I'd like to discuss the nature of genesis 6:1-4

i'd like to discuss the nature of genesis 6:1-4

the nephilim, sons of God, daughters of men.. who were they?

>When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim[b] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

OP here, it is my opinion that the nephilim were "the heroes of old, the men of renown"

i think the sons of God were righteous people who followed God, and the daughters of men were people who did not follow God, and i think the bible was referencing a point in time, where the world had NO culture of God because the righteous people (sons of God) were simply lusting after bad people (daughters of men) and the world became full of evil. the nephilim i believe are independent of the sons of God and the daughters of men having children. i believe the bible mentions the nephilim, saying that the world had very powerful famous tyrannical or legendary people at the time.

any ideas?

bump for bible discussion

anyone?

the sons of God translated literally is Sons of El, used to refer to the gods and later angels. read the Book of Enoch. angels came down and fucked women, impregnating them with giants. they're the same thing that pops up later in Numbers and Samuel as the Rephaim, sons of Anak. Goliath's size wasn't just exaggerated to David show how powerful he (and YHVH) was, he was literally a monster

read the book of enoch, ya dolt

*exaggerated to show how powerful David

The book of Enoch has the answers you're looking for but you're a heretic and will burn in perdition forever

but that isn't divinely inspired. it could be all myth.

why did moses not elaborate on this? it doesn't even imply that nephilim were offspring of angels and people.

Because the Old Testament is mostly fables, myth, and allegory of the Jewish people

i believe the old testament. it might be from the hebrews' perspectives and of God's perspective but i still believe it all happened...

Likely etymology is a hiphil conjugation of

נפל "fall", which would come out to something like "those who cause others to fall".

They're probably some sort of heavily corrupted memory of some terrifying people, an old invader, plague-bringers, something like that.

>divinely inspired
I'm not concerned what is "divinely inspired" but what the writers of Genesis (not Moses) intended and what Jews believed. It's actually pretty retarded that the church doesn't consider Enoch inspired since Jude's epistle references it. There is a good case for this being the correct reading since what I previously mentioned on what "sons of God" meant at the time (not men by any stretch), and with the fact that the genealogy in Genesis takes a moment to mention that Enoch was a righteous man, which seems to imply that the author knew about additional material on Enoch which he didn't have for the other individuals in the genealogy. This material would in all likelihood be the Book of Enoch

the thing with the book of enoch, is that what it is now isn't what it used to be. so some parts of it could be true, some parts not. i believe even the book of jasher said moses lived in ethiopia and was king there...but moses never even suggested that, in fact it said he fled to midian for 40 years. so the book of enoch, jasher and jubilees i believe are mythology. some of it is fact, some isn't.

and yes, moses compiled genesis, he compiled the torah, so i believe he edited the genesis writings written by other men and then compiled it.

What exactly is "true" in Enoch if not the very core of the entire book? The actual meaning of sons of God is argument enough for Nephilim being giants, along with the Nephilim later being directly identified as giants in Numbers and Samuel
>Numbers 13:33
>And there we saw the Nephilim, the sons of Anak, who come of the Nephilim; and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.'

Goliath is one of these "sons of Anak".

Moses didn't compile Genesis or any of the Torah. Hebrew wasn't even a language when Moses would have been alive. Look up the Documentary Hypothesis. the Torah was gradually put together and edited over time. A large amount of this editing was done by the Deuteronomist, probably during King Josiah's reign

to modern Jewish people*

nobody knows. the books of the bible are true though, especially the first 4. and yeah, they were written by moses, don't know why you say they weren't. the documentary hypothesis is just that, hypothesis.

like, how can angels mate with humans? like begets like.

This is probably some BA they borrowed from Babylonians in exile.

>they were written by moses

the Documentary Hypothesis isn't considered absolute fact due to lack of data, yes, but it is held in high regard by scholars who study the bible, even those who are Christian. the basic premise that the Torah wasn't written by a single author but by many over centuries is undeniable to anyone who can read hebrew. many rabbis throughout the centuries have recognized the disjointed nature of the writing, some even coming to the conclusion that it wasn't written only by Moses even before scholars began closely studying the texts. I would love to hear how Moses wrote the Torah in hebrew before hebrew existed.

