Topic: I Have A Few Questions For The Atheists

Example...flat earth.

Do you think this comes from the Bible?  It doesn't. It was man (apart from the Bible. i'e. the scientists of their day) who thought this idea up.

There were no scientists in that day.

The Bible says the Earth was round.

didnt jesse show otherwise?

Isaiah 40:22, read that. The bible says the earth was round. If some in any time say otherwise there conclusions are not bible based.The Hebrew word  translated “circle” also may be translated “sphere".  regarding “circle” in this verse, the Scoffeld Reference Bible says in a marginal note: “A remarkable reference to the sphericity of the earth.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “He sits over the round earth,” and the Catholic Douay Version says: “It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth.” 

Example...flat earth.

Do you think this comes from the Bible?  It doesn't. It was man (apart from the Bible. i'e. the scientists of their day) who thought this idea up.

There were no scientists in that day.

The Bible says the Earth was round.

In the original temple of solomon there were two pillars that stood befor the entrance into the inner chamber or holy of holies.  One was called boaz, and one was called jachin.  On top of these was mapped globe of the earth.   This was in the time of solomon.  Long before columbus sailed the ocean blue.  As Chancer said, the idea that the earth was flat, was never Biblical.

didnt jesse show otherwise?

Isaiah 40:22, read that. The bible says the earth was round. If some in any time say otherwise there conclusions are not bible based.The Hebrew word  translated “circle” also may be translated “sphere".  regarding “circle” in this verse, the Scoffeld Reference Bible says in a marginal note: “A remarkable reference to the sphericity of the earth.” Moffatt’s translation reads: “He sits over the round earth,” and the Catholic Douay Version says: “It is he that sitteth upon the globe of the earth.” 

I'm talking the early scientists who thought that.  You know?  Like the ones around during Columbus's time? (or are you going to say they were Christians who ignored science too?  )

There were no scientists back then.

Jesse tried, but he didn't prove anything.  He just used some play on words and tried to explain it away, but he was wrong. He only convinced himself I think anyway.  What's in Isaiah and Jeremiah is the Earth is round.  PERIOD.  The prophets knew this long before any scientist did.

I think its a case of you not wanting to believe. I found the argument convincing.

And when were these prophets around?

I'm talking the early scientists who thought that.  You know?  Like the ones around during Columbus's time? (or are you going to say they were Christians who ignored science too?  )

There were no scientists back then.

Huh? There were no physicists, physicians, astronomers etc back in Columbus' time?  ooookay

Jesse tried, but he didn't prove anything.  He just used some play on words and tried to explain it away, but he was wrong. He only convinced himself I think anyway.  What's in Isaiah and Jeremiah is the Earth is round.  PERIOD.  The prophets knew this long before any scientist did.

I think its a case of you not wanting to believe. I found the argument convincing.

That's because you WANT to believe it.  His argument was wrong. His interpretation of the words used were incorrect. (I recall him saying sphere is translating as disk, and that's inaccurate)  The Bible states the earth was round.

And when were these prophets around?

8th century bc or so

Huh? There were no physicists, physicians, astronomers etc back in Columbus' time?  ooookay

there were people who studied the natural world but im unaware of any of them using the scientific method.

That's because you WANT to believe it.  His argument was wrong. His interpretation of the words used were incorrect. (I recall him saying sphere is translating as disk, and that's inaccurate)  The Bible states the earth was round.

According to whose translation? Jesse seems to have a better track record than the theists here.

8th century bc or so

proof?

(also remember that knowledge require justification AND truth, if they were working on analogy and had no rational basis for saying the earth was round then its not classified as knowledge, but a lucky guess)

Quote
8th century bc or so

proof?

(also remember that knowledge require justification AND truth, if they were working on analogy and had no rational basis for saying the earth was round then its not classified as knowledge, but a lucky guess)

It's well known that the Prophets of the OT were writing in the latter part of the first millennium.  No need to prove this, it's accepted by all.  Jesus was quoting Isaiah in 30 A.D.   

It's well known that the Prophets of the OT were writing in the latter part of the first millennium.  No need to prove this, it's accepted by all.  Jesus was quoting Isaiah in 30 A.D.   

Evolution and global warming is also accepted by all, and yet you expect proof.

Now, onto the proof, in addition no one here can show actual knowledge vs. dumb luck.

