Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Hardcopies ready! Thankyou to all who helped.
#16
Quote:"There is nothing to gain from marcion"

History says otherwise. He was a Marcionite of course, who had many similarities to the Gnostics ? and Gnosticism was massive. He produced the FIRST NT canon. This canon included what was essentially a "stripped down" version of Luke and ten Pauline epistles. The curious thing is, there is no evidence for the existence of these books BEFORE Marcion?s canon. The more I look at it, the more it looks like our traditional NT canon (which isn?t universally accepted by all Christians even today) was half written by a "heretical" Christian.

It may be a shock, but it was indeed Marcion who produced the FIRST NT canon, and thus the "original" NT. A horrendous thought for those that hate "heretics", but one that is corroborated by history.

Marcion also shows what many early Christians thought of Judaism and the OT. That it is evil and should be kept separate from the wonderful (and rather Eastern) messages of Jesus. Keep in mind it weren?t the Gnostic Christians who tortured and killed orthodox/catholic Christians en masse and burned their texts. It was the other way around. You could say these "heretical" Christians were more Christian, more Christ-like, than the "real" Christians.
Now, you seem like a smart enogh guy. i do not know what you have been reading though. i may be wrong, but i am fairly certain this is what really happened (not opinion, just historc research): Marcion did formulate the first formal canon. He also edited the Books according to his liking without giving any real reasons (just that he didn't like the texts) and THEN he included them in his canon. He never wrote any bible books. His church also was quite large.
BUT, though the christians at his time had no formal canon, they did already heavily used most, if not all of the 27 books, long before Marcion came around. They just never felt the need for a formal statement, which is true for all christian doctrines and issues. Nothing is original about Marcions canon, nothing at all. He was a rebel that thought he had some kind of higher calling or something and had the only claim on truth (remember, neither Peter nor Paul did such a thing).

The first time Marcion formally presented his ideas, he was rejected. Not that i agree with what the christians back then did in general, but they were right in rejecting him. Most of his false doctrine is based on a false reading of Galatians 1, which every 5 year old could do better. He got stuck at his idea of "one gospel", and that led him to beleive all kinds of other errors. His OT-NT "contradictions" are the funniest of their kind.

Quote:""The Tao te Ching, which i have read at least 3 times myself, you say, contains more wisodm than the Bible, but almost every thought in it is contained in the Bible ""

Perhaps you are right. It's just hard to find in between the "kill your relatives who leave the faith" and the "kill all the baby boys but keep the young virgin girls for yourself" biblical verses. Not only is the dao de jing full of practical wisdom, it also lacks such atrocities.
You should also see that you only percieve this in such a manner because of your (supposedly) western moralsthat are conditioned by your social and cultural environment. Not everyone what you immediately percieve as good/evil is exactly that.

Quote:At the end of the day, it really all comes down to evidence for me.
i am fine with that, but why would an almighty creator that himself claimed to only reveal himself to those that please him need to be proven scientifically? As i said, i have plenty of proof, some hard to refute, but at the end, you need your own proof.

To illustrate what i mean (not as a proof of God, just the dilemma in general): If, for example a dead man in your family was to raise from the dead today, that would be quite interesting. Suppose this man would be your grandfather or great-grandfather. Now, you may know this person, and you may recognize who he is and be able to say that he is not an impostor. The doctor that was with him at the moment of death may know with 100% certainty he died. But, when this guy comes and claims to be risen from the dead, that will mean nothing, as it is not generally accepted that people rise up from their grave. Thedoctor will believe in a long lost twinbrother, you will believe he and the doctor faked his deah together, and others will believe a combination of both.
Now, there was proof of a supernatural event, but that proof was not "good enough" to convince anyone. i have experienced this kind of situation first hand, in many situations where one couldn't believe the thigs that get rejected (people that get healed of unthinkable sicknesses like cancer and aids and then they just end up concluding it was some kind of coincidence). Of course there is always personally irrefutable proof of the supernatural, but never universal proof. The best proof i have seen is private prophecy (where a guy knows things about you he simply cannot know, like your inner thoughts etc. and then offers a solution). i have experienced such things in a christian framework only, never outside of it (though i am aware such things may exist elsewhere). On a personal level, and summed up, these things can serve as a proof of God (among other things).
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#17
""Marcion did formulate the first formal canon. He also edited the Books according to his liking""

There is no reason to believe that Marcion edited books which came after him... That's virtually the same argument as diabolical mimicry. Satan cracked Yahweh's secret codes and knew what Jesus would get up to, so made his evil pagan religions COPY Jesus' life and messages, hundreds to thousands of years earlier... There's no evidence that these books existed before Marcion. Let's not put the cart before the horse. What church tradition says and what history says are two very very different things!