• Genesis 11:31 describes Abraham as living in the Ur of the Chaldeans. But the Chaldeans did not exist at the time of Abraham.
• Numbers 25 describes the rebellion at Peor, and refers to Moabite women; the next sentence says the women were Midianites.
• Deuteronomy 34 describes the death of Moses.
• The list of Edomite kings included Kings who were not born until after Moses'death.
• Some locations are identified by names, which did not exist until long after the time of Moses.
• The Torah often says that something has lasted "to this day," which seems to imply that the words were written
at a later date. Classical commentaries usually interpret such verses to mean until the day they are read, in other
words forever.
• Deuteronomy 34:10 states "There never again arose a prophet in Israel like Moses..." which seems to imply
that the verse was written long after. However, this can be understood as "There would never again arise.."

I forgot to respond to
>like, how can angels mate with humans? like begets like.
I've already shown that the Nephilim are called giants in Numbers. The better question is how do two humans beget super-human giants? the supernatural size of these giants points to their divine origin

i see the discrepancies, but i attribute it to the prophetic nature of Moses and the translations of later dates. how was hebrew not a language when it was one of the first languages lol...

nephilim was never implied to be giants, just "heroes of old, men of renown" they could LOOK huge and be powerful looking men, but not literal giants.

is this the earliest account of /d/ fetish porn?

Are there any parallels in mesopotamian mythology?

>how was hebrew not a language when it was one of the first languages lol
???
hebrew is a variation of an older Canaanite language. hebrew is not a distinct language in the written record until about 1000BC. its alphabet is the invention of the Phoenicians. do you propose that Hebrew existed at Babel and then independently evolved later among Canaanites? that's ludicrous. not only that but the script that all remaining copies of the Torah is in was adapted from Aramaic in the Persian period.

>nephilim was never implied to be giants, just "heroes of old, men of renown" they could LOOK huge and be powerful looking men, but not literal giants.
Do you deny that the sons of Anak were literally giants when Goliath's height is specifically mentioned?

>1 Samuel 17:4
>And there went out a champion out of the camp of the Philistines, named Goliath, of Gath, whose height was six cubits and a span.

This is about 9ft 6in. there are other sons of Anak mentioned that are even taller. In Numbers the sons of Anak are called the nephilim. the "heroes of renown" are nephilim. reread the fucking OP:

>When man began to multiply on the face of the land and daughters were born to them, 2 the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose. 3 Then the Lord said, “My Spirit shall not abide in[a] man forever, for he is flesh: his days shall be 120 years.” 4 The Nephilim[b] were on the earth in those days, and also afterward, when the sons of God came in to the daughters of man and they bore children to them. These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

Nephilim is often translated as giants for fucks sake. this is a sure thing

i believe hebrew was original language that abraham's line kept at babel and the rest got mixed up and which later started to change

they aren't called nephilim, the scared israelites said they were nephilim, we were like grasshoppers to them.

nephilim doesn't mean hybrids, it just means great mighty legendary people. and yea, nephilim is translated as giants in the king james bible

I know it doesn't translate directly as giants, that's not the point. Let's go back through this. the "heroes of old renown" are called nephilim. the hebrew spies called the sons of Anak nephilim and referred to them as tall. Still with me here? Do you deny that Goliath, one of the sons of Anak, is over 9 feet tall? What is someone who is 9 feet tall but a giant?

i don't deny that goliath was 9 feet tall, i don't deny they were huge powerful people, i don't necessarily know for sure he was descended from anak, but why do we assume that nephilim are OFFSPRING of angels mating with humans?

>the nephilim, sons of God, daughters of men.. who were they?

Historically speaking, I'd rather not engage. Philosophically speaking, I believe them to be archetypes for miscegenation and hedonism, not as embodiment of these concepts but products of them.

The Nephilim were brought into being by higher beings (watchers and angels) going against the will of god and breeding with man, a lesser form. The result were monstrous entities, who when their satiation for sustenance was not met, they devoured men too. The ultimate message here being that violating ones duty and pursuing what ones baser desires dictate rather than what they truly need results in ruination, it's a repeated theme throughout the bible.