(also remember that knowledge require justification AND truth, if they were working on analogy and had no rational basis for saying the earth was round then its not classified as knowledge, but a lucky guess)

See, this is what your problem is with God, greenie.  Unlike academic subjects and academic discourse and proper academic debating that require proper citation and proper logical arguments; all that does not apply to the God of the Bible. And that's all right with me.  ANYTHING else, any other subject, requires the proper standards of proof, validation, and evidence.   My evidence is "because it says so in the Bible". It's as simple as that.  Faith is not and requires nothing more than that.  It is what it is.  And one has to accept it and believe it, not prove it and question it.

If I state Jesus Christ is God, you may say "prove it".  I'll say, "It's in the Bible, there's your proof." It may not be good enough for you, but it's good enough for me.

and that's different than:

If I make any other claim (such as "we're winning in Iraq"or "the economy is doing well" or any subject in science) I better make sure I have plenty of evidence and proof to back up that claim.

Evolution and global warming is also accepted by all

Gee, so glad to see you're not making any generalizations anout anything. 

A lot or most? Perhaps.  But all?  I don't think so.

Evolution and global warming is also accepted by all

Gee, so glad to see you're not making any generalizations anout anything. 

A lot or most? Perhaps.  But all?  I don't think so.

There are billions of people who dont accept evolution.

See, this is what your problem is with God, greenie.  Unlike academic subjects and academic discourse and proper academic debating that require proper citation and proper logical arguments; all that does not apply to the God of the Bible. And that's all right with me.  ANYTHING else, any other subject, requires the proper standards of proof, validation, and evidence.   My evidence is "because it says so in the Bible". It's as simple as that.  Faith is not and requires nothing more than that.  It is what it is.  And one has to accept it and believe it, not prove it and question it.

This is just doublespeak for cop out. What it really is is you failing to subject your beliefs to the same intellectual standards as your other beliefs. It hurts no one but yourself.

Im surprised you dont see the irony in what you are saying.

There are billions of people who dont accept evolution.

Appeal to popularity. Were were speaking about people who actually WORK in the field. Its irrelevant if joe schmoe doesnt believe in it. (actually it DOES matter, just not in the context of this discussion)

A lot or most? Perhaps.  But all?  I don't think so.

There are contrarians to EVERYTHING. Seriously, even gravity.

Furthermore consider Ezekiel Chapter 1.  Some theologians say Ezekiel is explaining the orbits of the planets and that angels are in charge of overseeing the mechanics of the solar system:

Let me get this straight.  You want to pull a cosmology out of that?  But you don't want to pull a cosmology out of Job.  And I'm the one reading too much into your sacred texts.

Have I got that right?

As ever, Jesse

See, this is what your problem is with God, greenie.  Unlike academic subjects and academic discourse and proper academic debating that require proper citation and proper logical arguments; all that does not apply to the God of the Bible. And that's all right with me.  ANYTHING else, any other subject, requires the proper standards of proof, validation, and evidence.   My evidence is "because it says so in the Bible". It's as simple as that.  Faith is not and requires nothing more than that.  It is what it is.  And one has to accept it and believe it, not prove it and question it.

This is just doublespeak for cop out. What it really is is you failing to subject your beliefs to the same intellectual standards as your other beliefs. It hurts no one but yourself.

Im surprised you dont see the irony in what you are saying.

You completely missed the point.  It's NOT about "is you failing to subject your beliefs to the same intellectual standards as your other beliefs."

I'm not failing to, I'm saying it doesn't work the say way as academic subjects (notice how I didn't say beliefs). God is not an academic subject or topic! He does not require the same academic standards of proof, proper arguments, and experimental testing of hypotheses.  I, and most other believers, don't question God, we accept God and His word.

I'm not failing to, I'm saying it doesn't work the say way as academic subjects (notice how I didn't say beliefs). God is not an academic subject or topic! He does not require the same academic standards of proof, proper arguments, and experimental testing of hypotheses.  I, and most other believers, don't question God, we accept God and His word.

You were claiming knowledge. Something totally testable. You claimed ancient peoples knew the world was round, yet I hardly see evidence of their existence.

As for god, you fail to subject him to the logical standards which DO work as well. All ideas require proper arguments. Trying to somehow excuse your god out of that is simply a cop-out.

