Zone1 Was The Garden Of Eden A Real Place?

[Crepitus]

Oh like you're real brilliant to come up with calling me a boy. well get used to me calling it back, boy.

Awww, somebody's feels got hurt. lol.

 

[Kruska]

The Black Sea breech was too early and it was a very slow moving flood.. plenty of time to move livestock to higher ground. It coincides with the spread of agriculture.

AFAIK it is only the Bible that "provides" a time endurance for the Flood - that the Dardanelles breach provided a slow moving food could well be, aka can't be out ruled. It could however also have been a nightmare scenario.
As for the spread of agriculture - I fully agree.

The global flood was probably in 2900 BC in the flat Euphrates River Basin.

The Euphrates River Basin and the Indus river valley, provide for a similar scenario - especially if one takes the "assumed rain" into account.

 

[Blisterfinger]

Awww, somebody's feels got hurt. lol.

Hahaha boy!

 

[Crepitus]

Hahaha boy!

 

[Blisterfinger]

View attachment 911977

Nice picture creepy LOL! That's about the best you can do I know.

 

[irosie91]

that is your myth ...

- and that the romans were not the christians.

they were not christians while jesus was around----gee you are so confused.
First they killed a bunch of jews and then decided one of them was a god.

 

[irosie91]

I'm Episcopalian.

Adam and Eve were labor in the garden of Eden.

right ---the garden of eden was part of the UK---and the episcopalian "god" got a bunch of wogs to do the dirty work. The wogs were neurotic and covered themselves with fig leaves to avoid the unbridled perversions of anglican society

 

[BreezeWood]

they were not christians while jesus was around----gee you are so confused.
First they killed a bunch of jews and then decided one of them was a god.

91 has never established nor does a shred of evidence exist a deference jesus ever had with the romans - they were the heavenly implemented repudiation of judaism the romans had no reason to interfere and welcomed the opportunity presented by jesus.

they, the autocratic romans were certainly who wrote the christian bible their reticence in the 1st century was simply the delayed opportunity they would later assume in the 4th.

 

[irosie91]

91 has never established nor does a shred of evidence exist a deference jesus ever had with the romans - they were the heavenly implemented repudiation of judaism the romans had no reason to interfere and welcomed the opportunity presented by jesus.

they, the autocratic romans were certainly who wrote the christian bible their reticence in the 1st century was simply the delayed opportunity they would later assume in the 4th.

oh gee----you never read the book. I am not surprised---most people called "christians" never read it. Interestingly---most muslims never read the
koran either. ROFLMAO @ "delayed opportunity"

 

[surada]

AFAIK it is only the Bible that "provides" a time endurance for the Flood - that the Dardanelles breach provided a slow moving food could well be, aka can't be out ruled. It could however also have been a nightmare scenario.
As for the spread of agriculture - I fully agree.

The Euphrates River Basin and the Indus river valley, provide for a similar scenario - especially if one takes the "assumed rain" into account.

Typically the Euphrates River overflowed it's banks in April because of spring rains and the snowmelt from the Zagros mountains.

 

[Clyde 154]

The Eden story is borrowed from Sumer. It's foundation myth not history.

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene

The Gospel According to Mary Magdalene. Complete ancient text and explanatory material. Part of a vast collection of materials dealing with Gnosis and Gnosticism, both ancient and modern. The site includes the Gnostic Library, with the complete Nag Hammadi Library and a large collection of...

gnosis.org

These writings that you are attempting to present as ABSOLUTE OPJECTIVE evidences are called "Gnostic Records" for a reason........they are not accepted as being "inspired scriptures"...........and are directly opposed by the New Testament Record. The true Apostles of Christ called them babblings based upon vanity.

Examples: "But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase into more ungodliness. And their word will eat as doth a cancer" -- 2 Tim. 3:16-17 Your post is self evidence.......you reject the gospel truth and wish to replace it with uninspired babblings of those who cannot verify their authorships. You are the quint essential evidence that exists in the form of Antichrist doctrines. Your open bigotry and hatred of the Holy Scriptures is more than evident.

"For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus has come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and antichrist. Look to yourselves, that we lose not these things which we (the apostles of christ) have wrought; but that we receive a full reward. Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ HAS NOT GOD, He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, has both the Father and the Son." -- 2 John 2:7-9

Reality: The Gnostic writings were rejected for multiple reasons........among those reasons, They claim salvation is only for those who know the SECRETS of the truth......yet, these secrets are never revealed. They deny that Jesus was ever a fleshly person...........i.e, they teach an Antichrist doctrine.

www.grunge.com/619428/the-real-reason-the-gosntics-arent-in-the-bible

 

[irosie91]

91 has never established nor does a shred of evidence exist a deference jesus ever had with the romans - they were the heavenly implemented repudiation of judaism the romans had no reason to interfere and welcomed the opportunity presented by jesus.

they, the autocratic romans were certainly who wrote the christian bible their reticence in the 1st century was simply the delayed opportunity they would later assume in the 4th.

the fate of Jesus was sealed IN ROMAN LAW when he overturned the tables of the money-
changers. The money changers (like the tax collectors and high priests) were appointed by
Rome and closely involved in obtaining as MUCH
TRIBUTE from Judea as they possibly could. For those of you who attended sunday school----sorry---but the jelly-bean teacher lied (not only about
the source of the jelly-beans that somehow make their way to your easter basket) Read the NT---did
it ever occur to any of you WHY PEOPLE CONSIDERED THE TAX COLLECTORS ON LEVEL WITH WHORES?

