This is more of a question out of curiosity on my part. I had heard somewhere that the old and new testaments were actually loosely based on a work originally written by Plato or someone of his ilk. Apparently the similarities in both documents are so numerous that it is apparent to any sentient being that the stories told are pure fiction.

Does anyone know what this work is? This may be a good reference to provide to a real pesky person.

IRI

I would start with these guys: Sumerians

If you study the history of the peoples of the 'cradle of civilization' it isn't too hard a stretch to follow the evolution of all biblical fables. Before they were written, they were oral tales told around campfires, so to speak.

Ever played 'telephone'?

Now imagine what would happen playing that game over the course of a few millenia?

Here Too!!!

Crotalus Atrox is correct about the Sumerians, as far as the Book of Genesis is concerned. I also see no reason to doubt that the seven days of creation are fashioned after the the Seven Babylonian Tablets of creation:the Enuma Elish http://www.sacred-texts.com/ane/stc/index.htm

As for the New Testament, consider a search concerning the Roman man/god myths, rampant during the supposed time of Jesus. This includes a study of Julius Caesar.

Well you know the story of Jesus and his virgin mother is remarkably similar to the ancient Egyptian tale of Isis and Osiris.

You may find 'Holy Blood-Holy Grail' and also 'The Templar Revelation' (The books upon which Dan Brown based his novel 'The DaVinci Code') interesting reading if your are looking into this topic.

Aparently virgin-birth messiahs were all the rage back in the day too because I have heard of several other similar archaic myths.

Every age has it's spin doctors and it's own charismatic cult leaders (Saul of Tarsis being the real driving force behind the rise of christianity) and bada-bing once you have enough numbers behind you you gain credibility.

Enter Scientology.

The tale of Noah and the flood can supposedly (since I haven't read it myself and rely on secondary sources in this case) be found in the babylonian poem Gilgamesh. After being deported to Babylon the jewish people needed a boost for their national identity and incorporated some babylonian myths in their bible.

As for the new testament it seems that Mithraism which was around at the same time had some influence on the way early christians.

The influence from Plato is probably from his thoughts on ideas - that for instance that horses in this world are all derived from the abstract notion of some ideal horse that exists outside of our reality in a world of ideas. This moves the focus out if this world and into a realm that we ordinary people cannot access, much like the idea of having a god, heaven and so on who are outside our reality.

My source for these theories is in danish, so it probably wouldn't make much sense to you. If anybody knows of other writers who have similar theories I'd be very interested to hear about it.

I will simply say this:

If you are dealing with a 'pesky Xtian' it won't matter what reference you give him/her.

These people are CONVINCED that the Bible is infallible on FAITH alone.

I know the book from Genesis to Revelation and anyone who TRULY believes what it says is in it needs to be put into a mental institution.

There are however, some good ol' Proverbs in there (in fact, there is a book called 'Proverbs', that gives some good advice such as:

"Never cast your pearls before swine".

I simply don't debate with these pesky people any longer. You can show one of them SCIENTIFIC evidence of something and they will say: "No, the Bible says......."

You can't debate with people like this. It is a never ending battle.

Choose your battles wisely.

It's interesting to note that Jesus flees into Egypt with his family, so that he can appear out of there like Moses, just like a lot of effort is put into linking him to the lineage of King David. People tend to get caught up in thinking that the bible is the word of god, when it's actually a number of eyewitness reports that are written down several years after the fact, each having a different agenda to serve. Elaine Pagels touches upon this in the book "The origins of Satan" which also goes into how the cristian notion of Satan was constructed.

The fifth book of the Hebrew Bible had a very BIG political agenda for instance.

Deuteronomy.

I may add that this is the book that put a ban on 'walking through the fire' which is any sorcery, divination, or 'Witchery'.

Not all Eve, I've actually had one guy want to debate the scientific proof of archaeological findings that Jesus was real. Being I was shopping with the misses and my son on winter solstice I refused to give him his debate.

They love to 'debate' actually, they are trying to 'convert'.

I agree with that. Christianity is the end product of Platonic thought.

History is pregnant with Messiah stories. Most identical to the Jesus story.

I once read a list of 16 messiah stories, seperated by several centuries, and religious traditions. There is nothing new found in Christianity.

May I interject, with a thought. I have thought this thought before, whilst thinking on thoughts people having posted concerning The Bible.

I have oftimes seen apoplexy take place, right before my eyes, at the mention of the Bible. The thrust of the vehemence seems to be thought of as an indication of some form of "freedom" from "the word of god".

