The Historical Reliability of the New Testament

[Wyrd of Gawd]

In fact, Antiochus IV Epihanes in the villian in the Maccabees books and the "anti-christ" in Daniel chapter 11.  He was indeed a nasty character and considered himself to be God.   The rant in Zephaniah is something he might have said. 

An excellent point in that it allows us to date "Daniel" to 167 BC.  Everything prior to 167 happened and everything afterwards did not.  Surest way to spot a fuck up.

After reading about the Selcuid Empire and Antiochus IV Ephianes I can make a strong connection between him and the pissed off God character of the Old Testament stories.  A lot of the various emperors considered themselves to be gods but he went all in with his delusion, elevating himself to Zeus.  He was a very bad boy and his reputation carried over into the New Testament, with the Jesus character alluding to him in Matthew 24:15-22.

If anyone has the time and inclination they should read about him because it helps to understand the stories in Bible.  

[Minimalist]

Antiochus IV seems to be the beginning of the dispute between Hellenized Jews and primitive goat fuckers.  (Think of modern baptists rolling around in vats of shit v smart people from the north.)

Prior to that, no one seems to have given a flying fuck about Judaea.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Antiochus IV seems to be the beginning of the dispute between Hellenized Jews and primitive goat fuckers.  (Think of modern baptists rolling around in vats of shit v smart people from the north.)

Prior to that, no one seems to have given a flying fuck about Judaea.

The fairy tale does a good job of hiding Antiochus IV except for his role in the Maccabee books and oblique references to him elsewhere.  It tends for emphasize the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians instead of the Seleucids.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the majority of Old Testament stories aren't actually about the Seleucids and Antiochus IV as the God character, even including him as the God character in the Moses story.

The God rants in the later Old Testament books are definitely something that could be attributed to Antiochus IV based upon his actions in history.  

[robvalue]

Here's a quick recap of my unanswered questions:

1) Why should I believe what some guys 2000 years ago believed, regarding things that have never even been demonstrated as possible, just because they wrote it down? They experienced something, and all we have is their attempts to describe it. Why should I think unprecedented supernatural events is a more likely explanation than them being mistaken, which happens all the time? This is giving them the benefit of the doubt that they weren't hallucinating, or just making stuff up. That's a lot to concede so I'm really helping you out.

2) If your 10 most trusted comrades told you God just talked to them and you must all become Muslims, would you do it?

[FreeTony]

I'm really not sure the point of all of this.

I've met people who say their Aunt once saw a ghost 30 years ago. I can write down in a book that this event happened, include the details that have been related to me, then claim I am a world class historian.

You'd have to be a complete moron to believe my story, if you are reading it today, or 2000 years from now.

Making the argument that it must have happened because the later redrafts of my book are similar to the original, or that there was only a 30 year gap between the aunts story and my written account are ludicrous.


It's really simple stuff. When I'm watching TV and I see a dragon flying around, I conclude it's fiction and not a wildlife documentary. If I apply this minimal level of skepticism to the bible, I reach the same conclusion.

[Minimalist]

Antiochus IV seems to be the beginning of the dispute between Hellenized Jews and primitive goat fuckers.  (Think of modern baptists rolling around in vats of shit v smart people from the north.)

Prior to that, no one seems to have given a flying fuck about Judaea.

The fairy tale does a good job of hiding Antiochus IV except for his role in the Maccabee books and oblique references to him elsewhere.  It tends for emphasize the Egyptians, Assyrians, Babylonians, and Persians instead of the Seleucids.  I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the majority of Old Testament stories aren't actually about the Seleucids and Antiochus IV as the God character, even including him as the God character in the Moses story.

The God rants in the later Old Testament books are definitely something that could be attributed to Antiochus IV based upon his actions in history.  

Josephus ( as well as Livy and Polybius ) all recount in one form or another the tale of Antiochus IV being intercepted by a Roman Ambassador (Gaius Popillius Laenus) as he was invading Egypt.  Laenus carried a letter from the Senate directing Antiochus to withdraw or be at war with Rome.  Laenus supposedly drew a circle around Antiochus and told him to answer the Senate before leaving the circle.  Picturesque image to be sure.  Anyway, Antiochus withdrew.  Josephus picks up the tale on the way back in Book XII of Antiquities and recounts that a chastened Antiochus arrived at Jerusalem in what one imagines to be a foul mood and finds that the Hellenized Jews are being attacked by what would have to be considered fundie Jews and reacts by taking out his frustrations on the fundies who he regarded as a bunch of dick-snipping primitive barbarian fucks.  He wanted to bring the joys of Greek culture to these miscreants and probably set off the so-called Maccabean revolt in the process.  This is in 168 BC.

But, he was not present to do so himself.  In 167 the Parthians attacked into Syria and cut the silk road.  This was a far more serious matter for the Seleucids than the fucking jews.  Antiochus left a junior commander to deal with Palestine while he himself spent the last 3 years of his life fighting Parthia.  He got sick and died in 164 which is another fuck-up in "Daniel" that evangelicals desperately try to ignore.

By the way, Antiochus only took that name when he became king in 175.  Prior to that he was known as Mithridates ( Gift of Mithra) which indicates that Mithraism was well established in Asia by the second century and certainly supports Plutarch's observation that the earliest Roman contact with Mithraism came when Pompey's Army reached Asia c 68 BC.  In fact, Roman armies and merchants had been active in Asia since the Battle of Magnesia in 190 BC and it seems unlikely that it took another century for it to become known.

[The Grand Nudger]

Not in this thread...I would be happy to defend the Spiral Argument at another time, but the mob at the gates is demanding more on the OP and I don't like the look of those pitchforks they're carrying. 

Is this now a proper noun...., meh, no worries.  I don't think you could defend that argument -anywhere-, chances are you're butchering it.  

[Cyberman]

It's called a spiral argument because he's screwed himself into the ground.

[Crossless2.0]

@Stimbo: Could be. I read 'spiral argument' and substituted 'swirling the drain'.

[Won2blv]

I have had similar issues that the OP has had on this site. Can people simply address his claim in the original post? The difference between me and the OP is that I am exploring what I believe but he is arguing for what he believes. But either way, there are a lot of juvenile comments and logical fallacies used by the atheists here. Also I didn't take the time to go through all the comments, I am sure that some did address the original post but these threads turn into mad max in no time