You claimed ancient peoples knew the world was round, yet I hardly see evidence of their existence.

They (the prophets) wrote it (documentation) in the Bible.  There's your evidence. 
 
Isaiah 55:8-9

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
       neither are your ways my ways,"
       declares the LORD.

  "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
       so are my ways higher than your ways
       and my thoughts than your thoughts."

They (the prophets) wrote it (documentation) in the Bible.  There's your evidence. 
 
Isaiah 55:8-9

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts,
       neither are your ways my ways,"
       declares the LORD.

  "As the heavens are higher than the earth,
       so are my ways higher than your ways
       and my thoughts than your thoughts."

But how do you even know it was more than one person? How do you know anything about the authorship?

The Bible says the Earth was round.

didnt jesse show otherwise?

Jesse parceled terms to justify his thesis.  Four corners of the earth is a figurative and symbolic phrase meaning "everywhere."  It doesn't literally mean "corners" as in a square or rectangle.  I'm rather surprised he didn't understand this myself.

"Parceled terms."  I like that expression.

As to my understanding of the "four corners," you recollection seems faulty.  I'm the last person from whom to expect a literal reading of your texts.  I don't do that. 

I likened it to the standard presentation of a map, reflecting how the earth was represented in their thoughts.  Whether the map was square, circular, or rhombic, it reflected an earth with scribed limits.  They lived on an earth that had "ends."

Today, no one speaks of the "corners of the earth" or the "ends of the earth" except in specifically religious terms, in reference to the cosmology of these texts.  Our world leaders today gather from "around the world," not the "ends of the earth," reflecting our more informed view.  This view never occurs inside the Abrahamic sacred texts.

<snip>

It was man (apart from the Bible. i'e. the scientists of their day) who thought this idea up.

There were no scientists in that day.

The Bible says the Earth was round.

didnt jesse show otherwise?

I'm talking the early scientists who thought that.  You know?  Like the ones around during Columbus's time? (or are you going to say they were Christians who ignored science too?  )

This is mistaken.  The scientists at the time of Columbus most definitely did not think the world was flat.  The disagreement was about the circumference, with Columbus claiming, wrongly, that previous estimates were off by thousands of miles, making a westward passage to India and its spice trade practical.

I've heard that this misapprehension is sometimes still taught in grammar schools.

Jesse tried, but he didn't prove anything.  He just used some play on words and tried to explain it away, but he was wrong. He only convinced himself I think anyway.  What's in Isaiah and Jeremiah is the Earth is round.  PERIOD.  The prophets knew this long before any scientist did.

Argumentum ad ALL CAPS is a fallacy.

Take a deep breath, Ken.  When I'm discussing mathematics, I write with the history of a professor, interested in convincing others.  In most other subjects, I write with the history of a journalist, presenting facts as objectively as I'm able.  I'm aware that this subject is one that is personal for biblical inerrantists as it challenges cherished beliefs.  For the rest of us it is not.

For the inerrantist, it works out to something like this:

The bible is inerrant.
The earth is a sphere.

So, the bible must say that the earth is a sphere.

When challenged with information that suggests the bible does not say the earth is a sphere, the inerrantist must protest.  While free to examine the issue critically, they cannot examine it objectively.  So why not at least accomplish the former?

For the rest of us, we see the bible as any other historical document that must either be supported by objective facts or be found incorrect on those particulars we can check.  We are free to recognize that different authors of the texts could easily, and quite probably, have held differing views.  We are free to see how the text was influenced by its predecessors and influenced its descendants.

Mostly, we're free to enjoy the actual bible, rather than the golden calf you've turned it into.

He also missed (or was incorrect or ignored) the Hebrew translation for the world "orb".

First, the word "orb" does not appear anywhere on this board.  Either that, or the search function is broken.  Neither does it occur in any translation of the bible I can find.   The closest thing I can find was a presentation here on the word "oros," which is greek, not hebrew, and was in reference to the mountaintop temptation tale in the gospels.

So what are you talking about?

As ever, Jesse

Did I say orb? I meant you have the incorrect translation when you said disk (I do think I corrected that or said that in a previous post).

So what are you talking about?

I'm just saying you're worng. Maybe you're good at math, but perhaps you should avoid trying to think you know the Bible, because you don't.

