yahweh lead me to suspect that Yahweh's inclusion in the form of Christianity that "won" meant that the poisoners won control of the new religion. I'm eager to read the next part.
small typo:
first Christian bible consisted of the letters of the unedited first 10 letters
The Jews only come on the scene at the very end of the Old Testament, when Judah had been defeated by the Moloch worshipers and were sent off to Babylon, where their tribe was infiltrated top down by their longstanding enemies. Since then Judah is called 'the Jews', because they no longer serve God, but their original enemies, the Moloch and Ba'al worshiping Nephilim (Sons of Anak).
Christianity is dead, and the New Testament is much worse than the Old from the standpoint of what we need in our era. Time to move on. Nietzsche pointed the way. And that is the only way. The only way out of this modernity is through it, not back.
I believe this does not add anything new to the discourse.
If you're a faithful Christian who encountered "higher criticism", there's nothing here to challenge you. I'm not seeing an attempt here to historically interact w/ the text.
Simply put, higher criticism begins in unbelief -- not scholarship. (AKA: I don't want to believe this so let's find reasons not to).
Take for instance Dividic psalms (pre-exilic) which spoke of blessings on "all who stay in him" (including the gentile princes who "kiss the son"). Or Abraham being elected post Babylon dispersion (where "nations" were created) in order to once again "bless those nations" (reverse the curse)? Higher Crit. would simply wave those of?
I understand. We don't like our God to be "jealous" and "mean". But this is not reason to jettison academics. If we don't like it, let's clearly say "we don' t like it". If we don't want to believe it, let's clearly say "we don't want to believe it". But we have no right to abuse a historical body of literature which happens to offend our sentiments.
The purpose of the Old Testament was to backstop, point to , prefigure the New.
And the purpose of the New Testament is to state, declare , convince, Who Jesus Christ is.
That's it. That's all.
Neither is a handbook of Morality, or Politics, or Social Engineering. Criticize fish for not climbing trees if you want to, but the fish dont care and you sound stupid. Melliflously cheese paringly stupid.
And unaware. You miss the point. Not that you care, it seems. Which is your fault.
Thank you for bringing this info to your readers’ attention.
The Forum has exhaustively researched this same material over the years and SOTT has interviewed Gmirkin within the past few months.
Many of us have also read Laurent Guyenot’s “From Yahweh to Zion” and are familiar with most of the false claims of the jews which were adopted by the early roman church.
Beyond past time to discard these lies into the trash bins where they belong.
Especially appreciate what you say about the garden and a god who demands obedience rather than intelligence and seeking knowledge of the truth.
Not surprised yahweh wouldn’t encourage eating fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Might trigger the dangerous thought that yahweh himself is the evil one posing and impersonating the good guy. Tactics of psychopaths haven’t changed from then to now.
Thanks again.
I was gonna ask you if you've read Fomenko but I guess that answers it.
I guess my next question would be,have you read Jesus was Ceasar by Francessco Carota?There's a good bit of evidence that the myth of Jesus was based on Julius Caesar and later corrupted to present a more pacified character.Having an actual historical, living being would be a revitalizing force for Christianity and on top of that the real Jesus was a warrior full of strength and vitality.The man was literally superhuman and constantly studied everything he could,was so charismatic that at times people refused to meet with him knowing that his charm would sway them,so capable in tactics,strategy and battle he has something like 150-1 win-loss ratio and was so fearless that even if his army would abandon the field he'd charge the enemy himself.That's quite the example for young men and to make it better no amount of kvetching from late night talk show hosts can change the fact that he actually existed.
Agree with you on Marcionism and the corrupting influence of the Old Testament on Christianity.
Unfortunately that ship has sailed. The time to have corrected the record and gone back to the Marcion Bible would have been at least 1000 years ago.
Too many Christian leaders and worshippers have too much vested in Christianity being an offshoot of Judaism.
