Extract from The Gods, All of them (Religion)
by Balance_Maintained 
, U.S.A., Monday, December 06, 2010, 01:13 (5100 days ago)
I took this out of "The Gods, All of them!" so as not to clutter up that thread.-B_M >.... The creation process is almost incidental to the overall story, which is why it was given so little attention. Like most things, we tend to obsess on the incidental bits and ignore the big friggin' signs that say this bit is important. (For example We have been obsessing over Christ's birth since the church was formed, yet the bible never gives his birth date, year, sign, or any other indication that it was supposed to be a 'special' event worth spending your annual income on gifts over :P)-Xeno >A good piece of writing--not sure how it answers my question, but I acknowledge what you say with nods! The only exception I have here is this: The Bible does NOT exist as a single, contiguous work with a true beginning and end; each book is itself sacrosanct, and there is no overarching narrative that binds each chapter. In fact, I find no mention of Christ in Genesis, in either my NRSV or Jewish Bible study editions; you must admit here, the hand of Paul in his reinterpretation of Jewish history to suit his own ends... Early Christians notoriously Cherry-picked lesser prophets for proof of Christ.-David >Sorry to break in but Genesis 3:15 in the Masoretic text is discussing Eve's relationship with the serpent. Is the KJ version so different that Satan and Christ can be extracted from it?-Xeno > In fact, in the ancient near-east, Serpents were not evil--they were symbols of wisdom, hence how the Staff of Moses was a Serpent. Christian re-interpretation of Judaism is how we got our Devil. > > Hell, Satan as the root of all evil, are both fabrications based on Jewish mystical theology. > > Especially the Apostle Paul; the early Christian church was hell-bent on differentiating and removing themselves from the Jewish people and theology in order to separate themselves after the failed Jewish Revolt against Rome. Reinterpretation is what we inherited from the Church. They adapted the Zoroastrian Ahriman as Satan, and tried to interpret the entire OT as the ultimate culmination ending in Christ. > > One needs only read ancient Jewish commentary (such as the Zohar) to realize exactly how different Paul's (and hence our own) interpretation really was.-Yes, I am well aware of this. Of course, I am also well aware that the Jews don't dig the NT, the Christians don't dig anything that doesn't include Christ, etc and most of them are too ignorant to realize that they all teach the same things and that what the texts teach is not what they believe it does.-But if you want to go down the esoteric route... The serpent, as a symbol of wisdom, was also present on the staff of Hermes which later became the symbol for our medical profession. On an even deeper level, the serpents representation of wisdom, the tree of knowledge, and Eve's choice to take them of her own accord is the actual cause of the fall of man. Not a talking snake and a piece of fruit. It was the choice to try and take a shortcut to the mastery of knowledge and wisdom(tree of knowledge and serpent of wisdom) The enmity between her(Binah, understanding, and interpreted into the holy spirit in the bible) seed and his(the serpent, Chokhmah, wisdom) is the divide between wisdom and understanding that exists without Keter(Christ, King of Kings, Lord of Lords, etc) All of these fall under the Ain Soph which is analogous to YHWH or the UI etc, all encompassing. -As I have mentioned before. The Bible is chalked full of esoteric meaning. I am not in any denial of that. However, I am of the opinion that when Paul, in 1 Tim 3:16 said that "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." He was not simply referring to the Bible, but, as he explicitly said, ALL SCRIPTURES. I would take that to include the Vedas, the Kabalah, the Koran, the Torah, and probably many other texts that I am not yet familiar with. -This is why(perhaps in another thread) I said explicitly that I don't want to debate RELIGIONs. If you want to debate a text, taken in its entirety, ok. If you want to debate it taking only the first five books, Ok. If you want to debate it taking anything in between, ok. This debate started at the mention of an over reaching theme to the bible, hence why I pursued the line of argument regarding the over-reaching text of the ENTIRE Bible, not just the OT.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by David Turell , Monday, December 06, 2010, 01:50 (5100 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
> This is why(perhaps in another thread) I said explicitly that I don't want to debate RELIGIONs. If you want to debate a text, taken in its entirety, ok. If you want to debate it taking only the first five books, Ok. If you want to debate it taking anything in between, ok. This debate started at the mention of an over reaching theme to the bible, hence why I pursued the line of argument regarding the over-reaching text of the ENTIRE Bible, not just the OT.-Your entire discussion is right on. It is a shame that religions are run by small people generally, with constant bickering and infighting and sniping, and the teachings in their texts are glorious!