You, like greenie, are trying to use academic measures to prove God. You, like greenie, question instead of accept God.  If you want to call this "blind faith" go right ahead, but you'd be wrong again.

Jesus said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)

So apparently the father drew me to Jesus, I believed, and I came to Him.

(unless Jesus was just being a "stuffed shirt" like you falsely claim Paul was)

Did I say orb? I meant you have the incorrect translation when you said disk (I do think I corrected that in a latter post)

You even put it in quotes.  I can't find a correction.  The translations I've used were from Strong's.  I'd rather use BDAG, but I haven't been able to find it anywhere online.

So what are you talking about?

I'm just saying you're worng. Maybe you're good at math, but perhaps you should avoid trying to think you know the Bible, because you don't.

If I'm wrong, show me, don't just all cap your way through the conversation.  To this point, I've been citing not only the verses, but the hebrew and greek behind the verses, along with standard translations.  Your responses have been lacking.  Most of your arguments have done little more than cite a book without even a chapter reference, then go shopping for an english translation you like.  Now that's wrong.

If it was just a case of translations, you should show your preferred translation is used more often.  Cherry picking one is invalid.

You like grrenie are trying to use academic measures to prove God. Youlike greenie question instead of accept God.  If you want to call this "blind faith" go right ahead, but you'd be wrong again.

Not at all.  I don't believe in supernatural gods, find the whole concept unreasonable, and so when I examine your sacred texts, I naturally move on to the real-life authors.  I'm right on toward positive that they exist, that we can read something close to their original thoughts in the texts that have been preserved, that we can compare them with their surrounding kingdoms, that we can follow the origins of their mythologies back through time, that we can follow those mythologies forward as well, that they were in every sense of the word, "normal" human beings.

We can discover a lot about these people by reading these records they left behind.  Inerrancy prevents this knowledge, stripping these humans of their humanity.  To my way of thinking, it's a defilement of the dead.  I know you don't see it that way, but I think it might be useful to take note that I do.  I don't think you're doing so out of spite or malice, and I'm not peeved with you for doing so.  Your veneration of the texts prevents you from knowing better.

Now about Yahweh.  They say you never really know someone until you've met their family.  But the Judaic tradition demands that the family members of Yahweh never throw any family reunions.  It's right there in the first commandment.  There's a very good reason why that one should get top billing.  It's the necessary requirement for the birth of monotheism.  The family had to be disowned.

The evidence I've seen leads me to believe your god was invented sometime around 1400 BCE as a scion of an older Canaanite god known as El, tasked with being the tutelary deity of the Hebrews.  He was one of 70 Elohim, the sons of El.  Somewhat later, during the expansions and contractions of the borders of the neighboring empires, that original older deity and most of his sons were "proven false."  These were all "tutelary" deities.  Their jobs were to protect cities and nations.  When they failed to do so, they were falsified.

The traces of these other gods are easily seen in the changing names of god in the first chapters of genesis.  Yahweh was given El's attributes in the normal case of syncretism we see in the lineage of many religious traditions throughout history. 

Now I'm happy to revise any of the above as I become aware of better information.  Under no circumstances, however, will I form a new opinion by taking existing information off the table.

Jesus said: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him" (John 6:44)

So apparently the father drew me to Jesus, and I came to Him.

(unless Jesus was just being a "stuffed shirt" like you falsely claim Paul was)

Look, the guy said not even the heavenly hosts could gainsay him.  What else am I supposed to think when I read that?  He promoted himself above even Peter himself.  Whatever he was, he had some serious ego issues.

Actually, "John" reports that Jesus said that.  It's hearsay.  Even if Jesus actually did say it, I've got no more reason to believe him than any other megalomaniac with delusions of godhood.  We never run out of them, you know.

Now, trace back your "apparent" claim and tell us what it's based upon.  If it's the case that Jesus was the human offspring of this reputed god, and if it is the case that he actually said those words, and if it is the case that he was telling the truth (gods aren't always honest), then you can claim that you were drawn to him by his father.  There are three propositions there that require independent support.

If you've got to assume Jesus was the son of your god to make your argument, obviously that's not much of an argument.

Now, to the heart of your objection, that we can't discover your god by logical examination.  Even if this were true, a proposition I find morally abhorrent, it does not excuse this god from demands of consistency.  Even if we cannot develop sufficient rational evidence to show your god's existence, the evidence we can develop must at least fail to rule him out.

