And Certainly Not The Fucking Garden of Eden!

[Minimalist]

http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-40194150

'First of our kind' found in Morocco

The idea that modern people evolved in a single "cradle of humanity" in East Africa some 200,000 years ago is no longer tenable, new research suggests. 
Fossils of five early humans have been found in North Africa that show Homo sapiens emerged at least 100,000 years earlier than previously recognised. 
It suggests that our species evolved all across the continent, the scientists involved say.

Poor bible-thumpers.  Sucks to be them.

[vorlon13]

Since Jesus was crucified at least twice, perhaps we need to re-read the creation story and see if there is evidence for God hedging his bet on the Garden of Eden too ??

[Minimalist]

I have to go find a passage for you in Carrier's book, V.  You'll love it.

BRB.

---

And here I am.

Epiphanius then says a curious thing: these Christians say Jesus had
lived and died in the time of Alexander Jannaeus. This is what he says they
preach:

I. See Epiphanius, Panarion 29.
2. I n Epiphanius and Acts the word is identical: the Nazoraioi (Acts 24.5), which
in English corresponds to 'Nazorian'. by analogy with Athlnaioi, 'Athenian' (see
discussion in Chapter 10, §3).

282 On the Historicity of Jesus


The priesthood in the holy church is [actually] David's throne and kingly
seat, for the Lord joined together and gave to his holy church both the
kingly and the high-priestly dignity, transferring to it the never-failing
throne of David. For David's throne endured in line of succession until
the time of Christ himself, rulers from Judah not fai ling until he came 'to
whom the things kept in reserve belonged, and he was the expectation of
the nations'. With the advent of the Christ the rulers in line of succession
from Judah, reigning until the time of the Christ himself, ceased. For the
line fell away and stopped from the time when he was born in Bethlehem
of Judea under Alexander, who was of priestly and royal race. From
Alexander onward this office ceased-from the days of Alexander and
Salina, who is also called Alexandra, to the days of Herod the king and
Augustus the Roman emperor.3

The Babylonian Talmud not only confirms this, but its Jewish authors
appear to have known no other form of Christianity. This means the Jews
east of the Roman Empire (where this Talmud was compiled, assembled
from the third to fifth centuries) were reacting to this Nazarian Christianity.
As one passage declares, 'when King Jannaeus was kill ing our rabbis,
R. Jesus ben Periah and Jesus [the Nazarene] escaped to Alexandria.
Egypt; and when peace was restored', they returned (echoes here of Matthew's
nativity account, in this case told of Jesus rather than his parents).
and this Jesus, who is explicitly identified as 'Jesus the Nazarene', was
condemned for immorality, sorcery and worshiping idols, and eventual ly
executed because he 'practiced magic and led Israel astray'.4

The quoted passage from Epiphanius is in Italics.  So not only crucified twice but over 100 years apart as Alexander Jannaeus ruled early in the first century BC.

[Amarok]

And Cue "your not suppose to read it literally " Stop reading it in the order that makes sense and is coherent"

[Minimalist]

Again, the Alexander Jannaeus* stuff sounds outrageous because history was carefully constructed by the early church to pump up the one story they agreed upon but if any credence is put in the letters of the so-called "paul" then the issue in 2 Corinthians 11 has to be addressed.

32 In Damascus the governor under Aretas the king kept the city of the damascenes with a garrison, desirous to apprehend me:

33 And through a window in a basket was I let down by the wall, and escaped his hands.

Aretas IV (d. c 40 AD) never controlled the city of Damascus but Aretas III d. c 62 BC did control it for about 20 years before the Romans under Pompey Magnus came rolling through the region.  Roman control of Damascus dates from 64 BC.  So how could "paul" have been there and still writing furiously over a century later?  Something smells.
But the writings of Josephus make clear that the reign of Jannaeus and his predecessor John Hyrcanus were a time of rapid military expansion by an independent jewish kingdom and quite frankly the only time in history when we can establish that there was jewish control over almost precisely the same area that the fucking bible claimed for David's "empire."  The other powers in the region ( including Parthia, Aretas III's Nabatea, the rump remainder of the Seleucid empire and the not much stronger Ptolemaic kingdom in Egypt) as well as various factions in Judaea itself were all trying to influence the succession in Jerusalem for their own benefit. 

The paul comment above makes sense in a political context of shifting alliances were people who had fled from one power and sought refuge with another were suddenly forced to flee again when times changed.  The trouble with jesus freaks is that they never want to talk about the geo-political situation and instead babble on about fucking jesus and his second rate philosophical bullshit.

* Alexander Jannaeus (also known as Alexander Jannai/Yannai; Hebrew: אלכסנדר ינאי) was the second Hasmonean king of Judaea from 103 to 76 BC. A son of John Hyrcanus, he inherited the throne from his brother Aristobulus I, and married his brother's widow, Queen Salome Alexandra. From his conquests to expand the kingdom to a bloody civil war, Alexander's reign has been generalized as cruel and oppressive with never ending conflict.[2] Although Josephus and other historians refer to him by the name of "Alexander Yannai", his full name was "Alexander Jonathan" as attested to by his coins wherein he calls himself "Yehonathan the king".[3]