""BUT, though the christians at his time had no formal canon, they did already heavily used most, if not all of the 27 books""

This is an outright lie, there?s no evidence for that. Early fathers like clement wrote more like Paul as if these books don't exist. It?s not until the second half of the 2nd century where we see both the CONTENT and REFERENCFES to the NT books as we know them today (more or less - additions and changes were still made for some time which is proven). Even where content is there it only means that that idea or message was around, not that that book was around. Proto-books? Perhaps. Gospels and other NT books as we know them? No, there's not a shred of evidence to show they were around before Marcion.

""You should also see that you only percieve this in such a manner because of your (supposedly) western moralsthat are conditioned by your social and cultural environment. Not everyone what you immediately percieve as good/evil is exactly that.""

You are partially correct, good job! Just because we find something disagreeable in a religion, say, like Islam, doesn't make the religion false. If a pagan religion practices human sacrifice and orgies, again, a Christian can?t use that as evidence that the religion is false. My position is however, if you are going to say that it's good to kill baby boys and rape baby girls because god said so in the bible, then you had better be able to prove that your god/bible/religion is true. So far this hasn?t been done, hence I am outraged when crimes are done in god's name. The dao de jing never tells people to do such things as kill your relatives who stray from the faith or wipe out a whole race of people. This is partly why I rate the Eastern philosophies so highly as opposed to the ?Western? religions.

""but why would an almighty creator that himself claimed to only reveal himself to those that please him need to be proven scientifically? As i said, i have plenty of proof, some hard to refute, but at the end, you need your own proof.""

Well one reason I just gave you. If people are going to kill/die in god's name they had better be able to prove it! There's a whole bunch of other gods they could be believing in... I would like to see your proof, sincerely. But not if it's the typical "god revealed it internally" as that can't be verified and can just as well be applied to Marduk as to Yahweh. Once again, arguments for an existence of "some sort of God" (most arguments can apply to any god like Zeus, Thor, Thomas Paine?s deistic god, a pantheistic god, etc) do nothing to prove Christianity or the Bible.

I encourage you to look into modern Jewish archaeology which blows the lid on the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, I encourage you to peruse the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts. I encourage you to look into the "early ChurchES" a bit more. The sect of Christianity most of us stem from today was the literalist/orthodox sect (later the Catholics), who killed and tortured their rivals, and destroyed their texts. Not very Christ-like. Study the origins of the faith and why so many believed in Jesus in different ways, including why many didn't believe he existed at all.

That's an interesting question in itself: Why would people who lived in the time of Christ, and loved Christ and his teachings, deny that he even existed? I pose this question to scholars and debaters and I never get a satisfactory response. The only logical reason is that they are right. They'd know. They created the Christ myth. Even before Christ was meant to be around. The details came later, in the 2nd century. Hence the NT Gospels as we know them only get referenced in the latter half of the 2nd century. Actual existent manuscripts of these books of course show up much much later, so these references are important in figuring potential dates of composition.
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com">http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#18
you may have misunderstood my intentions, i am not trying to disproveyou, i just would like some banlance.


Quote:There is no reason to believe that Marcion edited books which came after him... That's virtually the same argument as diabolical mimicry. Satan cracked Yahweh's secret codes and knew what Jesus would get up to, so made his evil pagan religions COPY Jesus' life and messages, hundreds to thousands of years earlier... There's no evidence that these books existed before Marcion. Let's not put the cart before the horse. What church tradition says and what history says are two very very different things!
i have to admit i do not know enough about the topic to deny what you are saying, but i am quite certain it was not like that (i might check my books again and come back later). Though my next answer partially answers this. About diabolic mimicry, never heard of it. However, i find it interesting you would say that as your book contains a whole section about divine codes (which is curious as an atheist). The codes you present are by far too complex to be done by a human.