The god described in genesis fails this test.  So does every god described in any sacred text.  But somehow, they all managed to attract adherents willing to build temples to house the priests who can tell us what they need us to know.  If there is one aspect all of these gods have in common, it's that they are far too small, by a factor of billions of galaxies, and depending on the tradition, too small by billions of years.

We know humans have been around for a couple hundred thousand years.  We're not guessing about this; we've found their artifacts and dated them.  More, we've found independent corroboration of them in our DNA.  All of our genes came from our ancestors, and we can actually map many of them as they spread out around the world.  Our species left Africa about 60,000 years ago.  Where was your god then?  The societies that gave birth to the societies that created the languages that gave birth to the languages in which your sacred texts were first written had not yet been born.  Not until 5,000 years ago did we even learn how to write.

I remain agnostic to the existence of any number of gods, gods that are big enough to know humans are not important enough to get their very own universe.  The god described in the bible though?  No, not a chance.

As ever, Jesse

 

  Look, the guy said not even the heavenly hosts could gainsay him.
 

How can one be contridicted when he is speaking the truth?

  Look, the guy said not even the heavenly hosts could gainsay him.
 

How can one be contridicted when he is speaking the truth?

Easily.  Obviously Paul thought it could happen, or he wouldn't have had to warn the Galatians.  It's quite clear that this is exactly what did happen.  The book speaks of a division of territories following the inevitable schism.  You can't preach for three years without ever checking in with the apostles and avoid moving into a new interpretation.  Paul got the gentiles, and the apostles got the jews.  When the schismatics came into contact in the person of Peter at Antioch, Paul was forced to defend his turf, and Peter backed down, according to the agreement.

Paul doesn't say that no angel from heaven would gainsay him.  He says that if an angel did do so, they should be cursed.

"But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed."

This is about how to react to anyone contradicting Paul, man, woman, or heavenly choir.  Curse them!  Paul can't be wrong!  He's a better authority than the angels themselves.  And especially, he's a better authority than Peter, who ought to head on back to the jews and keep his nose out of Paul's churches.

As ever, Jesse

Paul was preaching the word of God, teaching the same things Jesus taught. As an analogy he said if an angel said anything contrary to what Jesus taught then let him be cursed because at that point he has rebeled against the truth. And one cannot be legitimitly gainsayed if he is telling the truth. Paul was not bragging. He had a zeal far beyond even many of the apostles, he was sure of his message and his ministry and thats all he focsed on, it was his life.

Paul was preaching the word of God, teaching the same things Jesus taught. As an analogy he said if an angel said anything contrary to what Jesus taught then let him be cursed because at that point he has rebeled against the truth. And one cannot be legitimitly gainsayed if he is telling the truth. Paul was not bragging. He had a zeal far beyond even many of the apostles, he was sure of his message and his ministry and thats all he focsed on, it was his life.

How could he possibly know what Jesus taught?  By his own admission, he worked off nothing but his own revelation.

"To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:  Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."

He spoke to no one, he met no apostles, he just went off where no one could say anything against him and started forming churches.

How could you possibly know if he was speaking the word of god?  The works of Paul are accepted under the apostolic apologetic.  The idea is that the apostles knew Jesus directly, so could be counted on to relate his teachings.  But by Paul's further admission, you can't count on the apostle's teachings, or there would have been no disagreement between Peter and Paul.

So, in the end, all you're left with is Paul's statement that he could be trusted, even over the apostles themselves.

The story inside the letter is that the apostles didn't consider Paul's churches orthodox, but realizing that they could not control them, they asked nothing more than that if they were going to be using the name, he should at least make some effort toward helping the poor. 

And Paul, still insecure enough that he felt threatened by the real coin, became downright bombastic about his sole claim to divine revelation regarding the uncircumcised.

As ever, Jesse

Jesse,

If you've got to assume Jesus was the son of your god to make your argument, obviously that's not much of an argument.

I'm not trying to make an argument, I'm telling you what is the Truth.  Regardless of what version of the Bible I use, they all say the same thing.

Get over yourself. You're not a Bible expert.  You keep approaching it from man-made academic standards, that doesn't work with God.  You don't believe for whatever reason(s) you choose, I do. End of story.

