• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

godnotgod

Thou art That
Pitiful methodology. It flat ignores the credible academic work done on these subjects.

It is the same as saying all credible education and knowledge is worthless because people were not there, and because I refuse to use credible education, no one knows anything. :rolleyes:


You believe in a global flood and a 6000 year old earth don't you?

Is that so far off from believing in a 1st Century Nazareth that never existed?
 

atpollard

Active Member
I have to ask you, are you a young earth creationist?
No.
I consider it a remote possibility (back to not wanting to bet against scripture), but generally believe in an old Earth.

That said, I am disappointed that some claims being advanced by YEC are being dismissed simply because they are embraced by YEC.
One that I found interesting was the possibility that granite crystals may form rapidly (trapping evidence of radioactive decay).
Irreducible complexity is another area that deserves more serious examination.
In both cases, I fear the risk of being tarred with the YEC fanatic - academic kiss of death - has a chilling effect on legitimate areas of study.

Wouldn't you like to know if an earth could form in tens of millions of years rather than needing billions?
Neither make the Earth 6000 years old, but the difference still should matter to science.

I have a mentor with PhDs in Mathematics and Theology (and an MBA) who holds the belief in six literal days ... spaced millions or billions of years apart.
He believes that God entered Time-Space on six distinct occasions to shape the course of things ... six specific acts of creation.
Recorded poetically in Genesis.

To each his own ... Young/Old Earth is not a hill worth dying on.
 

outhouse

Atheistically
To each his own ... Young/Old Earth is not a hill worth dying on.

Actually it is. YEC all denounce credible education, and pervert evidence. They have a factually unsubstantiated position.

Wouldn't you like to know if an earth could form in tens of millions of years rather than needing billions?

I already know billions were required.

I know the science, and it is a waste of a very short life to denounce credible work of others.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
When was the Book of Exodus written?

If during the (alleged*) Babylonian exile or later, these people had a damn impressive knowledge of events that never happened or that happened, but they never saw.
Was there no town of Jericho? Did its wall not fall?
Where are the records of the refugee survivors of whatever REALLY destroyed Jericho?
You seem quick to dismiss all Scriptural evidence, fair enough, but where is the secular record of what really happened?
It would be easier to dismiss Scripture if I didn't have to read an entire friggin book on a subject I barely care about to find some crumb of opinion (probably from someone with a PhD ... I will give you that).
Where is the translation of some other record?
Where is the alternative explanation?

I see lots of flying rocks, but few competing foundations.
So I view it as probable ... it is not a cornerstone of my faith, but people have been betting against scripture and loosing for a long time.

* (I say alleged, because some of the arguments seem to imply that the Israelites don't exist as a people before 1200 and are really just a Canaan cult that slowly got re-imagined as a new religion ... so I didn't want to assume that there really was an exile.)
This is quite good.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
NO

Were not going to let you denounce credible education and knowledge.

We have ever right to poke holes in the things you bring forth that go against education and knowledge.
Trying to poke holes with your finger tickles.

You do need a cup of coffee.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
Are you YEC?
Not necessarily. Bible doesn't say. Actually, it could go either way. Science will ultimately determine it when it knows everything like "how does a black hole affect everything" and "is there a way that light can travel faster that 186,000 miles/sec".
Are you ashamed to admit it?
Please have another cup of coffee. I'm just not sure whether it is because you are afraid the Bible is true or just some bad history.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
[GALLERY=media, 5187]Really Now?[/GALLERY]

"afraid the Bible is true"
:) I wasn't talking about you! You are a different case. ;)

PS Incidentally, I think your ROFL is GREAAAT!




[GALLERY=media, 5187][/GALLERY]
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
So what your saying is you believe in a global flood because the bible says so?

Now... let's look at this with an open and honest mind.
Are you YEC?
That was the question... which I was answering...

Your response:

So what your saying is you believe in a global flood because the bible says so?
Has nothing to do with YEC. It would be like me saying "Pass the salt please" and you saying "The price of a dozen eggs in China is $8.00"

That's what I call:

1) A moving goal post
2) Trolling
3) A lack of intelligent debate
4) non-sequitur
5) A red herring fallacy

I'm sure that you will want to take one of these and try to convince me that I was wrong. Anything but stay on the issue.

You don't believe in the facts of evolution either do you?
Where did I say that?

You really need to get a cup of coffee.

I'm not sure whether you are afraid the Bible is true or you have a bad history on Christianity. Are you afraid to tell me which of the two it is? Or is it both?
 
