When in hebrew mythology did the name come about.
That's a good question. The earliest traces of lilith go back to Akkadians, around the 7th century bce. Or there is evidence of such a character
This is pre-judaism. Understanding that religions in the region freely traded mythical ideas, it is reasonable to think that lilith entered canaanite (jewish) folklore shortly after.
There was a babylonian figure that could possibly have links to lilith which dates to the 2nd millennium bce. However that is a more controversial link.
If the Canaanites referred to lilith as Baalat, as this source suggests, then she was sort of a female Baal and part of their proto-jewish pantheon long before they could be considered jewish. The "at" at the end is the feminine.
For the record, that pantheon was headed by El and included yhwh and his wife, Asherah. The pantheon was called Elohim - literally, "the lords". Not coincidentally, this is a name the Israelites (as opposed to the Judaeans) used for their god. In fact, they incorporated their god's name into their name - Isra'El. Jewish monotheism evolved from this polytheistic religion. But I digress...
If you are asking for strictly jewish sources, it was found in the Dead Sea Scrolls, which date to the late 1st century bce to the first decade ce.
From my point of view:
1. The OT is legitimate in that it accurately portrays history
2. Christianity is based of Christ's teachings and the OT, thus making it legitimate
3. Judaism's beliefs based off the OT as well discover they got a few interpretations wrong
4. Christianity is unaffected, since it is based off the OT, and not Judaism.
1. I've shown that to be incorrect.
2. But if you take jesus H's teachings out of a jewish context they have a completely different meaning. And if xianity is based on a wrong interpretation of the OT, you end up with an illegitimate xianity.
3. I don't understand that sentence.
4. If you are basing xianity on the OT, xianity is based on an incomplete understanding. As I said before, the jews used the Torah (OT) with the Talmud to understand what it means. xians threw out the talmud, thus throwing out the entire context, tradition and understanding of the OT that preceded them by 500 years.
Christ is the messiah of the OT.
That is debatable. If it were that cut and dried, the jews would agree and all be xians. They don't and they aren't.
And the jews base their faith of the OT. Which means Christianity is completely independent of Judaism,
I am not quite sure what you mean. "Faith" is not a word of great precision or accuracy. It has many meanings and I am not sure which you intend. In this context it looks like it means "religion", but I am not sure. Could you please clarify?
As far as xianity being completely independent of judaism, I disagree. Judaism is the foundation. xianity is essentially an addition to judaism. Since monotheism was invented, each monotheistic religion has claimed to be built on those that came before it, because they all claim to know something about the one god. Islam is built on xianity is built on judaism. LDS is built on xianity is built on judaism. The legitimacy of the later religions hangs on the legitimacy of the predecessors.
You speak as if the jews never screwed up and ignored God. Like everything they did was perfect.
Not at all. I am speaking from a religious perspective. To my mind, you're all crazy and of course the jews got it wrong. I am trying to speak within your bubble, within the context of the xian-jewish relationship.
It is not that the jews are perfect. It is that you must recognize jewish authority when it comes to the OT. Any xian literalist must. Otherwise, the OT has no validity. If the jews are not to be trusted or as suspect when it comes to the Ot, then the OT cannot be trusted because the OT is their product
. And if the OT is unreliable, well, then who is to say a messiah was even really predicted? Maybe that was just wishful thinking on the part of a troubled people?
You really only have two viable positions here. One is where you recognize jewish authority with regards to the OT. That is the religious position. The other is where you adopt my position - the OT is unreliable, thus the NT is unreliable, thus the grounds for believing in yhwh are highly suspect.
And I assume that the last two parts about John and the trinity you will back up with your DH correct?
No. DH is not related to the NT. It only applies to the Torah. The John additions are quite easy to reference as they are well know in scholarship. And please understand that apologetics is not scholarship.
On the Comma Johenneum:http://bible.org/article/comma-johanneum-and-cyprianhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum
On the Pericope Adulteraehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery#Textual_historyhttp://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2008/aprilweb-only/117-31.0.html
I'll have to look at these next week for you. Don't have time to look into them at the moment, sorry.
No problem. They are ancilliary to our discussion.
I never said I rejected it.
It sounded that way when you said you believed the penateuch was written by one person.
edit - corrected quotes