Man did not create God, you have that backwards.
 
Why are you here on a Christian board?

Paul was preaching the word of God, teaching the same things Jesus taught. As an analogy he said if an angel said anything contrary to what Jesus taught then let him be cursed because at that point he has rebeled against the truth. And one cannot be legitimitly gainsayed if he is telling the truth. Paul was not bragging. He had a zeal far beyond even many of the apostles, he was sure of his message and his ministry and thats all he focsed on, it was his life.

How could he possibly know what Jesus taught?  By his own admission, he worked off nothing but his own revelation.

"To reveal his Son in me, that I might preach him among the heathen; immediately I conferred not with flesh and blood:  Neither went I up to Jerusalem to them which were apostles before me; but I went into Arabia, and returned again unto Damascus.  Then after three years I went up to Jerusalem to see Peter, and abode with him fifteen days."

He spoke to no one, he met no apostles, he just went off where no one could say anything against him and started forming churches.

How could you possibly know if he was speaking the word of god?  The works of Paul are accepted under the apostolic apologetic.  The idea is that the apostles knew Jesus directly, so could be counted on to relate his teachings.  But by Paul's further admission, you can't count on the apostle's teachings, or there would have been no disagreement between Peter and Paul.

So, in the end, all you're left with is Paul's statement that he could be trusted, even over the apostles themselves.

The story inside the letter is that the apostles didn't consider Paul's churches orthodox, but realizing that they could not control them, they asked nothing more than that if they were going to be using the name, he should at least make some effort toward helping the poor. 

And Paul, still insecure enough that he felt threatened by the real coin, became downright bombastic about his sole claim to divine revelation regarding the uncircumcised.

As ever, Jesse

You dont think a revelation given to someone by the son of God would not be informative? You dont think if Jesus revealed himself to Paul that he would not have also given him something to teach? You are aware of what Jesus taught almost 2000 years later and you dont even believe, why couldnt Paul, who became a Christian only a few years after Jesus death, known what Jesus taught? He was an educated man who before his conversion tormented Christ's followers for what they believed, He knew what they believed, therefore he knew what Jesus taught. Jesus teachings were not a secret. Are you not aware also why Paul and Peter had their disagreement? It wasnt over whether Paul was a legit follower of Christ... Go look it up, you need to read the bible anyway, it'll do you some good, than report back here.

You dont think a revelation given to someone by the son of God would not be informative?

Double negatives are confusing, but if I've got you straight, you want to know if a revelation by the son of the reputed creator of the universe would be informative?  Sure it would. 

Now, what's that got to do with Paul?

You dont think if Jesus revealed himself to Paul that he would not have also given him something to teach?

No, I don't think Jesus revealed himself to Paul.  Jesus was already dead, and the dead don't reveal themselves to anyone.  They just decompose.  People who claim they can speak with the dead are considered charlatans today, and should be considered charlatans no matter when they were born.

You are aware of what Jesus taught almost 2000 years later and you dont even believe, why couldnt Paul, who became a Christian only a few years after Jesus death, known what Jesus taught?

First, I'm not aware of what Jesus taught.  And neither are you.  All we have is hearsay so widely contradicted the first task of the church following Constantine's elevation was that it should get its act together and decide on what it really believed.  The history of the first councils are prettied up by the church for popular consumption, but there's no real dispute that theological points were won in those councils only after the naysayers lay dead in bloody tatters on the floors.

The only defense the church has ever had against heresy was a pogrom. 

He was an educated man who before his conversion tormented Christ's followers for what they believed, He knew what they believed, therefore he knew what Jesus taught. Jesus teachings were not a secret.

I see.  Then it's your position that when he spoke of preaching a gospel sent by no man to the Galatians, he was lying?  I agree. 

The separate churches that arose after the death of Jesus, working off of nothing but "revelation" and oral histories, managed to pick up such a set of disparate, yet fervently held, beliefs that the gospels built from those traditions became a scandal.  That scandal was resolved by burning the heretical gospels, and all too often the heretical adherents at the same time.

That's the inevitable fate of any tradition that works off of revelation.  Everybody gets their own revelation, and — surprise, surprise — they don't agree.  What little we know of the major schisms that survived that period comes from those that managed to avoid the pogroms of the early church by remaining geographically separate.