What amuses me, is that the emotional discomfort that the mere mention of this lowly tome belies a form of bondage denied with great earnestness.

In plain English, I have noticed that many seem very emotionally attached to this powerless book given power by their reaction to it.

It is just a book; a work of literature, arguably inferior to most. I suggest that the ability to casually quote from it, without need to interject cynicism, is the mark of one truly free of such connection to outdated ideas. It puts Christianity in it's rightful place...a quaint reminder of another failed ideology.

That is only my opinion. I may be out of place; however, I have thunk it.

True as I was in my screw with the squares mood and had on my Manson shirt of the parody of the Salvation (read Satanic instead) Army.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_Criticism

This source is a definitely a good starting point to explore the historical, textual, authorship, and ethical inaccuracies of the Bible.

Almost every book in the Hebrew and Christian Bibles are from different authors, addressing different audiences with very specific issues.

I've gotten into some debates on this board here before, so my intention is not to start another endlessly looping quarrell over semantics, but here are some points that you should keep in mind.

Christianity, like all mythologies, rejects and adopts various ideas from circulating stories at the time. It has inherited notions from Hellenetic philosophers, ancient Egypt, Judaism, Zoroastrianism, Paganism, and too many more to mention.

Every notion that people dismiss as "Christian" usually has a basis in some other school of thought.

There are very few new ideas out there.

The texts themselves, when examined individualy, portray multiple Christianities, each with their take of the story of this dude Jesus, each with a particular interpretation usually directly corresponding to the circumstances of that particular group. (Imagine that! How uncanny!)

As for Jesus the Jew, who knew what his original thoughts were, although it is highly likely that he did exist. Historians have tried, but most academic works on the historical Jesus end up portraying him as a mirror to a popular archetype of the time it was written (in the seventies, Jesus came out looking very much like a hippy, today, he might even rap).

It is also highly likely that whatever he actually thought and did will never be known, and no one really cares. Time and time again, people have proven that they will believe what they want to believe. Any exercise to change this is an exercise in futility.

A good place to start is looking up misstranslations of the Bible as well as the evolution of the bible. The bible often mixes up plural and singular nouns for example.
Here is a good article

Apparently the bible is a collection of stories from many different cultures collected over a long period of time.

The story of the tower of Babel is found in Sumerian Mythology. Moses is shares similarities to Sargon, etc.

I'm not ashamed nor embarrassed to mention the book. It is, yes, simply that, a book.

I know a lot about it, and again, like in many books you can find a few grains of wisdom.

Lex: How did I know you'd show up here?

Well, there's the Kanye West "Jesus Walks" rap track, for sure, and I've noticed many of the rappers are insistent that Jesus was a black man, and supposedly his time spent in Egypt proves this. (Which is funny since all the Egyptians I've ever seen were Arabs...)

So I think you're right.

How long til we see a debate on whether or not Mary Magdalene was Jesus' ho? Or did it already happen and I wasn't paying attention.

More than several years after the fact. I recall seeing a documentary (on A&E a few Decembers ago) on this matter and even the born again Christian scholars admit that the earliest known version of the earliest of the gospels dates from around 100 AD, or 70 odd years after this is all supposed to have taken place.

But of course this is a special case wherein absolutely NONE of the details were forgotten, changed, or exaggerated in those 70 years of oral tradition.

I haven't been ass-deep in academic Jesus movement analysis not to spread my knowledge occasionally.



Take the customary emotional response out of the equation, and the bible's a fascinating book, for diverse reasons.

Maybe you should just read them. You can find both in any good book store.

The texts of the Hebrew Bible were redacted a hundred years before Plato was born, and would not be translated into Greek until after he was dead. Plato never travelled to Judea. He may have spent time in Egypt, and it's conceivable he might have encountered Jews there, but there's no evidence he ever knew anything about it, let alone studied it or could have been influenced by it.

During the Hellenistic age, Jewish culture was influenced a great deal by Greek customs and traditions, including philosophy. The Talmud mentions "philosophers" often, but almost always disparagingly. "Philosopher" was a stereotype for an obnoxious know-it-all who always tried to stump the Rabbis with stupid and ignorant questions. Nevertheless, some Greek metaphysical ideas may have influenced some esoteric traditions of Judaism.

Christianity emerged from a Hellenized Jewish culture, and the New Testament is written in Greek, but the NT authors don't really demonstrate any knowledge of Greek philosophy, or refer to it at all. There's no particular idea or concept or claim that you could point to and say, "There's Plato". The values, attitude, approach, and intent are all very different.