 

[surada]

AFAIK it is only the Bible that "provides" a time endurance for the Flood - that the Dardanelles breach provided a slow moving food could well be, aka can't be out ruled. It could however also have been a nightmare scenario.
As for the spread of agriculture - I fully agree.

The Euphrates River Basin and the Indus river valley, provide for a similar scenario - especially if one takes the "assumed rain" into account.

Nope. It always rained in the spring and the snow always melted... The river always flooded. That's what formed the Delta south of Basra.

 

[surada]

the fate of Jesus was sealed IN ROMAN LAW when he overturned the tables of the money-
changers. The money changers (like the tax collectors and high priests) were appointed by
Rome and closely involved in obtaining as MUCH
TRIBUTE from Judea as they possibly could. For those of you who attended sunday school----sorry---but the jelly-bean teacher lied (not only about
the source of the jelly-beans that somehow make their way to your easter basket) Read the NT---did
it ever occur to any of you WHY PEOPLE CONSIDERED THE TAX COLLECTORS ON LEVEL WITH WHORES?

Did they allow Romans in the temple?

They were Jewish. Roman coins could not be accepted at the Temple because they had the Emperor's picture on them. In order to buy an animal to sacrifice, you had to exchange Roman coins for coins acceptable at the Temple, specifically Tyrian shekels.

The money changers were basically unpaid volunteers. The Mishnah Shekelim (1:3) says that they were compensated only for the coinage they lost to breakage (people would literally break coins into pieces back then to make change, etc). The Mishnah also says they were watched like hawks by Temple authorities on the alert for any skimming.

This raises some question as to why Jesus would have attacked the money changers. They weren't doing anything wrong, they weren't making any profit or ripping anybody off and they were actually serving a necessary function under Jewish law.

A lot of scholars (JD Crossan is a prominent example) think for this reason that the assault on the money changers was not an attempt to "cleanse" the Temple, but was an attempt to stop the Temple from functioning altogether - that it was an assault (symbolically at last) on the institution of the Temple itself. There were groups of Jews who regarded Herod's Temple as illegitimate.

The Qumran sect, for example, rejected temple sacrifice, substituted repentance and baptism and said that the Temple had been replaced by their "body," which was what they called their own community or ecclesia so to speak.

 

[irosie91]

Did they allow Romans in the temple?

They were Jewish. Roman coins could not be accepted at the Temple because they had the Emperor's picture on them. In order to buy an animal to sacrifice, you had to exchange Roman coins for coins acceptable at the Temple, specifically Tyrian shekels.

The money changers were basically unpaid volunteers. The Mishnah Shekelim (1:3) says that they were compensated only for the coinage they lost to breakage (people would literally break coins into pieces back then to make change, etc). The Mishnah also says they were watched like hawks by Temple authorities on the alert for any skimming.

This raises some question as to why Jesus would have attacked the money changers. They weren't doing anything wrong, they weren't making any profit or ripping anybody off and they were actually serving a necessary function under Jewish law.

A lot of scholars (JD Crossan is a prominent example) think for this reason that the assault on the money changers was not an attempt to "cleanse" the Temple, but was an attempt to stop the Temple from functioning altogether - that it was an assault (symbolically at last) on the institution of the Temple itself. There were groups of Jews who regarded Herod's Temple as illegitimate.

The Qumran sect, for example, rejected temple sacrifice, substituted repentance and baptism and said that the Temple had been replaced by their "body," which was what they called their own community or ecclesia so to speak.

^^^ a good example of "a little knowledge can be dangerous. Poor Surada STARTS out with and idiot question. Were "ROMANS ALLOWED IN THE TEMPLE" <<while not related to the issue the answer is YES---there was IN THE TEMPLE a courtyard specifically for gentiles. Not that it matters since the money changers were not IN the temple---they were outside the building just in the walled area. As to the rest of the IDIOT post---Mishnah describes the situation of money changers at a time NOT DURING THE OCCUPATION BY ROME. Sheeeeesh for a girl who went to a special hotsy totsy private school---it never learned history and forgot to read BOOKS. The explanation of
"in ability to use roman coins to buy sacrifices" in the temple is also sheer BS. The money changers were there to change to local tender
for ALL SORTs of regular reasons---ONE DID NOT BUY SACRIFICIAL ANIMALS in the temple.
The historic FACT is it was the PHARISEES who despised the money changers in the temple courtyard for the SAME REASON they despised the high priests and the king----they were shills for Rome. The enclaves of jews who fled the filth of Rome to the desert were not able to
do sacrifices OUT THERE---there was no opposition to the existence of the Temple.
Animal sacrifice was a TEMPLE RITE ONLY. SURADIE is engaging in wishful thinking