I've already gone over this. I'm not assuming that they are the offspring of angels, the text directly says this. what is the distinction of sons of God and the daughters of men if not that the sons of God are not descended from men? there is no basis for the distinction being based on righteousness or by them being the sons of Seth and the daughters of Cain. for the first nowhere else is offspring of God and offspring of men used in order to contrast their goodness. for the latter there is no mention of a prohibition on breeding between the two lineages and it also depends on "of God" being contrasted with "of men" in order to contrast righteousness, which as I previously stated is not supported anywhere else. this is also supported with the fact Jews repeatedly wrote of the nephilim being giants, Enoch for example, and bene elohim (sons of God) is used to refer to angels

but the text never explicitly says they were offspring. it says
the nephilim were in the earth those days (the days where the sons of God and daughters of men had children together, and also after this time) and were heroes of old, men of renown.

THIS is how i comprehend the verse. not that the nephilim were offspring of the sons of God daughters of men it never explicitly says this. and there are various scriptures that talk about children of God and sons of God being followers of him.

book of enoch though, wasn't written by enoch

>book of enoch though, wasn't written by enoch
I agree. this doesn't change that this shows what Jews believed about the Nephilim.

>THIS is how i comprehend the verse. not that the nephilim were offspring of the sons of God daughters of men it never explicitly says this. and there are various scriptures that talk about children of God and sons of God being followers of him.
This is a nonsensical interpretation. So the writer of Genesis says that the children of sons of God and daughters of men were heroes of great renown and btw there were also giants. there's clearly a causal relationship between sons of God and daughters of men mating and the Nephilim no matter how much you deconstruct the verse to ignore the intended meaning. And tell me where these giants came from exactly. more powerful than humans yet mortal. exactly like the sons of gods and daughters of men that are in the greek tradition. in fact these hybrids often are cyclops and giants. I've already shown that sons of God has to refer to divine beings. there's no way around it.

They have been linked to the apkallu of Sumerian myth

yeah you're right, it shows that they thought the nephilim were offspring of angels and people. yet genesis doesn't say this. therefore it's probably mythology.

it's not nonsensical, look at each translationof genesis 6:1-4 , i'm simplifying the sentence to bring its points across. read the verse from sentence to sentence and take its points.

when manking began to multiply, sons of God saw that daughters of men were attractive, and took wives. (nothing about angels)

the nephilim were on the earth in those days and also afterward (which days?) the days when the sons of God came into the daughters of men and bore children to them. These (the nephilim) were men of old, men of renown.

that's what the sentences means. so why do we attribute nephilim being the offspring of sons of God and daughters of men. it's not nonsensical, it just never explicitly says they were offspring.

also if the nephilim were on the earth AFTER the time where the sons of God bore children with the daughters of men, then how did the nephilim get there after? the bible never again mentions the sons of God having kids with daughters of men

Genesis IS mythology. It is a document of what Jews believed just like any other. You aren't even attempting to refute my argument on sons of God referring to angels. You're argument hinges on you think it is ridiculous that angels bred with men and since Genesis is true in your eyes it cannot mean this.

*Your

i disagree that genesis is mythology.

hosea 1:10 is a refutement to your argument saying sons of God means angels.

also deuteronomy 14:1

I am aware that men are occasionally referred to as the offspring of God, but in the verse in question sons of God and daughters of men are in contrast, which implies that the sons of God were not also sons of men. We do have instances of sons of God being used to refer to angels, but you arbitrarily reject these texts. Interpreting the bible often depends on other texts for reference. the meaning of many lines in psalms has been clarified based on similar phrases in texts found in Ugarit, which aren't even Jewish but are in a related language and a related religious tradition (though you will deny this). How silly it is to distinguish between Jewish texts you like and Jewish texts you don't like. any scholar would find these sufficient to clarify a phrase in the bible.