Rather, what you do have is, hundreds of years later, theologians who have a commitment to Christianity but an interest in Plato, trying to reconcile the two. This often came at the cost of distorting both. (You also have the odd situation of pagans who are committed to Plato but interested in Christianity: they became the "Neo-Platonists", but their views were not exactly the same as Plato's.)

Modern Egyptians are Arabs, but there's evidence to show that migratory and military patterns over the last several millenia have altered the phenotypical makeup of egypt. One point to note is that the ancient border of Egypt would've been well-within the sudan today.

I've found that the Old Testament in particular has some great nuggets of wisdom. The literary figure of Jesus makes some dramatic speeches, but ultimately I don't find what he has to say very interesting. Ecclesiastes on the other hand has some rather pessimistic screeds within it, though the authors' solution to the wickedness of the world is to trust God. They lost me there, but its still some fine literature. It is this Satanist's favorite book of the Bible!

I knew I asked my question in the right place. Thanks for all your replies. I now have more sources to follow than my level of curiosity!

I think I'll just go back to rereading my Satanic Bible

I also agree with you Eve, doing battle with a Xitan is like trying to receive a Heavy Rock FM station on an AM radio. Better to leave them with their heads filled with that static they feel so comfortable with.

IRI

Now that's the best suggestion I 've heard all night.

Wait a minute...okay. That is the SECOND best suggestion I have heard tonight.

This book of fairy tales written about a god, created by men who have condoned and enforced every heinous crime known to man throughout the ages has but one small element I can appreciate - The part when Satan fights to overthrow the evil son of a bitch.


Hail Satan!

Yes, thank you. I was about to add this very thing.

Platonic thought predominantly through Plotinus didn't get infused into Christian until Church Fathers like Augustine attempted to reconcile their mish-mash theology with one aspect of 'classical' philosophy. Later in the Scholastic period, it was an attempt to integrate Aristotle by such Fathers as Aquinas.

Gypsy, I don't believe the archetype Satan actually exists in the bible, let alone tries to overthrow god. There's the Snake, one figure called Satan who torments Job so god can observe how pious he is(strange thing for an omnipotent and clairvoyent being to need to do), the devil that offered Jesus the earth before he became a preacher, the antichrist and the beast. These are often grouped together to form the basis of the archetype of Satan, minus the fact the only one actually named satan torments in the name of God.

Personally, I favor the Islamic version of Satan. The Jinn named Iblis, refused to bow down to Adam at God's biding.

Ishkur, I believe it was St. Augustine that was known for the best christian prayer ever: "Lord, grant me the give of chastity, just not right now."

I knew I should have kept out of this.

Eh phooey Satan/Lucifer/The Devil however you name him - He fought to overthrow god's kingdom.

Isn't it exactly why he was banned from 'heaven' and thrown down to earth?

And hence why he has been the scapegoat for every goddamn 'sin' of man since now he supposedly is the 'ruler' of the earth, and is here to tempt and gather as many to his side before the 'end' when the bearded wonder returns to take back god’s kingdom and throw Satan into the pit for a thousand years...and so on and so on....and everyone lived happily ever after. THE END was that a run-on sentence?

Excuse me if I’m not some scripture spouting nutcase. I really couldn't care less but that is the story as far as I know.

OK I'm done with this nonsense here...If you think the book is interesting, and contains anything worthy of discussion then by all means knock yourself out.

All I was saying was that the idea of a devil as a scapegoat isn't so strongly found in the bible, most of it developed later in christian imagination.

I don't think it really matters, the Satan trying to overthrow God story is definitely a part of the Christian Mythology, whether it is in their Bible or created afterwards.

But I think this is the quote that suggests he did:

12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!

13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:

14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.

No, really?



I'm not even going to touch that.

Yes, because the ancient Egyptians went south to conquer Nubia/Sudan.

Some of the later Pharoahs are indeed depicted as what we consider black people. Most Egyptian art depicts folks who look very much like the modern Egyptians. Which isn't to say there weren't large migrations of peoples from the Arabian peninsula later on, just that the indigenous people there may have been very similar to begin with.

By the time Jesus was born, of course, the place had been overrun with Romans and Greeks for a while, so that's yet another change in the phenotype.