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 06, 2010, 12:30 (5099 days ago) @ David Turell
From Xeno->You won't find a single (practicing) Jew who will agree that the Messiah was prophecied at all in Genesis. In fact, according to modern scholarship, it has been discovered that Genesis, as we know it now, is the product of at least 4 source documents that were combined into the form we recognize today; you might argue with this, but I will give the last word about the Pentateuch to Jewish scholars any day of the week.->Christ was reinterpreted backwards to Genesis. If you don't believe me, pick up your Oxford NRSV 4th edition. Scholars do not agree with you here.-If you want to play the "Jews did it first so they must be right." card, I will have to play the "Jews did it at the very best third, and even then they were at least 500 years to late" card.-I suppose I would hate to break it to every single practicing Jew on the planet that the Vedas (1500 BCE)predate the Torah (950 BCE) by at least five centuries, and some scholars argue that it might be as much as nearly 4000-6000 years older. The Egyptians also had the same Triune mythology approximately 3000 BC. complete with snake wrapped staves and all that jazz. - Excerpt >For example, in several Vedic hymns dedicated to river Sarasvati, she is described to be actually flowing and existent. But in reality river Sarasvati does not exist anymore, because, according to archaeological research, it dried up and disappeared in north Indian sands several thousand years ago, around 5000 BC (or earlier). ->In any case, Vedas (and the corresponding Hindu religion) must at least be as old as the last time river Sarasvati actually existed (flowed) in India because that is how it was described in the Vedas - alive and active. Therefore, considering the following hymns on river Sarasvati (which show it still very alive and active -- 5000 BC according to archaeological findings), Vedas and Hinduism may be assumed to exist at least since 5000 BC (7000 years ago). - In which case, I could just as reasonably argue that the Allah, Binah, and Keter, are really just reinventions of Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu. Regardless of which came first or whose book is older or bigger or yada yada, they ALL contain valuable insights and information, and they ALL wrote their own more modern legends, myths, and 'Mysteries' into their religious texts. It is not limited to the Vedas, Upanishads, Torah, Koran, Bible, or Kabalah. These same stories and 'mysteries' can be found throughout the ancient world.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by David Turell , Monday, December 06, 2010, 15:02 (5099 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
From Xeno > > >You won't find a single (practicing) Jew who will agree that the Messiah was prophecied at all in Genesis. In fact, according to modern scholarship, it has been discovered that Genesis, as we know it now, is the product of at least 4 source documents that were combined into the form we recognize today; you might argue with this, but I will give the last word about the Pentateuch to Jewish scholars any day of the week. > > >Christ was reinterpreted backwards to Genesis. If you don't believe me, pick up your Oxford NRSV 4th edition. Scholars do not agree with you here. > > If you want to play the "Jews did it first so they must be right." card, I will have to play the "Jews did it at the very best third, and even then they were at least 500 years to late" card. > > I suppose I would hate to break it to every single practicing Jew on the planet that the Vedas (1500 BCE)predate the Torah (950 BCE) by at least five centuries, and some scholars argue that it might be as much as nearly 4000-6000 years older. The Egyptians also had the same Triune mythology approximately 3000 BC. complete with snake wrapped staves and all that jazz. -As the non-practicing Jew on this site, I don't understand Tony's comments. I think he misinterpreted Matt's comments, which are absolutely right on. Genesis is what it is. Very competent scholars have made interpretations, of which I have copies. We don't know how much of the other religious writings the ancient Hebrews had knowledge, if any. As a desert nomadic folk, I doubt any at all. What is important is that the same stories and illusions appear throughout the ancient writings, suggesting Sheldrake's search for a human species consciousness has some validity. That is a conclusion worth studying.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 07, 2010, 03:15 (5099 days ago) @ David Turell