That was the christianity Paul learned about, one so flexible anybody could be struck down on the road with a vision and get up preaching the "true word of the almighty God."

Are you not aware also why Paul and Peter had their disagreement? It wasnt over whether Paul was a legit follower of Christ... Go look it up, you need to read the bible anyway, it'll do you some good, than report back here.

Certainly I know what Paul says about the cause of their disagreement.  I'm a former fundy.  I don't need to read your bible again.  I've read it dozens of times, cover to cover.  That's why I'm a former fundy.  An in-depth examination of the books makes their flaws apparent.

According to Paul, Peter ostracized Paul's uncircumcised hordes at Antioch, and Paul called him on it.  Peter's version of events is unavailable.  The truth behind any dispute can never be resolved by listening to only one side.

You "need" to read these books without the awe goggles.  Try it sometime.  It'll do you good.  They make a lot more sense that way.  The discrepancies and contradictions fall into natural patterns that suddenly become obvious.  When you can see these people as humans just like any others, you can understand them.  When you can see their religious traditions as religious traditions just like any others, you can understand them as well.

Paul's churches abandoned the sexual mutilation practices of the jews.  This was the "freedom" Paul preached, his self-appointed gospel. 

But in order to justify that gospel, he required an indwelling avatar of Jesus, a semi-deification that granted authority to speak for his god.  This was the true schism.  The gospel of christianity was that the kingdom of heaven was at hand, and would be ushered in by the return of their god descending in power from the heavens.  No inner gollems required.

This creates a flaw in apologetics.  The authority of the apostles rested on the fact that the were sure witnesses.  They had seen with their own eyes, and were trusted to relate what they had seen faithfully.  If that authority can be circumscribed or even denied by later personal revelations, the original witness testimony becomes moot.

And that's just what happened.

As ever, Jesse

Jesse,

If you've got to assume Jesus was the son of your god to make your argument, obviously that's not much of an argument.

I'm not trying to make an argument, I'm telling you what is the Truth.  Regardless of what version of the Bible I use, they all say the same thing.

You're certainly making assertions.  Whether they're accepted or not should be determined by the arguments supporting those assertions.  Else we're left with nothing more than "on the authority of Ken."

Get over yourself. You're not a Bible expert.  You keep approaching it from man-made academic standards, that doesn't work with God.  You don't believe for whatever reason(s) you choose, I do. End of story.

The academic standards I use to critique your sacred texts are no different from those used at any credible seminary.  As in my reply to Chancer, the alternative, relying on personal revelation, has never led to anything but discord.  They say that everyone makes mistakes.  We can learn from them because, as it turns out, the same actions lead to the same consequences here in this universe.  Doing the same thing over and over expecting a different result the next time is considered insane.  Don't be insane.  Revelation doesn't work; it is a failed epistemology.

Oh, and lose the ad homs.  They're getting really tiresome.

Man did not create God, you have that backwards.

Men have been in the god-creation business throughout all of recorded history. Of the tens of thousands of deities worshiped at one time or another by one society or another, no doubt you'd agree that all but one of them was man-made.  All you need to do is take that last tiny step and recognize it's a clean sweep.

When you do, you'll be free to ask bigger questions.  Where did this Abrahamic god come from?  Where was it born?  What influenced its attributes?  What influences has it had on later deities?  What has it borrowed from its contemporaries?  A whole new world of discovery awaits you if you can just manage to cut that last thread.

Come on in, the water's fine.

Why are you here on a Christian board?

Oh, how quickly we forget.  Christian forum invites atheists!

<snip> If you have doubts about the Christian faith, or are opposed to it, here is a place where you can make your case or ask questions whichever the case may be.

I'm not sure quite what this board is now.  For the most part, it's just us few kicking a couple of cans about, pretty much evenly split between theists and atheists.  Whatever it is, I wouldn't describe it as a christian board, just a board run by christians. 

We really do need some fresh blood.  We atheists have held up our end, but the christians are a no show.  If ya'll can manage to get some more christians in here, the board will survive.  Otherwise, it looks like a goner.  I give Donald due credit.  I saw the flak he was taking from some of his fellow adherents for not just banning our butts.  So as long as someone is still responding to my posts, I'll probably keep popping in and posting.

As ever, Jesse

Else we're left with nothing more than "on the authority of Ken."

No.  It's on the authority of the Bible.