In any case, relating back to what I said initially, Jesus was Jewish. In order for him to also be black, he would have had to come from Ethiopia, where there is a very old tribe of African Jews who trace their roots back to the Queen of Sheba, and who have recently been shown to have some typically Jewish genetic markers. But Jesus was born in Israel, so it's a moot point.

I find this to be a very strange statement. As far as I can see, the essential idea in Christian thought is the unconditional submission to an idealised principle of absolute authority, which is that of the rather pompous entity "God" (and the "will of God" such as this is manifesting itself through the words and teachings of "the prophets").

There can be little doubt that these memes which Christianity is based upon have successfully established themselves in our secular world of affairs as well, most notably in the coming of the political entity of the national state, which is an offspring of Augustine of Hippo's "Civitas Dei" (the Kingdom of God), and the implicit demand that the individual must bow to the "will of the state", as this is manifested in the so called democratic institutions.

The essential ideas of Plato however, are better represented in modern physics than in contemporary philosophy, such as the work of David Bohm and his theories on The Holographic Universe.

With respects to the OP of this thread, I believe most scholars agree that the collection of texts which we call "the bible" was given its final form at the first ecumenic council of Nicaea in 325.

I like the books Exodus and Revelations. If you can view them objectivly they both make for as fine works of science fiction as many a story written in this day and age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism

This has some interesting information as far as the beginnings of the worship of a single deity. The book of Genesis tells the story of Moses being raised by a pharaoh's daughter. If I'm not mistaken, Moses gets the writing credit for the book of Genesis and the story of the creation of the universe by a single, all powerful deity. It was around that time frame that the Pharaoh Akhenaten began the worship of a single deity. That would be a good explaination for one god. I saw this on a history channel show, I believe, and this wikipedia article is a good start. It also goes into a little detail about Christianity. Hope this helps.

JESUS IS LORD!!!!

Who!?

Who let this moron in?

Wow, you sure changed in a year and a half.

I think he just does not know how to manage the "auto-login" function on his computer, left his account without a password and VOILA! Easy access for some delusional moron to post 5 or 10 random replies without any content whatsoever.

Or this could be what the early stages of what a born again christian looks like. He might go on and make things up, give "testament" of all the evil topics he found here... after a little more brainwashing of course... I wonder what kind of stuff they put in that holy water.

I'm curious about what makes you believe that. Could you explain a little more about how you reached such conclusion?

Sanhedrin fan are we?

FYI, the "early church" was actually Jewish. It wasn't until Rome dispersed the Jews out of Israel did christianity really begin getting a significant non-Jewish membership.

Also worth mentioning...the Jewish world in that day was filled with all kinds of Messiahs.

Context is everything. These "verses" are not referring to the Devil.

Also worth mentioning...the Jewish world in that day was filled with all kinds of Messiahs. [/quote]

"Oi! 'E's the messiah! I should know, I've seen a few!" (Life of Brian)

My favorite response to the question 'do you believe in Jesus' has always been what a friend of mine replied-" Yeah, there's a million guys named Jesus in Brazil- have you never spoken to a Spanish person or what?"

Whether you believe the person existed is kind of moot, isn't it? Rather, do you believe in their story, their myth, their 'holiness'? Jesus likely existed, as did Mohammed and Buddha, I'm not going to contest that-waste of time.
As to hearing god...well, there's lots of interesting toxins in hot climes, temporal lobe epilepsy, who knows?
I'm willing to accept that there have been some guys at the cusp of idealogical, religious and political revolutions who have good (or merely captivating) ideas and the charisma to make people listen.
But this classes Hitler with Jesus.

L

Talking of toxins,I read an interesting book called 'The Moses Legacy' which examined the real historical candidates for Moses. In the author (I forget his name) mentions that in some interpretations of the OT Text, 'The Burning Bush' is actually 'The Bush That Burns', which has a grammatically different meaning. Now, the bush refered to is known to have berries that, when eaten, produce a chilli-like burning sensation and, wait for it, hallucinagenic effects!

And Lo, Behold. Ye world's first recorded acid trip produceth 3 major world religions.

Is it too late to put in that the Psalms are almost completely identical to a text atrributed to Akhenaten? They were a series of love poems to his beloved Aten.

I believe it was Mark Twain who called reading the Bible "the best cure for Christianity". I agree.



The "Lucifer" here (and it's the only place in the entire Bible where that name appears) doesn't actually refer to Satan at all. The original Hebrew has "heyel" for the word, which means "morning star". That's the planet Venus, which looks like a bright star. The passage talks about a king's fall from reign and comparing to the descent of Venus in the night sky.