Would be impossible to tell which one is older if one is in fact older.

the thing is that i have strong beliefs that the books of the bible, are actually divinely inspired, and anything else isn't. not that everything else isn't true, but that if not mentioned in scripture, then it isn't true. most of the extra biblical texts are of the torah. because i think moses wrote history inspired by the holy spirit as the torah, and the rest of the books were just myths about moses' times, based on the first few books.

that is where the difficulty in understanding genesis 6:1-4 lies. and i think the contrast of sons of God and daughters of men is there, to contrast the SPIRITS of the people. meaning the sons of God were highly spiritual people who prayed to him and worshipped him, and that the daughters of men were just unspiritual people who were simply instinctual animalistic men. and the lusting of spiritual people after unspiritual people resulted in a chaotic culture because marriage was done to fulfill the carnal desires.
>and God saw that evil was continually on the mind of mankind

the nephilim it seems are independent of these marriages. just the text saying this was the time when there were nephilim. and also after this time.

>These were the mighty men who were of old, the men of renown.

All these references to giants, men of renown, kinda ties in with Greek mythology if you want it to. Enoch went into vivid detail about what took place in the past as well though.

But yeah, you have a ton of common denominators, or themes though. You can't prove or disprove that all of these writings are in reference to the same thing or not. You only have the themes to serve as common ground.

I mean if Noah wrote anything, it would have to be passed down and would have been passed down so many times that the original writings would have been long lost. He probably wrote on stone and eventually those writings would have to be transferred for the sake of preservation, in turn those writings would had to have been transferred, in turn those writings would have to etc etc...

Read the Book of Enoch

God was moved to anger at these Watchers, because of the horrible practices that they had introduced upon the Earth.

And there was something else: God was angry at the fact that they had disclosed certain secrets, and were teaching them to their sons, the Nephilim. We are not told exactly what these secrets were, except that they were "eternal secrets" which men of Earth were striving to learn, and which God did not intend for fallen man to discover.

Things deteriorated rapidly, and soon the Nephilim were practicing the most repulsive and revolting behavior. They began to "devour one another's flesh, and drink the blood." This cannibalism shocked even the depraved citizens of Earth, to the extent that they brought accusation against the Watchers.

[1/2]

Enoch is instructed by the Most High to deliver this warning to the Watchers:
"Enoch, thou scribe of righteousness, go, declare to the watchers of heaven, who have left the high heaven, the holy eternal place, and have defiled themselves with women, and have done as the children of earth do, and have taken unto themselves wives: 'Ye have wrought great destruction on the earth: And ye shall have no peace nor forgiveness of sin.'"
These same Watchers in turn approached Enoch to mediate on their behalf, and to write out a petition in their favor.

God, however, rejects the petition and Enoch is summoned to speak to the Watchers again:
"Go, say to the Watchers of heaven, who have sent thee to intercede for them: 'Ye should intercede for men, and not men for you. Wherefore have ye left high, holy and eternal heaven, and lain with women and defiled yourselves with the daughters of men, and taken wives unto yourselves and done like the child of earth and begotten giants as sons. And although ye were holy, spiritual living and eternal life, you have defiled yourselves with the blood of women, and have begotten children with the blood of flesh, have lusted after flesh and blood as those who do die and perish.'"
And as for the giants or Nephilim produced by them:
"The giants, who are produced from the spirits and flesh, shall be called evil spirits upon the earth...Evil spirits have proceeded from their bodies; because they are born from men and from the holy Watchers is their beginning and primal origin... And the spirits of the giants afflict, oppress, attack, do battle, and work destruction on the earth...

And these spirits shall rise up against the children of men and against the women, because they have proceeded from them...thus shall they destroy until the day of the consummation, the great judgment in which the age shall be consummated over the Watchers and the godless, yea, shall be wholly consummated. And now as to the Watchers... say to them therefore: 'Ye have no peace.'"
Such was the message given to Enoch, who transmitted it to the Watchers and their progeny on Earth.

The next question is: How was this information preserved for us? How did the succeeding generation learn these facts?

The Book of Enoch supplies the answer:
"And now, my son Methuselah, I tell thee everything and write it down for thee: I have revealed everything to thee, and handed thee the books which have to do with all these things. My son Methuselah, preserve the books that come from thy father's hand and hand them on to the coming generations of the world."
Enoch was also given a message to deliver to Noah, telling him that the whole Earth was to be destroyed. He was also to instruct Noah in the way of escape, so that his seed be preserved for all generations.

Unquestionably, the Book of Enoch confirms the biblical record that the Earth was defiled and polluted by the incursion of extraterrestrial beings, and particularly by their shameful behavior with the "daughters of men."