> As the non-practicing Jew on this site, I don't understand Tony's comments. I think he misinterpreted Matt's comments, which are absolutely right on. Genesis is what it is. Very competent scholars have made interpretations, of which I have copies. We don't know how much of the other religious writings the ancient Hebrews had knowledge, if any. As a desert nomadic folk, I doubt any at all. What is important is that the same stories and illusions appear throughout the ancient writings, suggesting Sheldrake's search for a human species consciousness has some validity. That is a conclusion worth studying.- My point is that it does not matter in the slightest if Christ was read backwards into Genesis. Nor does it matter who wrote which book first. It was not really meant as an affront to the Jewish community, but the argument was presented to me as "Not a single practicing Jew believes..." Which, quite frankly, is not what this discussion was ever about. It was never about belief, it was about a statement that in the BOOK entitled The BIBLE there is a overreaching theme. However, we DO, in fact, know that the Genesis creation story was taken from someone else, and adapted to fit:->Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre writes that one of his articles: >> >>"... is an attempt to briefly identify some of the Ancient Near Eastern Motifs and Myths from which the Hebrews apparently borrowed, adapted, and reworked in the Book of Genesis (more specifically Genesis 1-11). >> >>It is my understanding that Genesis' motifs and characters, God, Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and Noah, are adaptations and transformations of characters and events occurring in earlier Near Eastern Myths. In some cases several characters and motifs from different myths have been brought together and amalgamated into Genesis' stories. 2 > >He quotes W.G. Lambert: > >"The authors of ancient cosmologies were essentially compilers. Their originality was expressed in new combinations of old themes, and in new twists to old ideas." > >I believe Lambert's observation can be applied to the Hebrews who were combining old themes and putting "new twists" to old ideas. My research indicates that, at times, "reversals" are occurring in the Hebrew transformation and re-interpretation of the Mesopotamian myths. These "reversals," as I call them, can take the form of different characters, different locations for the settings of the stories, and different morals being drawn about the nature of God and Man's relationship. > >De la Torre concludes that Genesis 1-11: > >"... appears to be a reformatting of motifs and characters from four Mesopotamian myths: > >	Adapa and the South Wind, >	Atrahasis, >	the Epic of Gilgamesh and >	the Enuma Elish." >Of these four sources, Enuma Elish has the closest parallels with the first creation story in Genesis. > >Wikipedia comments that the ancient Hebrews did not simply adopt the Babylonian myths; they sometimes inverted them in order to fit into their worldview. Two examples are: 3 > >	In the Babylonian myth, the serpent, Ningishzida, is a friend to Adapa who helps him in his search for immortality. >	In Genesis, the serpent is the enemy of Adam, trying to trick him out of the chance to understand good and evil by developing a moral sense and thus becoming fully human. >	The gods of the Babylonians became the ancient Israelites' god. >Also: > >	The Mesopotamians had adopted a worldview in which the Earth had gradually improved since creation. >	The ancient Hebrews adopted a worldview in which the universe was created perfect but degenerated to the point where God had to initiate the largest genocide in history -- killing every person from newborn to the elderly in the flood of Noah. >- With all that in mind, I found it a touch exhasperating for Matt to make the 'Jews did it first and Christians did it later..' bit. Which is why I responded the way I did. The truth is, some else did it first, the Jews rewrote it and added their own until it was to their liking, and the Christians read into that and added their own to it until it was to their liking.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by David Turell , Tuesday, December 07, 2010, 14:42 (5098 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
However, we DO, in fact, know that the Genesis creation story was taken from someone else, and adapted to fit: > > >Walter Reinhold Warttig Mattfeld y de la Torre writes that one of his articles: > >> > >>"... is an attempt to briefly identify some of the Ancient Near Eastern Motifs and Myths from which the Hebrews apparently borrowed, adapted, and reworked in the Book of Genesis (more specifically Genesis 1-11). > >> > >>It is my understanding that Genesis' motifs and characters, God, Adam, Eve, the Serpent, and Noah, are adaptations and transformations of characters and events occurring in earlier Near Eastern Myths. In some cases several characters and motifs from different myths have been brought together and amalgamated into Genesis' stories. > > > >He quotes W.G. Lambert: > > > >"The authors of ancient cosmologies were essentially compilers. Their originality was expressed in new combinations of old themes, and in new twists