 

[surada]

^^^ a good example of "a little knowledge can be dangerous. Poor Surada STARTS out with and idiot question. Were "ROMANS ALLOWED IN THE TEMPLE" <<while not related to the issue the answer is YES---there was IN THE TEMPLE a courtyard specifically for gentiles. Not that it matters since the money changers were not IN the temple---they were outside the building just in the walled area. As to the rest of the IDIOT post---Mishnah describes the situation of money changers at a time NOT DURING THE OCCUPATION BY ROME. Sheeeeesh for a girl who went to a special hotsy totsy private school---it never learned history and forgot to read BOOKS. The explanation of
"in ability to use roman coins to buy sacrifices" in the temple is also sheer BS. The money changers were there to change to local tender
for ALL SORTs of regular reasons---ONE DID NOT BUY SACRIFICIAL ANIMALS in the temple.
The historic FACT is it was the PHARISEES who despised the money changers in the temple courtyard for the SAME REASON they despised the high priests and the king----they were shills for Rome. The enclaves of jews who fled the filth of Rome to the desert were not able to
do sacrifices OUT THERE---there was no opposition to the existence of the Temple.
Animal sacrifice was a TEMPLE RITE ONLY. SURADIE is engaging in wishful thinking

The Temple Mount and the Money Changers - Bible Odyssey

In John 2:14-16 we read that Jesus drove the money changers and those selling sacrificial animals out of the temple in Jerusalem. Where on the Temple

www.bibleodyssey.org

As for Jesus’ accusation that the merchants had made it “a den of robbers,” there is abundant confirmation in the historical sources of the extortionate prices charged to those who bought sacrificial animals or who needed to change their money to pay the temple tribute.

On one occasion, Rabbi, son of Gamaliel, caused a reduction of 99% in the price of a pair of doves, as recorded in Mishnah Kerithoth 1.7.

 

[irosie91]

The Temple Mount and the Money Changers - Bible Odyssey

In John 2:14-16 we read that Jesus drove the money changers and those selling sacrificial animals out of the temple in Jerusalem. Where on the Temple

www.bibleodyssey.org

As for Jesus’ accusation that the merchants had made it “a den of robbers,” there is abundant confirmation in the historical sources of the extortionate prices charged to those who bought sacrificial animals or who needed to change their money to pay the temple tribute.

On one occasion, Rabbi, son of Gamaliel, caused a reduction of 99% in the price of a pair of doves, as recorded in Mishnah Kerithoth 1.7.

more unrelated BS---doves were CUSTOMARILY sacrifice made by impoverished people and by custom were supposed to be really inexpensive. The DOVE thing was to give everyone a chance to participate. TEMPLE TRIBUTE? extortionate prices to change half a shekel? You got a citation for that idiotic assertion? You got something that makes sense? SURADIE writes like she took lessons from Josef Goebbels !!!! "temple tribute" there is no history of any objection to that 1/2 shekel per year

 

[irosie91]

more unrelated BS---doves were CUSTOMARILY sacrifice made by impoverished people and by custom were supposed to be really inexpensive. The DOVE thing was to give everyone a chance to participate. TEMPLE TRIBUTE? extortionate prices to change half a shekel? You got a citation for that idiotic assertion? You got something that makes sense? SURADIE writes like she took lessons from Josef Goebbels !!!! "temple tribute" there is no history of any objection to that 1/2 shekel per year

PS----anyone who wants to PAY THE YEARLY TEMPLE TRIBUTE----you can get a coin for 56.12 cents EXTORTION!!!!! it is and was voluntary---
no roman shill tax collectors on your back

 

[surada]

more unrelated BS---doves were CUSTOMARILY sacrifice made by impoverished people and by custom were supposed to be really inexpensive. The DOVE thing was to give everyone a chance to participate. TEMPLE TRIBUTE? extortionate prices to change half a shekel? You got a citation for that idiotic assertion? You got something that makes sense? SURADIE writes like she took lessons from Josef Goebbels !!!! "temple tribute" there is no history of any objection to that 1/2 shekel per year

The Roman denarius was about 3.4 grams of silver, and so half a shekel would be worth about 2 days of labor in a vineyard. Comparing this with labor wages in agriculture in Israel today, I would estimate the half a shekel contribution to be worth about 50-75 USD.

 

[BreezeWood]

that is your myth ...

- and that the romans were not the christians.

91 has never established nor does a shred of evidence exist a deference jesus ever had with the romans -

oh gee----you never read the book ... ROFLMAO @ "delayed opportunity"

ROFLMAO - ( CLUELESS 91 ) ... there are those that read documents w/ forgeries and fallacies on every page of the 10000 page document and then there are some who are not insane and hope to maintain their own - self determination - to read sparingly the same document.

are they religious by their book - 91 ... who believes the burning bush guy telling them their god claims they are special - or is it they simply just listen to what pleases them in a fairy tale.

- 400 years latter, written over a 100 year time frame using their victim's name for their own nefarious purposes - by any standard would be considered a ... delayed opportunity.