Quote:This is an outright lie, there?s no evidence for that. Early fathers like clement wrote more like Paul as if these books don't exist. It?s not until the second half of the 2nd century where we see both the CONTENT and REFERENCFES to the NT books as we know them today (more or less - additions and changes were still made for some time which is proven). Even where content is there it only means that that idea or message was around, not that that book was around. Proto-books? Perhaps. Gospels and other NT books as we know them? No, there's not a shred of evidence to show they were around before Marcion.
it was not my intention to lie. there is not much dircet evidence, naturally, as Revelation was only written a few years earlier. Copying manuscrits by hand and spreading them, and then evaluating them, takes an incredible amount of time (e.g. vaticanus was written on 700 (!) goat skins. Someone had to prepare these skins (or other writing materials), which means a lot of money, or a lot of time. Writing was also done in a different fashion than today, more on a letter-by-letter basis, it took a lot of time to copy thousands of NTs). Also, the way those that do quote the NT later on is the most important proof we have. None of them writes in a manner as if he was setting up a new standard. They quote scripture naturally, without feelingthe need to explain where they got those ideas. If someone wrote a letter from one end of the early christian world to the other, quoting a Bible book, would he not only do that if he was certain the book spread to that region already? As the church did not have centralized organization yet in the 3rd century, the only method of distribution is uncoordinated, manual, church-by-church copying. For such a process to reach a fair amount of spread in the early 3rd century shows that the propagation of manuscripts had to be going on for quite a while (since the writing of the manuscripts in fact). That is the most prevailing evidence.

If we insist on early quotes as proof, we can name Ignatius for quoting scripture in 110AD (Matthew, Luke, Acts, Romans, I Corinthians, Ephesians, Colossians, I Thessalonians), as well as Polycarp in roughly the same time (Matthew, Mark, Luke, Acts, I Corinthians, II Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, I Thessalonians, II Thessalonians, I Timothy, II Timothy, Hebrews, I Peter, I John, III John) before Marcion.
Now, it is true none of these were quoted by name (and some are questionnable, certainly not all though), but that is just the spirit of the NT church. Peter did not quote Paul, athough he was aware of (at least some of) his letters and approved of them, even calling them scripture (long before a canon was even theoretically possible! Clement had a similar attitude it seems (of not quoting)). Neither did Paul or James or Jude of John quote anyone. It was the time of the Holy Spirit, where Apostles and God-chosen leaders depended on divine guidance only. If you want to play the atheist card, let me just say they focused more on their own business than anyone elses. The transition to the traditional churches was a slow one, and it had some good and some bad developments. This is why the earlier church fathers slowly changed their style. It is clear to me that the change of style is far better explained by a shift of thinking than a shift of regard for scripture. Just because they had no form whatsoever does not mean they had no opinion (they also first had no form in service, offices, or any other matter. Their absence of form is a theological pillar, rather than a lack of organization). Marcion and other interesting personalities forced such form upon the early christians. Some quotations in that spirit:

1Jn 2:20 But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things.
1Jn 2:27 But the anointing which ye have received of him abideth in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things, and is truth, and is no lie, and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him.
Joh 4:14 But whosoever drinketh of the water that I shall give him shall never thirst; but the water that I shall give him shall be in him a well of water springing up into everlasting life.
2Jn 1:2 For the truth's sake, which dwelleth in us, and shall be with us for ever.
Joh 7:38 He that believeth on me, as the scripture hath said, out of his belly shall flow rivers of living water.
Joh 7:39 (But this spake he of the Spirit, which they that believe on him should receive: for the Holy Ghost was not yet given; because that Jesus was not yet glorified.)
Joh 14:26 But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
Joh 16:13 Howbeit when he, the Spirit of truth, is come, he will guide you into all truth: for he shall not speak of himself; but whatsoever he shall hear, that shall he speak: and he will shew you things to come.
Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people:
Heb 8:11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbour, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.
1Co 2:13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.