to old ideas." > > > >I believe Lambert's observation can be applied to the Hebrews who were combining old themes and putting "new twists" to old ideas. My research indicates that, at times, "reversals" are occurring in the Hebrew transformation and re-interpretation of the Mesopotamian myths. These "reversals," as I call them, can take the form of different characters, different locations for the settings of the stories, and different morals being drawn about the nature of God and Man's relationship. > > > >De la Torre concludes that Genesis 1-11: > > > >"... appears to be a reformatting of motifs and characters from four Mesopotamian myths: > > > >	Adapa and the South Wind, > >	Atrahasis, > >	the Epic of Gilgamesh and > >	the Enuma Elish." > >Of these four sources, Enuma Elish has the closest parallels with the first creation story in Genesis. > > > >Wikipedia comments that the ancient Hebrews did not simply adopt the Babylonian myths; they sometimes inverted them in order to fit into their worldview. Two examples are: > > > >	In the Babylonian myth, the serpent, Ningishzida, is a friend to Adapa who helps him in his search for immortality. > >	In Genesis, the serpent is the enemy of Adam, trying to trick him out of the chance to understand good and evil by developing a moral sense and thus becoming fully human. > >	The gods of the Babylonians became the ancient Israelites' god. > >Also: > > > >	The Mesopotamians had adopted a worldview in which the Earth had gradually improved since creation. > >	The ancient Hebrews adopted a worldview in which the universe was created perfect but degenerated to the point where God had to initiate the largest genocide in history -- killing every person from newborn to the elderly in the flood of Noah. > > > > > With all that in mind, I found it a touch exhasperating for Matt to make the 'Jews did it first and Christians did it later..' bit. Which is why I responded the way I did. The truth is, some else did it first, the Jews rewrote it and added their own until it was to their liking, and the Christians read into that and added their own to it until it was to their liking.-There is no proof that one group copied from another. It is all opinion as your account shows above. The 'creation stories' were all over the Earth, not just limited to the groups mentioned above in one geographic area. They were oral and then written down when writing appeared. All tribes, everywhere on Earth had "Gods", had creation stories. The American native tribes had 'the great spirit'. Perhaps the Hebrews were in contact and developed the 'one God' concept from them. What you presented above is logical conjecture, not proof of plagarism.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 07, 2010, 16:54 (5098 days ago) @ David Turell
That the Israelites emerged out of the Canaanite nations prior to the first book of the Torah being written, is not conjecture. All archaeological evidence supports that. You were quick enough to say that early Christians modified the Torah to their ends, yet you don't even admit the probability that the Torah came into existence in the same way? Lets look at the facts.- 2150-1950 BCE Abram Departed Mesopotamia. 1800-1200 BCE (Date uncertain) The Israelites went into Egypt to escape a famine and were enslaved most likely in the 18th-14th century BC. Around 1200 BCE Israelites left Egypt heading back to Canaan, after approx. 2-6 centuries there. 1200-1000 BCE Started settling into Canaan and fighting with the Canaanites.- Now, after spending between 2-6 centuries with the Egyptians, you would claim that the use of the Staff and snake, the well documented symbol of hermetic lore in Egypt, was of pure Israelite construction? Or perhaps even the word for god, Elohim was orgininal? Sadly not.-Extract on Canaanite Mythology >According to the pantheon, known in Ugarit as 'ilhm (=Elohim) or the children of El (cf. the Biblical "sons of God"), supposedly obtained by Philo of Byblos from Sanchuniathon of Berythus (Beirut) the creator was known as Elion (Biblical El Elyon = God most High), who was the father of the divinities, and in the Greek sources he was married to Beruth (Beirut = the city). This marriage of the divinity with the city would seem to have Biblical parallels too with the stories of the link between Melkart and Tyre; Yahweh and Jerusalem; Chemosh and Moab; Tanit and Baal Hammon in Carthage. El Elyon is mentioned as 'God Most High' occurs in Genesis 14.18...19 as the God whose priest was Melchizedek king of Salem.-So here, there is a direct usage of Canaanite mythology written into the Torah, in Gen 14:18-19. Bear in mind that all of this exposure to these other cultures happened PRIOR to the first word in the Torah ever being penned. Then we look at the OT and we see all these legacy images of esoteric and religious teachings from other cultures and you still think that the Torah is an original?