Last edited:

jonathan180iq

Well-Known Member
I've condensed this some but I think I'll still hit all of the major points. I've rearranged some points and put them together so as to keep stuff organized.

Those are good point and hard questions. I'm not really asking for any leniency, just that we address each other with respect. In some cases, respect has gone out the window to the outhouse. (pun intended)

Buried behind what I understand can seem like an abrasive shell, the core of his questions are solid.
Frustration manifests itself lots of different ways.

We also have the hurdle to overcome in reference to archaeology. It is a painstaking effort since there has been wars, destruction, floods, etc. There have been things that people said never happened and never existed, but then archaeological discoveries changed their position. I just searched the internet and here are some:

  • The discovery of the Ebla archive in northern Syria in the 1970s has shown the Biblical writings concerning the Patriarchs to be viable. Documents written on clay tablets from around 2300 B.C. demonstrate that personal and place names in the Patriarchal accounts are genuine. The name “Canaan” was in use in Ebla, a name critics once said was not used at that time and was used incorrectly in the early chapters of the Bible. The word tehom (“the deep”) in Genesis 1:2 was said to be a late word demonstrating the late writing of the creation story. “Tehom” was part of the vocabulary at Ebla, in use some 800 years before Moses. Ancient customs reflected in the stories of the Patriarchs have also been found in clay tablets from Nuzi and Mari.
  • The Hittites were once thought to be a Biblical legend, until their capital and records were discovered at Bogazkoy, Turkey.
  • It was once claimed there was no Assyrian king named Sargon as recorded in Isaiah 20:1, because this name was not known in any other record. Then, Sargon's palace was discovered in Khorsabad, Iraq. The very event mentioned in Isaiah 20, his capture of Ashdod, was recorded on the palace walls. What is more, fragments of a stela memorializing the victory were found at Ashdod itself.
  • Another king who was in doubt was Belshazzar, king of Babylon, named in Daniel 5. The last king of Babylon was Nabonidus according to recorded history. Tablets were found showing that Belshazzar was Nabonidus' son who served as coregent in Babylon. Thus, Belshazzar could offer to make Daniel “third highest ruler in the kingdom” (Dan. 5:16) for reading the handwriting
    on the wall, the highest available position. Here we see the “eye-witness” nature of the Biblical record, as is so often brought out
    by the discoveries of archaeology.
  • King David and Solomon was thought of as a myth until they found a signet and the famous saying of House of David
My point is simply this. For one to simply say "It never existed" when these discoveries are relatively new, would be wrong IMO.

I don't know how many people will make sure to mention this, but you have to give credit where credit is due. There HAVE been a couple of places mentioned in the Bible that were found to exist despite the general belief that it was all just fairy tale. That's fair. Like I've said before regarding the mention of something in antiquity implying that it existed before, the existence of 1st to 3rd century documentation at least implies that there, at one time, were legitimate autographs for those documents. There must have been a first writing, for example. And I would expect the keepers of one faith to maintain an idea of what those first documents said better than those who did not keep that faith.

Now, that being said, I would argue, that these instances are not substantial evidence for claiming that something was an eye-witness account. A very well documented case that I think is a perfect example of what I'm talking about involves Plato and "Atlantis". I think anyone who reads Plato, and those passages in particular, understands that the story was an allegorical piece of fiction on the rise and fall of nations. In Timaeus, we get some geographic directions to where Atlantis stood, don't we? Past the pillars of Heracles... Well those certainly exist... The mythology for their placement by Heracles is understood. But does that bit of anecdotal accuracy evidence that Plato was giving accurate directions to a continent that was submerged by the gods for falling out of favor after a naval attack on the ideal of Athens? Likewise, does the existence of the pillars prove that Heracles put them there?

While someone is free to think that the story of Atlantis is somehow grounded in reality (as many people have literally spent their entire professional lives devoted to it) does that make it any more of a true place, grounded in objective reality?

Surely you see the parallels here.

I will always credit the ancients with knowing more about their surrounding landscape than anyone in the modern era probably could hope to. But trusting their interpretation of certain events, or taking their embellishments at face value is a little fool-hardy, isn't it?

Even if we assume that we could find an autograph, or first copy, of the Pentateuch for example - As a rational person, don't you think it's a little biased on our part to accept the stories of a nomadic people, hungry for historical claims to sovereignty and validity, at face value? Do you read the claims of the kings of ancient nations as being divine and then accept that they were divine? Do you immediately assume that all claims made by all mythologies are valid? Since you don't, then why do you do that with the writings of your own faith? And if you were to say that you didn't, then why make claims of absolute certainty regarding that faith?

