Jehovah's myths etc.

[AtheistAJ]

Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of famous pioneer researcher and blasphemer Galileo Galilei in 1615, said "To assert that Earth revolves around the Sun" is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.". Galileo was then publicly executed, even though hundreds of years later in 1992, pope John Paul II apologized for that blooper and admitted they were wrong on that all the time. The Vatican also recently under authority of Benedict 6th (former Hitler's youth constable), denied the myth of unchristened babies going to limbo (a hell for babies), again altering the doctrine. Unrelated, Bible also claims that plants were created before Sun (plants need Sun because they feed by photosynthesis), and that Sun was created subsequent and unrelated to creation of light. Jehovah, who most Christians and Jews worship as the true god made all these false and anti-scientific statements. Do you believe god (Jehovah) multiple times tested Moses by threatening his life as prophesized in the old testament, once by requiring his wife to manually circumcise her 2 year old son?

Do you still believe in original myths, and their alleged author at fear of going to a hell, or do you admit your god was wrong like your own recent church officials? And if you don't believe that, do you still believe Jesus (if a real character) was born of a virgin?

My my, so many myths...

 

[Pah]

I've moved this thread from the Discuss Individual Religion (DIR) section to the Debate section. The premise of DIR is not to discuss or debate any belief system. It is for learning and sharing a particular faith.

 

[Sunstone]

I'm afraid you've begun your own myth here, Atheist AJ. Galileo was not, as you claim, publically executed. He was sentenced to house arrest. He died in 1642 an old man of natural causes.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

 

[nutshell]

Cardinal Bellarmine, during the trial of famous pioneer researcher and blasphemer Galileo Galilei in 1615, said "To assert that Earth revolves around the Sun" is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus was not born of a virgin.". Galileo was then publicly executed, even though hundreds of years later in 1992, pope John Paul II apologized for that blooper and admitted they were wrong on that all the time. The Vatican also recently under authority of Benedict 6th (former Hitler's youth constable), denied the myth of unchristened babies going to limbo (a hell for babies), again altering the doctrine. ...

I'm not Catholic so I'll let someone else tackle this one.

Unrelated, Bible also claims that plants were created before Sun (plants need Sun because they feed by photosynthesis), and that Sun was created subsequent and unrelated to creation of light. .Jehovah, who most Christians and Jews worship as the true god made all these false and anti-scientific statements...

Not all of Abrahmic belief consider the creation depicted in the bible to be literal. As with any "myth," it is the moral truth that is the focus, not the literal truth that you suppose to prove with empirical evidence.

Do you believe god (Jehovah) multiple times tested Moses by threatening his life as prophesized in the old testament, once by requiring his wife to manually circumcise her 2 year old son?...

Please provide a reference to a specific passage. If the Bible says this why wouldn't I believe it??? What's your beef with it?

Do you still believe in original myths, and their alleged author at fear of going to a hell, or do you admit your god was wrong like your own recent church officials?

I believe in original "myths" and in God because of the knowledge I've received through the spirit of revelation. The moral truths trump anything you try to throw out using empirical evidence (which you have yet to provide).

And if you don't believe that, do you still believe Jesus (if a real character) was born of a virgin?

My my, so many myths...

Yes. I believe in the virgin birth. We can do the same thing today with our current knowledge of science. Surely a God who knows everything could have accomplished the same.

My my, so little faith.:tsk:

 

[RagnarGalt]

And by the way, LIGHT came to be before vegetation, then the 'luminaries'... This light likely was provided by the SUN, but the 'waters' that were above the expanse likely would have diffused the light to a point that God later caused the luminaries to become visible from the viewpoint of earth... We don't know the answers to those questions for a certainty, but it is foolish to assume that the creator of the universe would not have the knowledge needed to keep plants alive until the time when 'photosynthesis' began... Of course, the Bible clearly states that light came to be BEFORE plants, so that would have been sufficient to keep the plants alive until the SUN was brought to bare (ever heard of hydroponics?)... And NO, I don't adhere to Biblical teachings out of FEAR of going to HELL... I try my best to serve God because he put me here and he has the right to ask me to do his will... And my God loves his creation and will not BURN anyone in HELL...

 

[AtheistAJ]

And my God loves his creation and will not BURN anyone in HELL...

Can't argue with the facts...


That's why you're wrong according to religious teachings. :tsk:

 

[Buttons*]

I think everything in all religious books is allegorical for how to live a better life. I dont think Yeshua existed, but that's only my opinion. Evidence for my claim? "The Jesus Mysteries"

 

[nutshell]

AtheistAJ, do you care to respond to my response?

 

[mormonman]

Considering that i don't think that the catholic church is true, the mistakes, misinterpretaions, and changes they have made doesn't affect or speak for the rest of Christianity. If you have a Bible, try reading Genesis 1:1-3. In verse 3 it says "and God said let there be light". Hmmm...Unless I can't read I didn't see anything thing about plants before that. God has all power and all knowledge. Why is it so unbelieveable to people like you, ateistaj, that the Son of God could be born of a virgin. Well I guess I'm ready to prove some more of these "mysteries" wrong, if you have any more. Knockout

 

[Ernesto]

I'm afraid you've begun your own myth here, Atheist AJ. Galileo was not, as you claim, publically executed. He was sentenced to house arrest. He died in 1642 an old man of natural causes.

http://www-groups.dcs.st-and.ac.uk/~history/Mathematicians/Galileo.html

Out of interest, who wrote that article? Certainly not an atheist.

 

[Of a Happy Ending]

Do you still believe in original myths, and their alleged author at fear of going to a hell, or do you admit your god was wrong like your own recent church officials? And if you don't believe that, do you still believe Jesus (if a real character) was born of a virgin?