Since we are mostly ranting without presenting evidence, let me just say i generally agree with the scolars that believe in apostolic authorship, and i beieve in a literal Jesus. There are thousands of scholars in this "camp", and they have just as much proof as anyone else (not that i am just chosing according to my liking, but i cannot present a sufficient essay that covers the evidence. It is impossible in a forum board.).
It would never have been possible to manipulate the manuscript development on such a large scale, especially considering there have always been churches that did not go along with the catholic (or just the major ones before that). Try to visualize your proto-books spreading to the far regions of the world, how would the catholic church control those regions (not that they did not try, they just can't). The books may have had some limited development, but that is only true for the gospels. That does not make them any less valuable.
For example, tell me, what relevance would a 3rd century Revelation of John have, as it was clearly a text that had a certain interpretation to 1st and early 2nd century christians only? No sense here.
Quote:You are partially correct, good job! Just because we find something disagreeable in a religion, say, like Islam, doesn't make the religion false. If a pagan religion practices human sacrifice and orgies, again, a Christian can?t use that as evidence that the religion is false. My position is however, if you are going to say that it's good to kill baby boys and rape baby girls because god said so in the bible, then you had better be able to prove that your god/bible/religion is true. So far this hasn?t been done, hence I am outraged when crimes are done in god's name. The dao de jing never tells people to do such things as kill your relatives who stray from the faith or wipe out a whole race of people. This is partly why I rate the Eastern philosophies so highly as opposed to the ?Western? religions.
i fully understand you. Though, i am absolutely certain both proverbs and ecclesasties, as well as some NT passages, are at least as dense as the dao. But, the Bible does not stop at just philosophy, it encompasses the entirety of the human existence, and accounts for all lifestyles, and all philosophies, and all forms of poetry, and all forms of faith.

Quote:Well one reason I just gave you. If people are going to kill/die in god's name they had better be able to prove it! There's a whole bunch of other gods they could be believing in... I would like to see your proof, sincerely. But not if it's the typical "god revealed it internally" as that can't be verified and can just as well be applied to Marduk as to Yahweh. Once again, arguments for an existence of "some sort of God" (most arguments can apply to any god like Zeus, Thor, Thomas Paine?s deistic god, a pantheistic god, etc) do nothing to prove Christianity or the Bible.
i see your point, but this does not entirely apply to the NT church, as the underlying message was to simply do the best in any kind of circumstances (it is apparant in teachings of Jesus as well as John and Paul). There is a moral framework for reference, which is based on the principles of peaceful community life and love, and some (at first sight) less wisdom-based principles, but the overall message is a strongly individual faith with the obligation of love, righteusness, truth and faith. If i was no christian, i would adhere to the same principles, as i (and i say this with all honesty) have tested other philosophies, and they are all limited by the misconceptions of their founders. To me, if you take out all the "faith" part of christianity, it is still superior to all other philosophies, because it does not neglect human drives or the facts of real life (as opposed to philosophy and wisdom only). So, based on the theory alone, i have found nothing better (and i checked the eastern philosophies, in fact they come second on my "list", and third is agnosticism). The christian lifestyle is the best for you and your community. i have to admit, though, that things like Islam disqualified also because they do not adhere to truth (a principle that, to me, cannot be shaken, regardless of culture and circumstances) and logic (which i put before my decision to be a christian). Interestingly, even if there was no Jesus, having such a figure as a reference point to ones psyche is extremely helful.


Quote:I encourage you to look into modern Jewish archaeology which blows the lid on the Old Testament. As for the New Testament, I encourage you to peruse the Dead Sea scrolls and the Nag Hammadi texts. I encourage you to look into the "early ChurchES" a bit more. The sect of Christianity most of us stem from today was the literalist/orthodox sect (later the Catholics), who killed and tortured their rivals, and destroyed their texts. Not very Christ-like. Study the origins of the faith and why so many believed in Jesus in different ways, including why many didn't believe he existed at all.
As i said, i know how it is conducted. Both sides (evangelical vs. secular) are worse in their conduct than little children. it is, in fact, just a bunch of guys making unproven claims based on extremely obscure "facts" and theories and hoping the other side cannot refute them. This is really what many of those "scolars" have in mind, believe me. So,a certain kind of animal bone in an ancient public dumpster may become the major evidence for theories saying the early christians were all bisexual, had orgies, loved to kill children and eat them, and a lot of other things. Formulate this with false, pretended logic, and hide it in a complex structure, and your opponent will have years of work refuting you. You should know hoew they conduct their research, you are (somwehat of) an aramaic primacist. Tell me how they come up with book-long essays "proofing" greek primacy? It is just a bunch of misguided pride. Also, please konw that "scolarly consensus" is nothing more than a bunch of people patting each others back. When a new scholar is born, we wants to belong to the group. He does so by patting the backs of those that are currently "in charge" of his group. It is phariseical politics. That is why some really dumb ideas become so popular.