And as in the Book of Genesis, so in the Book of Enoch, God is incensed with this sexual coupling between celestial and terrestrial beings, and begins to move in an act of terrible judgment.
"And the Lord said, I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth" (Genesis 6:7).

It appears we are at an impasse. I deal with documents on equal terms and think that they can be used to clarify each other and you think that the bible is something independent, special. All I can say is that I think there is good reason to view the bible as I do and not as you do. That the bible is divinely inspired I beyond all doubt know can't be true. repeatedly archaeology does not agree with the bible. I've tried to resolve these myself and it simply can't be done without doublethink. To say that Moses wrote the whole Torah is to say that he wrote in several styles of hebrew. let me give you a comparison: It's as though you are claiming Moses lived in the 13th century AD but wrote in both Shakespearean and modern English interchangeably, neither of which would have been used in the 13th century AD. No matter how much stuff doesn't make sense people can keep up believing. you can take this stuff in and come up with some apologetic explanation, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, hebrew existed since Babel without any evidence but again absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but you have to ask yourself why? Why jump through all these hoops to come to the conclusion that it is from God and 100% right? Why not accept the simplest explanation that best fits the evidence? Fear of hell? Because faith has intrinsic value? Does the muslim also not have faith? Does his faith not have value? What can you give the muslim to make him believe if you don't have any good reason for him to accept your holy book over his? There is none. He, and I, are doomed to burn in hell because you don't have the simplest explanation that best fits the evidence.

yeah, i just take the book of enoch as myth. the book was written way later than he lived, and would have been included in the bible

well i have good reason that it can be true. yes we are at an impasse, i'm not even really jumping through hoops, i just KNOW that the bible is true, and i'm trying to understand it. how do i know? i just do. it's one of those things.

the torah was written by moses and was being used the whole time since israel was a kingdom. plenty of reference to moses writing the law. and well, moses was inspired by the holy spirit, the writing style was pretty much the same, and so was the hebrew. aramaic doesn't imply different writers.

>i just KNOW that the bible is true, and i'm trying to understand it. how do i know? i just do. it's one of those things.
I know that you think you know. It's good to question your beliefs, not to reject them, but to make sure that your gut is right. I can't say how many times I just knew that I was right and I was so obviously wrong. I've made basic arithmetic mistakes and not been able to see them. I'll see the correct answer before me and even though it's the answer key I'll think to myself "How could that possibly be right? the teacher is wrong, not me." before I finally see the simple mistake and bang my head against the wall. Trusting your gut no matter what is just failing to properly reflect on how you reached that conclusion and whether there were any mistakes in that proof.

The fact that hell hangs in the balance makes it so that what you just KNOW isn't enough. Just like you, I just KNOW I am right. The muslim just KNOWS that he is right. How do you bridge this divide? You bridge it by having the simplest answer that best fits the evidence.

i'm not worried about hell, but just that if i don't believe genesis, then it is a different God. or that genesis would have to be a metaphor or allegory which Jesus and his dsciples refer to, so was Jesus even real? why did he pull from these stories? it raises more questions than answers if you start questioning the bible. the bible becomes unauthentic if you start questioning it, so what is the point of the bible then?

>the sons of God saw that the daughters of man were attractive. And they took as their wives any they chose

FUCKING CHADS AND ROASTIES REEEEEEEEE

also, i'm not entirely ruling angels manifesting as humans and then lusting after women and inseminating them with manifestational semen which produces half human half angels (human form but angel strength) ..that's how it would have to be. seems a lot less likely because angels are spirits, but the human they presented themselves as could have had genetic material i guess. which is why i like my version better. but i could be wrong still

This could be used to justify any religious tradition. What was the point of the Quran if it wasn't authentic? I'll tell you: both books are an attempt to grasp at the truth, imperfect as they are. So many gods pop up in the minds of men and so many are false. Perhaps all of them are false. It's all about connections: why did thunder hit my neighbor's house? Is there an intent behind it? Did my neighbor anger Zeus? Men are just as creative as they are curious. The Trinity and the General Theory of Relativity are products of our genius.