When Jacob (also known as Israel) reached Egypt, there was 66 people who had come with him. Gen 46:26So the total number of Jacob's direct descendants who went with him to Egypt, not counting his sons' wives, was sixty-six. Obviously with a total of 66 people, we aren't going to have evidence of such people. To look for evidence of 66 people would be impossible IMO.

Joseph, Egypt and the Hyksos...

One could argue whether it is right and another could argue about it being wrong. With none of us having lived at that time, perspectives can abound. But it does match Biblical understanding and it remains that the information may have been the first supportive documentation of the Israelites. (Dates are listed at the site)

All I can say here, as an expansion for the first part, is that this seems like a fairly plausible work around which doesn't distinctly reject what is known about the Egyptian period. But plausible and correct are two different things, aren't they? It's a decent theory, but until it's substantiated it's only ever going to be a nice little hypothesis.

Another example from about 1,000 years prior is the Sphinx. Personally, I really like the theory that the Sphinx was actually a large lion which weathered down to a very sorry state. As it was uncovered over time, it was repurposed and recarved to the face of the king, lending authority to the him... This would explain why a people known for proper proportions and great immaculate stone work have this giant disproportionate "thing" sitting out in the desert:

Like this:
p109-12.gif


As much as I like this theory, there are more convincing arguments that its construction was ordered by Khafre. Some of those very convincing arguments and evidences completely rule out the theory that a giant stone lion predated the construction of the pyramids of Khufu and Khafre.

Should I hold onto my preference for the lion theory just because I like it more? Wouldn't I be rejecting the substantial evidence for Khafre's commissioning of the Sphinx?
In reality, there is only one way that the Sphinx was built, and why it was built. We could bicker all day long about the Sphinx if you wanted to, but there's still only one way that it actually happened. You know what I'm saying? What I care about more than my preference, or gut feeling, or bias, is accuracy.

The Bible gives one explanation about how things happened, written by a people who both needed and wanted things to be a certain way. Might there be some shred of legitimacy to the names of people and places involved in their story? Certainly. I'd say with 100% certainty that we should expect to find the names of people and places that they encountered, or had read stories about, or had an oral tradition about, as actually being real people and real places. But, again, does that mean that their supernatural explanations of why and how things happened should be accepted at unquestioned face value?

Of course not.

Despite your faith, you must maintain the same objectivity that you would when studying the religions of the Meso-Americans, or any other religion for that matter.

n that so much of the Torah is contrary to the religions around it, one would be hard pressed that it evolved from it. For an example: Deut 12 basically says "DON'T DO ANYTHING THAT EVERY OTHER RELIGION IS DOING" (in that tone of voice). So how can one "evolve" when everything is contrary? For me, it doesn't seem logical.

"In the beginning" of Judaism... no. Why? because it said "Don't do what all the others are doing". So how can it be birthed and influenced by it if it was completely different?

I forget what the idea is called specifically, but there is some pretty convincing work coming to light which shows how the Judeo-Christian creation story is actually a deconstruction of the surrounding Mesopotamian mythologies for the purpose of lifting up their one chosen deity. The entire purpose for the seemingly out-of-whack "days of creation" chronology is because the focus was on breaking down the surrounding religions and showing how Yahweh created them all. If you'd like some evidence of whether or not this process was successful, think about how you consider Yahweh to be the preexisting "starter" god... In the beginning there was only Yahweh, right?

The idea is that you believe that now simply because it was claimed to be so by a religion that would come to influence the entire world. Had the cult of Ra had a longer-lasting and more substantial impact on History, wouldn't you just as equally believe that Ra was the creator god and that all other religions were simply an off-shot or an abomination of the worship of Ra?

Look it up. It's worth reading.

So to your answer your question of why would the religion of Judaism seem to be making claims that were contradictory of other religions? It was attempting to set itself apart from those that had a stronger foothold in the region - more evidence that those religions predate and surrounded Judaism. How often do religious "revivals" spring up, even within your own faith? Aren't they, quite simply, people with a pious inclination who recognize some faults or depravity in the society around them who try and correct those by changing their behavior and beliefs just a little bit? Isn't that, essentially, exactly what they would be doing in the retelling of the Mesopotamian beliefs...