Just to give an example of what i mean: One very funny OT "theory" that finds somuch aceptance it the belief that montheism was a late development in the age of the Kings. They suppose before that, Jews worshipped all kinds of godsside by side. Now, the funny part is when you trace back those theories, they are founded on the unearthing of some ashera sculptures that date to the age of the kings in Israel. There has been little to no other circumstancial proof of what has happened there. What happened after that is a classic.
"Scholars" took their appropriate drugs and got in their accustomed prideful attitude and got worked up on their trip in a manner where not even fantasy could limit them. The result was the modern consensus. "Polytheism prevailed at least after solomon". All because of some ashera sculptures. Books and essays on this are still written as we speak.
Now, see this from my point of view. i know the Bible quite well, and the funny thing about all this is that the Bible admits for ashera worship all over, especially in the age of the Kings. And, if you read the biblical record and put it all in the correct frame, you can clearly see it was done parallel to monotheism, and the Bible even records some events where the common people were worshipping both ashera and YHWH in the same era, but, interestingly, the Bible itself always keeps the distinctions clear, even if kings did not do so. Of all the books that were written on this, not a single shred of new information that was not clearly revealed in the Bible even much more consistent with the evidence (except, naturally, for some insane theories) has been presented. This is one of the major issues that are supposed to "blow the lid" on the OT.
The simple fact that they worshipped other Gods is irrelevant to monotheis, just as it is irrelevant to the christian faith if some "christians" are greedy money lovers (=worshippers of mammon). They may still even formally confess to monotheism.

Other funny stories are, e.g. the exodus. The Bible never evengives the impression of cencorship. It speaks of the evil deeds of the patriachs as well as the judges and kings. Egyptian history, however, is one slick, polished piece of garbage. Now, why to trust the near absence of Joseph or the hebrews in archaeology, when the pharaos are known for their information suppresion? Such attempts were not done by the hebrews. Truth has always been the major definer of God's people.

Again i refer to the fact that all "arguments" i am aware of that have been presented against the Bibles approx. 200 years ago (like the Hittites, orthe listings of foreign Kings) are refuted. The same will happen to the modern theories. In time, truth will prevail.

This is all that "modern archaeology" is about. Even magazines like the BAR (kind of evangelical) are full of lies and idiotic ideas (of which i am convinced the authors know they are wrong, but just put the burden of proof on the other side).

Quote: I encourage you to look into the "early ChurchES" a bit more. The sect of Christianity most of us stem from today was the literalist/orthodox sect (later the Catholics), who killed and tortured their rivals, and destroyed their texts.
Yes, there were many churches, with very undefined borders. Yet, such developments were already refuted by the apostles, in the NT. Gnosticism is refuted by name, mysticism (incompatible with NT writings), Nicolaitism, the "free sex" philosophies, ascetism, extreme literatism, and many more. There were many churches, but allow me to draw some borders (as it is a matter of definers and opinion) and say there is only one somewhat consistent NT church. All other churches are by nature excluded from being candidateds of agreeing with the apostolic doctrine, and are thus not the NT church. In this case, i simply employ the NT as the benchmark of those borders. Whoever fully agrees with it, and knows how to put the OT in context (not only in a direct literal sense though(both OT and NT)) may call himslef the original NT church. And yes, pure literalists (that deny further interpretation) tend to be fundies and extremists. This is also not NT teaching.
1Co 9:25 And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a corruptible crown; but we an incorruptible.

You said most of us stem from there. Thanks for saying "most". i myself do not see it that way for my own person. i have (mostly) freed myself of cultural and historical preoccupation, and am continuously attempting to agree more and more with the NT, not only in a literal sense. i may have some similar or even the same opinions as some traditionalists regarding certain topics, but that has nothing to do with them, but much more with the NT. i am not scared to figure out the Bible may be wrong, as truth is of the highest value. But, i have not yet found any real evidence against anything in there.

Quote:That's an interesting question in itself: Why would people who lived in the time of Christ, and loved Christ and his teachings, deny that he even existed? I pose this question to scholars and debaters and I never get a satisfactory response. The only logical reason is that they are right. They'd know. They created the Christ myth. Even before Christ was meant to be around. The details came later, in the 2nd century. Hence the NT Gospels as we know them only get referenced in the latter half of the 2nd century. Actual existent manuscripts of these books of course show up much much later, so these references are important in figuring potential dates of composition.
i am uncertain what you are referring to. Who denied he existed? The Apostles? The Early fathers? Nicean contemporaries?
Do you deny the NT writings are first century material that came into existance during the apostolic age? Are you saying some kind of conspiracy war going on over a timespan of 300(!) years? Such a thing is impossible, more so back then than today. It is also my impression that most secular scolars (that actually wrote a text concerning the topic) agree Jesus existed (e.g. Jesus seminar etc).
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#19
i found a somewhat organized list of marcions editings:
http://www.tertullian.org/articles/evans...endix2.htm
ater i looked at the matter again, however, i see how someone could say marcion had the real texts, whereas the rest of the churches did not. This, however, is only possible if you ignore the rest of the circumstances, the evidences, and especially deny any form of textual criticism (some of marcions omissions are as clear as day).
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#20
Hi Again,