When St. Jerome translated the Hebrew to Latin, he didn't know what word to use, so he used "lucifer" (lower-case "L") which means "bringer/bearer of light". The "l" was capitalized in the King James version for some reason.

For that matter, there is no inidcation that the serpent in Eden, Satan, Lucifer, the devil, Beelzebub, the dragon, or the Beast are all supposed to be the same character. I think Christianity largely adopted the duality idea from Zoroastrianism.

Maybe he meant The Lord of Coke and Hot Dogs.

If i where a roman emperor i would love my enemys to just lay down their arms and let me conquer them!

Isnt that what "turn the other cheek" truly means?

Those romans where pretty clever

Ah, then I am absolutely fine with that.

For a second I had no idea what he was talking about.

And if I were Santa Claus I would love free milk and cookies...

(Rolls eyes).

bullseye. they have so much faith in this "illusion" savior, that you simply cant argue. its their choice though, to believe in emptiness.

You don't need to argue with them - I ask them for some proof and just look disappointed when the fail to provide it. Let them feel the failures that they are without expending any heartbeats of your own!

The best way to win an argument against a Christian is simply this: The burden of proof lies on the person trying to prove something exists, rather than a person disproving that something exists. They can't, so there's no real reason to talk to them about God.

You're absolutely correct. When the Hebrews were captive in Persia, generations were exposed to Zoroastrianism, and its characteristic forces of total good, and total evil, but they were "equal". In the OT book of Isaiah (pre-Persian captivity), Yahweh is quoted as taking credit for ALL good AND ALL evil upon men, both blessings AND curses. But while in Persia they learned of a scapegoat! Much later, the manufacturers of Hebrew religion, realizing Jehovah cannot be represented as "co-equal" with evil, concocted the idea that the evil "god" would have to be a created being, making him "lesser" that Jehovah, hence the Lucifer story becoming the "origins of Satan".
Most scholars believe the passage was written about the Babylonian Nebuchadnezzar, who had suffered an embarrassing and utter fall from power.

The collective manuscripts known as the Old and New Testaments were written by various authors who were heavily influenced by the greater world around them, Greek figuring very heavily during the time of Hellenistic influence, but Babylon, Persia, Assyria and Egypt (heavily influenced NT stories and images of Madonna and child) all were plagiarised by and borrowed from by the Hebrews in their various places of captivity over the many centuries. There is very little that is originally Jewish where the whole of Judaeo/Christian religion is concerned. I believe Mithras to be the first "Christ type".

The earlier Hebrews gathered the writings that held great traditional reverence and respect: the Septuagent (first 5 books of the modern OT), the greater and lesser prophets, and the Torah (the expanding of and expounding upon of Moses's law)and considered them their holy writ, then those sciptures along with "A.D." writings were later gathered at the Council of Nicea in the 4th century A.D. and Church fathers/scholars and other pompous officials determined which texts were "truly inspired by God"

Hence, the modern "canon" of scripture was established. Of course that is the very abbreviated version.

I was just wondering why he wasn't banned.

But the Lord of Coke and Hot Dogs is fine by me.

I think you can take it a step further: if it's all supposed to be a matter of "faith" and personal revelation, then there's no point in them trying to "prove" their beliefs to somebody.

Christians though seem way more bent on this God/Satan duality. I wonder why they further developed this heavily enforced idea of Satan as the scapegoat, which you don't really find in Judaism. Satan doesn't really play much of a role in Judaism, as they're more about adhering to a convenant with YHWH. I heard somebody summarize that Judaism views Satan as somebody who's still acting on YHWH's will (kind of like a henchman), rather than some bad guy trying to compete for souls.

Yes...and no. Mainstream Judaism is not overly focused on an evil personified figure (Satan). However, there is evidence of smaller sects of Judaism that had more apocalyptic thinking (the Dead Sea Scroll community is one of them).

I'm not fully knowledgeble of the many splinter groups, but my guess would be that if they differed philosophically, and were pressured because of it, then a demonizing of your political opponents occurs naturaly. Christanity (and every other group)today functions much the same way, the fringe groups become increasingly apocalyptic the more pressure is but upon them (even by other Christian groups.)

I thought Jesus WAS banned.

Jeffrey Burton Russell (as much as he seems hung up on good and evil) covered the influence of Zoroaster on Judaism nicely in The Prince of Darkness.

I wouldn't say Mithra was the first Christ type. I always figured the Egyptians had the first Christ types.