"Just look at the world around you! I don't like what's happening to our society!! We should do things a little bit differently than everyone else because the way we worship God is better than the way they worship God!!!" (Bring on the entire history of monotheism....)
angry-pastor.jpg


These types of changes in religious thought and behavior are probably entirely genuine and sincere from the people who make them. But does that sincerity just miraculously give it authority? Does a claim, just out of fervency, make it reality?

Good... I don't think there are fire breathing dragons. :) You are generally correct. However, there was no proof of black holes but they still believed there were black holes. Time proved it out. If the theory is plausible, then lets investigate it instead of saying "I don't see black holes therefore they don't exist and I won't look for it". So in principle you are correct as long as we don't forget that theories can exist without support other than thought and ideas. Doesn't make the theory correct but, until properly rejected, but remains a theory if it has merit.

Sure. IF it has merit. And merit is only given when there is evidence to support it. The Hyksos period coinciding with the possible time period just before Jewish exile is a decent idea. But until there is something that connects the two, it's purely conjecture, isn't it? And if it's only conjecture, we can't teach it or preach it as being legit.

What I have done, however, is realize that more and more archaeological discoveries confirm what was written in the Bible. The more discoveries that confirm what was written, the more validity the Bible has. Like a theorem, the more examples that confirm the theorem the more trustworthy it becomes

See some of my above responses.

Agreed. Honestly, I have decided that "the burden of proof that your source material... is yours", is tiring with some truth in it. I have decided that when someone says "Your source of material is a myth" the burden of proof is on them since they made the first volley.

Usually its "Your source is a myth and now it your burden to prove me wrong". I call that baloney.

Here's the thing though about the burden of proof - When someone makes a claim that goes against what is commonly understood, even if that common understanding is incorrect, then that new claim still carries the burden, doesn't it?

I can't just walk into a church and be like "Geology disproves the Biblical timeline!!! BOOYA!" and then walk away all smug. If questioned on how I know this, or the legitimacy of my claim, I wouldn't place the burden of proof on a bunch of fundamentalists to prove me wrong because their group would be the one establishing common knowledge in that setting. If I responded with "OH, you actually have to prove how I'm wrong!!" I would be laughed out of the church and no one would think I had any credibility at all. It's my responsibility in that setting to back up and justify my claim, regardless of the superstition. I would bring examples. I would bring differnt types of rocks. I would bring textbooks. I could take them on a field trip to show them sedimentary layers. I would bring a chemist to demonstrate how geologic theory also maintains its accuracy across multiple fields of thought... I wouldn't try and turn it around on the congregation.

In the modern world, claims of religious validity or of supernatural wonder are going to always carry the burden of proof because we've spent the past 300 years compiling data and in many ways discrediting and discounting any type of supernatural phenomena. That's just been the growing state of affairs since the renaissance. Unless something magical happens or the New Dark Ages takes foot, this is how it's going to be for a while.
 
Last edited:

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
I've condensed this some but I think I'll still hit all of the major points. I've rearranged some points and put them together so as to keep stuff organized.

...

In the modern world, claims of religious validity or of supernatural wonder are going to always carry the burden of proof because we've spent the past 300 years compiling data and in many ways discrediting and discounting any type of supernatural phenomena. That's just been the growing state of affairs since the renaissance. Unless something magical happens or the New Dark Ages takes foot, this is how it's going to be for a while.

LOL Give me about a week to compose a thought filled reply
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
First, the goal, nature, task and mission is contrary to the sort of detailed scholarship that you are claiming as the entry level into these debates. Unless it has dramatically changed, the nature of Wikipedia was that anyone and everyone could contribute to build a general body of knowledge.

That is nothing like 'competent professional' publication which is subject to verification of credentials and peer review.
As evidenced by the pranks occasionally perpetrated to and using Wikipedia.

I have no doubt that I could submit a paper or report to a community college using Wikipedia as my primary source with little risk of any academic consequence, but it would probably not be an acceptable source at the University level.
I cannot even imagine trying to survive a peer review using Wikipedia for a Masters or Doctorate level work. Wikipedia, like most encyclopedias of old, is an excellent general resource ... but hardly of the caliber of challenging the origin and evolution of a belief from three or more millennia in the past with verifiable archaeological evidence.
Problem is, the peer-reviewed scholastic data agrees with Wikipedia in this instance.
 

atpollard

Active Member
Problem is, the peer-reviewed scholastic data agrees with Wikipedia in this instance.
Then cite the peer-reviewed scholastic data rather than just posting a link to Wikipedia.
I was explaining why I did not view Wikipedia as sufficiently authoritative to support or refute claims of the caliber being discussed here.