However that does not mean that we can't create a Christian sect that rejects modern Christianity and returns it to its roots. As more men on our side of the divide seek traditional ways of thought, the Jewish version of Christianity will have too much baggage
I didn't even try to read the bible until the last fee years. I immediately rejected the old testament because it made no sense & clearly relates only to Jews. I'd been unable to reconcile the old testament god with Yeshua until just the other day, when it was suggested to me that they aren't one & the same.
So it's not just me! Phew...
I do question Paul, since he didn't walk the earth with Yeshua, is the only Apostle not named by Yeshua & unlike the other apostles, doesn't appear to have performed healing miracles.
Otoh, I want to learn more about apostles & disciples left out of the Bible/Nee Testament. Eg, Phontina, the Samaritan who was named an apostle, & whose children were involved with miracles.
And the gnostic texts, I'd like to see those.
I saw a really good series of youtube documentaries about the distinction between history and legend and one of its' conclusions was that much of the old testament and the "promised land" narrative was just a propaganda campaign. And that these "jews" in the middle of the story were serial infidels that everyone eventually kicked out violently.
Some people these days call these "jews" ashkinazi and point to the fact that prior to around 1860 "hebrew" was the standard label for these middle eastern folk who migrated to europe, and that these usurpers took that cloak and used it to hide themselves in the 17th century european aristocracy, and then rapidly moved towards today's "Great Reset" and the 300 years of fiat debasement and fraud currency and fraud government systems.
I'm very inclined to believe that it's impossible to trust any written document much over 600 years old and from there on it's legend until about 2000 years at which point it's completely mythological.
I mean, the archaeological record of Jericho just doesn't comport with the OT either. The evidence strongly suggests they had some kind of decentralised system of courts that was at the centre of life and no king. Where's the written record of that?
Thank you for this! I tend to look for poisons and poisoners, and Laurent Guyénot's of analysis of Yahweh lead me to suspect that Yahweh's inclusion in the form of Christianity that "won" meant that the poisoners won control of the new religion. I'm eager to read the next part.
small typo:
first Christian bible consisted of the letters of the unedited first 10 letters
Impressive.
How can you call the Israelites 'the Jews'?
The Jews only come on the scene at the very end of the Old Testament, when Judah had been defeated by the Moloch worshipers and were sent off to Babylon, where their tribe was infiltrated top down by their longstanding enemies. Since then Judah is called 'the Jews', because they no longer serve God, but their original enemies, the Moloch and Ba'al worshiping Nephilim (Sons of Anak).
Guyenot is one of my favorite writers. Where is that bronze image of the horned Moses to be found?
Christianity is dead, and the New Testament is much worse than the Old from the standpoint of what we need in our era. Time to move on. Nietzsche pointed the way. And that is the only way. The only way out of this modernity is through it, not back.
I believe this does not add anything new to the discourse.
If you're a faithful Christian who encountered "higher criticism", there's nothing here to challenge you. I'm not seeing an attempt here to historically interact w/ the text.
Simply put, higher criticism begins in unbelief -- not scholarship. (AKA: I don't want to believe this so let's find reasons not to).
Take for instance Dividic psalms (pre-exilic) which spoke of blessings on "all who stay in him" (including the gentile princes who "kiss the son"). Or Abraham being elected post Babylon dispersion (where "nations" were created) in order to once again "bless those nations" (reverse the curse)? Higher Crit. would simply wave those of?
I understand. We don't like our God to be "jealous" and "mean". But this is not reason to jettison academics. If we don't like it, let's clearly say "we don' t like it". If we don't want to believe it, let's clearly say "we don't want to believe it". But we have no right to abuse a historical body of literature which happens to offend our sentiments.
The purpose of the Old Testament was to backstop, point to , prefigure the New.
And the purpose of the New Testament is to state, declare , convince, Who Jesus Christ is.
That's it. That's all.
Neither is a handbook of Morality, or Politics, or Social Engineering. Criticize fish for not climbing trees if you want to, but the fish dont care and you sound stupid. Melliflously cheese paringly stupid.
And unaware. You miss the point. Not that you care, it seems. Which is your fault.