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by David Turell , Wednesday, December 08, 2010, 02:31 (5098 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
El Elyon is mentioned as 'God Most High' occurs in Genesis 14.18...19 as the God whose priest was Melchizedek king of Salem. > > So here, there is a direct usage of Canaanite mythology written into the Torah, in Gen 14:18-19. Bear in mind that all of this exposure to these other cultures happened PRIOR to the first word in the Torah ever being penned. Then we look at the OT and we see all these legacy images of esoteric and religious teachings from other cultures and you still think that the Torah is an original?-I have no idea how original the Torah is. I'm sure there is some cultural mixing of tales and beliefs all through the Middle East. My Bible makes no mention of "El Elyon" in 14:18-19, but the rest of your quote is there. My point remains the same. We have no true idea of how much mixing of religious myths and tales occurred.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 09, 2010, 03:01 (5097 days ago) @ David Turell
So we don't set a specific number, this myth came from that, my point is that for any group to claim superiority based on the originality of their texts is pointless. -I think that ALL of the texts contain lots of useful information. And many of them even contain the same information, even if small details have changed in the retelling. To my way of thinking, these small changes do not devalue them at all.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by David Turell , Thursday, December 09, 2010, 05:07 (5096 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
So we don't set a specific number, this myth came from that, my point is that for any group to claim superiority based on the originality of their texts is pointless. > > I think that ALL of the texts contain lots of useful information. And many of them even contain the same information, even if small details have changed in the retelling. To my way of thinking, these small changes do not devalue them at all.-I absolutely agree with you. The surprising point to me is that groups with no contact, appear to have the same myths and stories.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Thursday, December 09, 2010, 06:30 (5096 days ago) @ David Turell
Exactly. Which is one of the things that triggered my own personal endeavors.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by romansh 
, Sunday, December 12, 2010, 23:00 (5093 days ago) @ David Turell
I absolutely agree with you. The surprising point to me is that groups with no contact, appear to have the same myths and stories.-The works of Joseph Campbell go a long way to explaining this. I have not read it (it's heavy going), but A Hero with a Thousand Faces might be worth a read. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by David Turell , Sunday, December 12, 2010, 23:38 (5093 days ago) @ romansh
I absolutely agree with you. The surprising point to me is that groups with no contact, appear to have the same myths and stories. > > The works of Joseph Campbell go a long way to explaining this. I have not read it (it's heavy going), but A Hero with a Thousand Faces might be worth a read. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hero_with_a_Thousand_Faces-Based on the reference in Wikipedia above I don't see a real explanation except the similarities seem to indicate that everyone tends to make up the same stories. Are we coded for that? For a purpose? I don't have an answer, but I appreciate the reference you offered.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 13, 2010, 02:51 (5093 days ago) @ David Turell
My personal theory, for which I have little evidence at all, is that these stories perpetuate because of one of three reasons. Either a)The diaspora of human civilization happened more recently than previously thought, bringing the previous culture with them(Which to me is the most unlikely of the scenarios) b) Human civilization is much OLDER than we give it credit for, and these stories are echoes of a past that we are only vaguely aware of c) There is a underlying grain of universal truth to these stories that has been intuitively grasped independently by humans at various stages of development around the globe. I tend to leans towards B, but as I stated, I only have minimal evidence to support that theory.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by David Turell , Monday, December 13, 2010, 05:41 (5092 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
My personal theory, for which I have little evidence at all, is that these stories perpetuate because of one of three reasons. Either a)The diaspora of human civilization happened more recently than previously thought, bringing the previous culture with them(Which to me is the most unlikely of the scenarios) b) Human civilization is much OLDER than we give it credit for, and these stories are echoes of a past that we are only vaguely aware of c) There is a underlying grain of universal truth to these stories that has been intuitively grasped independently by humans at various stages of development around the globe. I tend to leans towards B, but as I stated, I only have minimal evidence to support that theory.-I think C is the most likely answer. History of change from hunter-gatherer to agricultural seems quite settled. We seem to need heros and leaders.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Monday, December 13, 2010, 10:55 (5092 days ago) @ David Turell