I did not set the bar.
I came to discuss "Who is the founder of Christianity Jesus or Paul ?" and walked into a flogging (between others) on the existence of Israelites before 1200.
For discussing a general fact related to "Who is the founder of Christianity Jesus or Paul ?", Wikipedia is a perfectly valid reference.
For providing analysis on the earliest documentary evidence of the existence and evolution of a people 3000 to 4000 years ago, Wikipedia is inadequate.
 

sojourner

Annoyingly Progressive Since 2006
Then cite the peer-reviewed scholastic data rather than just posting a link to Wikipedia.
I was explaining why I did not view Wikipedia as sufficiently authoritative to support or refute claims of the caliber being discussed here.

I did not set the bar.
I came to discuss "Who is the founder of Christianity Jesus or Paul ?" and walked into a flogging (between others) on the existence of Israelites before 1200.
For discussing a general fact related to "Who is the founder of Christianity Jesus or Paul ?", Wikipedia is a perfectly valid reference.
For providing analysis on the earliest documentary evidence of the existence and evolution of a people 3000 to 4000 years ago, Wikipedia is inadequate.
I don't need to poke around, finding bits and pieces of disparate information, when Wikipedia will suffice. Wikipedia agrees with the best scholastic findings on this particular issue.
 

atpollard

Active Member
I don't need to poke around, finding bits and pieces of disparate information, when Wikipedia will suffice. Wikipedia agrees with the best scholastic findings on this particular issue.
In that case, your sacred Wikipedia and your sacred William Denver claim that Abraham was real:

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence.[9]

So the people were real, only the details are in doubt (according to Denver).

Frankly, the issue I have is more fundamental.
From Denver on Wikipedia:

I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information. That hardly makes me a 'maximalist.'[8]

Subjectively, I know that God exists.
I may not have access to all of the details, but I know the miracles that I have seen and I know the spiritual being that I have encountered.
Knowing that both God and miracles are real ... I cannot help but view the claims from a hopelessly different perspective than a non-theist.

I cannot prove what I know, nor can I reasonably expect you to believe what I know "because I say so", but what I know to be true matters to me.

Some claim of the last 50 years rejecting everything that has been believed for the previous two millennia (or more) needs more than someone who doesn't believe in God claiming that "he sees no evidence" to convince me to reject the body of personal experience that half a century of life have provided to me.
That God exists today makes it far more reasonable to believe that he existed in the distant past.
That God communicates with people today makes it far more reasonable that he communicated with people in the distant past.

Your mileage will undoubtedly vary.
For that you have my sympathy.
 

Kenny

Face to face with my Father
Premium Member
In that case, your sacred Wikipedia and your sacred William Denver claim that Abraham was real:

Archaeology as it is practiced today must be able to challenge, as well as confirm, the Bible stories. Some things described there really did happen, but others did not. The Biblical narratives about Abraham, Moses, Joshua and Solomon probably reflect some historical memories of people and places, but the 'larger than life' portraits of the Bible are unrealistic and contradicted by the archaeological evidence.[9]

So the people were real, only the details are in doubt (according to Denver).

Frankly, the issue I have is more fundamental.
From Denver on Wikipedia:

I am not reading the Bible as Scripture… I am in fact not even a theist. My view all along—and especially in the recent books—is first that the biblical narratives are indeed 'stories,' often fictional and almost always propagandistic, but that here and there they contain some valid historical information. That hardly makes me a 'maximalist.'[8]

Subjectively, I know that God exists.
I may not have access to all of the details, but I know the miracles that I have seen and I know the spiritual being that I have encountered.
Knowing that both God and miracles are real ... I cannot help but view the claims from a hopelessly different perspective than a non-theist.

I cannot prove what I know, nor can I reasonably expect you to believe what I know "because I say so", but what I know to be true matters to me.

Some claim of the last 50 years rejecting everything that has been believed for the previous two millennia (or more) needs more than someone who doesn't believe in God claiming that "he sees no evidence" to convince me to reject the body of personal experience that half a century of life have provided to me.
That God exists today makes it far more reasonable to believe that he existed in the distant past.
That God communicates with people today makes it far more reasonable that he communicated with people in the distant past.

Your mileage will undoubtedly vary.
For that you have my sympathy.
Another great post. Much better than what I could have done.
 
Top