The one curious mention of "Satan" in the OT (Book of Job) has him in the role of just one of many Angelic "servants" of Yahweh, filing before him with reports of their service that "day". He seems to be a denizen of "heaven" here, oddly enough, as it is millenia after the supposed fall of Lucifer (which pre-supposes the Garden of Eden).

Elaine Pagels wrote an excellent book called "The Origins of Satan" in which the word is taken in its original "Adversary" context and largely is used to identify anyone who opposed the Hebrews.

This is generally held in the more respectable christian circles I have known. I remember once hearing the phrase, "He (Satan) is God's Devil".

Christian apologetics would say that the religions (before christ) that are very similar in concept, are that way by design, so that when the "real deal" came along, it wouldn't seem quite as strange. They also might contend that all religions of the world are perversions or distortions of the original true religion they all left behind since dispersing across the globe.

Not nitpicking, but the Septuagint is the Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures (not the five books of Moses, which is the Torah--I could be wrong but I think the exposition you mentioned is called the Mishna). The 1st Council of Nicea did create the "canon of scripture", but who do you think arranged that fracas and was the final approval? (insert Roman smiley)

Pagels is also very good at pointing out what different agendas went into the writings in the new testament. I came across "Satan a biography" by Henry Ansgar Kelly. Despite the pop-religion/pop-occult title Kelly is a professor of English at the University of California and seems to have done his research. Anyway his argument is that the word "Satan" refers to "adversary", but also that it is not THE satan but A satan i.e. it describes a role or function withing the celestial hierarcy. He gives a couple of examples from the old testament where angels act as satans on behalf of god.
I haven't finished the book, it's a bit too 'heavy' for me to read on the train to and from work, so I won't make any judgment on it as a whole yet.

You gave me cause to dig into this! The "Pentateuch", or Torah, is the first 5 books of the present OT. Initially, the Septuagint(or LXX) was the translation into Greek of the Pentateuch performed by 72 Jewish scholars at the request of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, 285–246 BCE, and then the rest was translated over the next two centuries. But you are correct - the Septuagint is the collective OT translated into Greek.

From Sir Godfrey Driver, "Introduction to the Old Testament of the New English Bible" (1970) He writes:

"The Pentateuch is reasonably well translated, but the rest of the books, especially the poetical books, are often very poorly done and even contain sheer absurdities."

Yes I've read it. It's a good quick read on the subject.

As for the first Christ type...why that's probably when the first ape stood up in the grass and said, "How do I teach my offspring to run away from lions?" He thought about it and then said, "Eureka! I'll tell them a story that will inspire and educate!"

Lo and behold, the Hero's Journey was born!

Joseph Campbell did lots of work on this subject, and discovered universal stories detailing a template for the Hero's Quest, of which the story of Jesus fits.

Encyclopedia Psychotica

The Grand Irony (from a Creationary standpoint) is that what is now called "the Bible" has actually evolved over time, and has been cobbled together from pretty much every religious and philosophical tradition its many authors have had contact with.

The content of the various versions, or even what constitutes "the Bible" depends heavily on which religious sect it's associated with, and each modifies and interprets the texts in such a way as to reinforce whatever their dogma du jour might be.

While there may well be a Platonic influence on some parts of the Bible, its roots can be traced much farther back. Every ancient Middle East religion is well-represented, as well as ancient Mediterranean religions and, with the passage of time, more modern influences are apparent.

The basic plot of the Bible is that God suffers from virtually every mental illness known to man, particularly Multiple Personality Disorder, and behaves accordingly. Humans, being "made in God's image", mimic God's behavior in their own special ways, and comedic situations ensue.

The clever punchline, of course, is that all gods are actually made in the image of those who create them.

Meanwhile, the text of any version of the Bible is ambiguous enough to justify virtually any act humanity can conceive of, including murder, robbery, theft, rape, incest, pederasty and genocide, which explains its tremendous and enduring popularity.

According to Freke & Gandy in their book "The Jesus Mysteries", early Christian Bishops tried to claim that religions which encapsulated elements of Christianity, yet pre-dated Christianity, did so by 'Diabolic Mimicry'. This meant that they 'copied' Christianity of the future, using knowledge given to them by Satan, to divert people from the 'true path'!

I cannot see how this would fool anyone but the feeble minded, in any century. However...

I have the book you've mentioned and have enjoyed it very much and have recommended it to many.

It is a perfect place to start for anyone interested in researching the topic of this thread.

So who isn't feeble minded and has been fooled?