My personal theory, for which I have little evidence at all, is that these stories perpetuate because of one of three reasons. Either a)The diaspora of human civilization happened more recently than previously thought, bringing the previous culture with them(Which to me is the most unlikely of the scenarios) b) Human civilization is much OLDER than we give it credit for, and these stories are echoes of a past that we are only vaguely aware of c) There is a underlying grain of universal truth to these stories that has been intuitively grasped independently by humans at various stages of development around the globe. I tend to leans towards B, but as I stated, I only have minimal evidence to support that theory. > > I think C is the most likely answer. History of change from hunter-gatherer to agricultural seems quite settled. We seem to need heros and leaders.-There are out of place artifacts that no historian or archaeologist has adequately addressed, which is why B is still an option for me. I think there is a lot that we still do not know or understand, and that saying something is 'quite settled' is a mistake that leads to stagnation. If it were all settled then there would be no question left of that portion of human history, yet it is still an issue of debate. I try to keep an open mind on these things because I think there is a much larger story buried than is generally accepted. But, as I said, this is just my opinion and there is only minimal evidence to back up these suspicions.-* edited to clear out some redundancy. *
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Thursday, December 09, 2010, 23:07 (5096 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
Balance, > > With all that in mind, I found it a touch exhasperating for Matt to make the 'Jews did it first and Christians did it later..' bit. Which is why I responded the way I did. The truth is, some else did it first, the Jews rewrote it and added their own until it was to their liking, and the Christians read into that and added their own to it until it was to their liking.-All Priests edit. -My only complaint was that you said there was an overarching theme to the Bible. If you meant that as, there is a generally repeated pattern of Gods and prophets, I agree. If however you meant, there is a centralized narrative that ties everything together, then we are diametrically opposed.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by Balance_Maintained , U.S.A., Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 13:12 (5091 days ago) @ xeno6696
Following in this same thread, I recently stumbled across a website discussing the similarities between the biblical figure Joseph, and the Egyptian figure Imhotep. After doing a bit of fact checking, I grudgingly agree that they do share number of similarities. I thought I would present a couple of reference articles for anyone interested, as I think it directly relates to our discussion of the 'originality' of anyone story.- Original Article-This site is heavily biased towards a Christian interpretation of the story, however, their facts about the two stories do seem in line with what I have been able to dig up so far. The brief version for those that don't want to read, is that both Joseph and Imhotep:-Were born commoners Became second in command to the Pharoah Had some paranormal affiliation with dreams Led Egypt through a seven year famine Built enormous grain stores Are famous for being 'wise' and speaking 'proverbs' Lived extraordinarily long lives(both reportedly over 100 years est 110) Reputedly lived in the correct time frame Both supposedly had a direct connection to a Deity.-Pharaoh Djoser -The wiki page for Pharoah Djoser. Apparently Imhotep served under him as the first vizier in Egyptian history.-Imhotep-The wiki article for Imhotep is pretty thin, but there is some related tidbits in this as well that help corroborate the story. - Considering the time frame and the period of time spent in Egypt prior to the writing of the Torah, I would not be surprised if there were indeed some link between the two stories. This is not an assertion as to which is the genuine article, but simply to the link between the different histories.
Extract from The Gods, All of them
by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, December 14, 2010, 14:28 (5091 days ago) @ Balance_Maintained
I find this connection plausible; there's no reason both cultures wouldn't have celebrated the same man.
--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"
\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"