>why did he pull from these stories?
Because Jesus was a Jew and thus had a Jewish religious tradition to pull from. Just like many Jews before him and after him who elaborated on this tradition and came to conclusions you reject. Jesus wasn't the first or the last man to call himself a god, nor is he the first or last messiah that men followed even after his death to their own death. Mysticism can overcome any amount of inconsistency, even the lack of a man actually rising from the dead.

everytime I reply I get ignored.
So, nm then.

in this thread?

the thing about jesus was that he factually was killed by the jews, and he factually rose from the dead (the people who killed him never found him, hundreds of eyewitness to this, hundreds of eyewitnesses to seeing jesus resurrected)

the quran says jesus was just a prophet and was translated up into heaven by allah, instead of killed. you have to start asking yourself , hmm maybe the hebrews and jews were right? there is only one God. thus you have judaism who believe Jesus was just a crazy nut, islam followers of a false prophet, etc. all the rest are essentially polytheistic or inventions of their own mind. but Christianity is not invented by us, we were GIVEN christianity by God. he showed himself to us. the history speaks for itself, and yes it's obviously a faith thing. but there's only so much you can deny from the bible before you start lookin like an asshole. the bible becomes unauthentic when it wasn't trying to be authentic, it just WAS.

Let me give you an excellent example on the value of eyewitnesses who are religious fanatics: Joseph Smith had eyewitnesses who saw his golden tablets. He took a select number of men into the woods and opened a box that contained the golden plates. At first they couldn't see the plates, only an empty box, and told him so. Joseph attacked them for having so little faith that God wouldn't reveal the golden plates to them. So they stared at that box until one by one they all said they saw the plates. This is a known psychological phenomenon. If even one person claims to see or hallucinates a miracle everyone around them can be influenced by them into claiming that they saw it too out of embarrassment, or that person's vision can trigger visions in other people. Studies have been done where test subjects are put in a room with a bunch of actors. Everyone is asked which of two lines is shorter. The actors will all pick the longer line. When it is the test subject's turn he will pick out the longer line too.

so besides the fact that we have multiple accounts of people talking and interacting with the resurrected Jesus, why weren't the jews and romans who killed Jesus able to find him 3 days later? did they subconsciously purposefully not see Jesus to accept that he was the prophecized messiah, even though they hated him?

No, Jesus was killed by Tricky Bangbanggooberblatt. Everyone knows this, but I can see why Christians would try to cover up their puny little eunuch god losing .

>multiple accounts
Luke, Matthew and John aren't independent accounts, just edits of Mark. This is besides the fact that none of them are eyewitness accounts. We don't know whether Jews and Romans knew where his corpse was after 3 days, we don't have accounts from them. In fact we don't even know where Jesus's tomb is.

>his days shall be 120 years
>bible says there are people who lived over 900 years
was god lying?

Most of those are before he says that at the beginning of the Ark story, although Noah lives 950 years. People still live more than 120 until Moses

i'm not talking about only the gospels (besides the fact that i believe they were eyewitness accounts edited by the L,M,M,and J.), talking about the rest of the books of the New testament when they interract with the RESURRECTED Jesus.

there are plenty of records of the living Jesus, and NO records of his body, yet plenty of records of the resurrected Jesus. the jews who hated him would have loved to find his body to prove everyone wrong. that is why i believe the bible to be true. i'm merely trying to figure out who the sons of God were, daughters of men, and if the nephilim were offspring of these marriages.

at the moment God declared it, everyone who was born's average age was 120 years, rather than 900 like before

The rest of the New Testament hardly references Jesus's life at all. All they do is debate theology without using sayings of Jesus as support for their positions. The closest you get to any details on Jesus's life whatsoever in the epistles is a mention of Jesus's brother by Paul. None of these authors met Jesus while he was alive. I doubt James is even written by THE James and was just attributed to him at a later date.

>there are plenty of records of the living Jesus, and NO records of his body
Nor records of his empty tomb. The early movement was entirely Paul-like figures who never knew Jesus while he was alive having visions of Jesus

probably a metaphor for pre-agricultural man who was fitter, taller, lived a bit longer, etc than agricultural man + ancestor worship/cult of the father/memory of the primal father

well, yea they do believe they know where his tomb is, but i gotta ask you, are you just a secular historian or something? you have so little faith in the gospels.