My my, so many myths...

I don't know your motivation, but did you really expect that convoluted little essay to really do any damage to anyone's faith?

First, church officials are human beings and there are thousands of different churches out there, each with their own views aside from the Catholic tradition. To compare the erroneous assumptions and ideas of church officials to God is fallacy.

Secondly, too many here have already pointed out that light certainly came before plants, though the sun was not created until later. If we believe that God cannot make light without making the sun, then He isn't much of a God is He?

Thirdly, Jesus certainly existed, there's really no debating that, at least not intelligently. I have not read a single secular scholar who would debate that Jesus really lived. As for His being born of a virgin, that's a faith thing again.

Brandon

 

[Of a Happy Ending]

By the way, why is it so hard to believe that a God who transcends our conception or reality could transcend the laws of our science? God is not subject to His creation, which means He cannot be subjected to the same kind of study one devotes to a rock or a fossil.

Brandon

 

[Super Universe]

Someone already addressed that Galileo was not actually executed but sentenced to house arrest but still you have a valid point.

Galileo invented the telescope and because of his invention he was the only person in the world who could know the truth. The earth is not the center of the solar system.

Some day we are going to have to accept that God created the universe the way He wanted it to be and not the way some of us would like.

Evolution is fact? So...doesn't change God one bit and it doesn't change me either. It's actually a pretty smart way of doing things in this huge place.

There are likely many other intelligent beings in the universe. Look at all the life on this planet alone. Why wouldn't God fill the universe with life?

If you truly believe that God created the universe then you know that the scientists are discovering the clue's to God's incredibly complex and wonderful creation.

And there doesn't have to be a universe. Try to be happy with what you got. Have you ever seen a seal move over the ground?

 

[Pah]

...Thirdly, Jesus certainly existed, there's really no debating that, at least not intelligently. I have not read a single secular scholar who would debate that Jesus really lived. As for His being born of a virgin, that's a faith thing again.

Brandon

Wilhelm Wrede wrote The Messianic Secret which showed that ahistorical being shaped by early Christian belief.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_still/jesus_search.html Albert Schweitzer signaled the end of the first quest by concluding in his watershed book The Quest for the Historical Jesus that Jesus could not be found in the gospel accounts at all and that his "image has not been destroyed from without, it has fallen to pieces, cleft and disintegrated by the concrete historical problems which came to the surface one after another."

Rudolf Bultmann, by using "form criticism" found "that the early Christians had very little interest in the historical Jesus and that Jesus was forever buried under the mythology of Pauline Christianity." [same source]

The Jesus Seminar has also weighed in and argues against an historical Jesus

It would be wrong to say "Jesus certainly existed, there's really no debating that, at least not intelligently."

 

[Of a Happy Ending]

Wilhelm Wrede wrote The Messianic Secret which showed that ahistorical being shaped by early Christian belief.Rudolf Bultmann, by using "form criticism" found "that the early Christians had very little interest in the historical Jesus and that Jesus was forever buried under the mythology of Pauline Christianity." [same source]

The Jesus Seminar has also weighed in and argues against an historical Jesus

It would be wrong to say "Jesus certainly existed, there's really no debating that, at least not intelligently."

What you have said above are arguments against Jesus as He is portrayed in the gospels. However, extrabiblical sources, Josephus foremost, testify to the fact that a man, Jesus, stirred up trouble in Palestine in the early first century. You argue not against the fact that Jesus lived, just the nature of His life when He lived.

As for those arguments against the "historical Jesus," I will address those later, as I should probably read the sources you mention. However, I will state that textual criticism yields evidence that Mark's gospel was complete before much of Paul's work was in circulation, and was not informed by Pauline "mythology."

I will also post my problems with form criticism in the future.

Brandon

 

[Pah]

What you have said above are arguments against Jesus as He is portrayed in the gospels. However, extrabiblical sources, Josephus foremost, testify to the fact that a man, Jesus, stirred up trouble in Palestine in the early first century. You argue not against the fact that Jesus lived, just the nature of His life when He lived.

None of the extrabiblical texts, aside from what is considered forgery in Joesphus, mention Jesus or Christ by name. Christianity is mentioned but that does not go to a proof of a historical Jesus

As for those arguments against the "historical Jesus," I will address those later, as I should probably read the sources you mention. However, I will state that textual criticism yields evidence that Mark's gospel was complete before much of Paul's work was in circulation, and was not informed by Pauline "mythology."


...Brandon

Paul's writings are earlier than the gospel of Mark

What I have given you is refutation of your statement contained in my quote. The rigthness or wrongness of the inteligent examples are for another thread.

 

[Of a Happy Ending]

Paul's writings are earlier than the gospel of Mark

Okay...back it up. i don't really get into unsubstantiated claims.

Oh, and I said Mark was complete before Paul's work was in circulation. There's a difference.

And cite your source for the "forgery."

Brandon

 

[Pah]

Okay...back it up. i don't really get into unsubstantiated claims.

Brandon

In your "next" thread I can give sources for this as well. It becomes "a battle of scholastic authority".

I could easily consider your claim "unsubstantiated"

 

[Of a Happy Ending]

In your "next" thread I can give sources for this as well. It becomes "a battle of scholastic authority".

I could easily consider your claim "unsubstantiated"

You could, but I called you on it first. I just want to see where your information is being found.

Brandon

 

[john63]

Out of interest, who wrote that article? Certainly not an atheist.

You've got to be kidding. Galileo's inquisition and sentence of house arrest are recorded history, not conjecture.