I'll quickly touch on some of your comments.

Diabolical mimicry: This is a defence that desperate literalist believers use (or independently develop, as I did once embarrassingly, on this very forum) to explain why Christianity has so many similarities with pagan religions that are much older (Jesus' similarities to Horus, Dionysus, Buddha, Krishna etc. and Yahweh's similarities to Baal, Zeus etc.). The theory is that Satan knew what Jesus/Yahweh would get up to, so copied these things in his Satanic religions (i.e. all non-Judeo-Christian religions...), CENTURIES earlier. This is what we call, putting the cart before the horse. The same concept applies with Marcion's NT. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that the NT Gospels or the Pauline epistles existed BEFORE Marcion. This is very serious. Because of this FACT, we cannot just assume that Marcion copied these books from other sources and edited them. It is very possible that he created those books and/or used proto-books.
Explaining why NT references appear late 2nd Century: Your theories unfortunately do not help the situation. The truth is, since they do not directly quote the NT books until the late 2nd century (note that they do quote the OT directly) we cannot take these quotes as evidence for the early existence of the NT books. It only means that SOME of the teachings existed (I say some because the basic messages of Christ appear first, then later, much later, the details of his life appear - oddly enough...). This is undisputed. Many of the Christ teachings even came before Jesus was supposedly around. Again, oddly enough...

On evidence: An atheist need not present evidence. Atheism is not an ideology. It is simply the lack of belief in any particular personal god. If a fundie wants to claim that their god exists, that's fine. If they want to kill in that god's name, change laws in that god's name, have a say on what our children get taught in science class etc., they had better prove their position. The burden of proof always lies with the believer. My point is, though I am Christian, it is up to Christians to prove their god is real, and is the true god. So far this hasn't been done.

On morals: Thank you for getting my point. We still have a problem though. Billions of people believe in a book that teaches them it is okay to kill their relatives if they stray from the faith, rape little girls, kill baby boys etc. I think it is fair that they be able to PROVE their beliefs true before they act on them. Fair enough? Or shall we let any psychopath do whatever he pleases (including raping our daughters, killing our parents, etc.) because he says god told him it pleased him? I for one would demand this person's evidence. Right after I and other just-minded people opened a can of whupass that is!

Scholars: On this we do find some agreement. Scholarly consensus can be meaningless. It is the truth that matters. And thus it is evidence that matters. If most Bible Scholars believe Jesus existed, I am not impressed. Most bible scholars are religious, and the ones that aren't, were conditioned to accept certain things as true. The fact is, whether they believe something or not, it is the evidence that matters. And the evidence is lacking for Jesus/Yahweh's existence, let alone their claims. Shall we ask what Quran scholars think of the Bible? Would we expect them to deny Allah? Bible scholarship is a joke; it shouldn't be considered a real academic field. Any fundie can study at BJU and become a "Bible scholar".

Israeli archaeology: I think you haven't really looked into this. I'm not talking about no Hittites here... I'm talking about the lack of evidence that the Israelites razed Canaanite villages and wiped them out. I'm talking the evidence that the Israelites WERE Canaanites. I'm talking the lack of evidence for Yahweh, Moses, Abraham etc. I'm talking the evidence that Yahweh was one of MANY gods, and wasn't even the highest god. I'm talking the total lack of evidence for the Exodus. Even if the Egyptians didn't want to record such embarrassing moments, do you think someone may have noticed 2 million people leaving a country of 6 million? Do you think this may have caused havoc with Egypt's economy? Do you think this would have caused massive social problems? No evidence for ANY of this. Nor is there any evidence for the 2 million people wandering around the desert for 40 years. Not even a damned chicken bone...

God's people's truth-telling: You're kidding right? I don't want to throw around racist stereotypes, but do you think Jews have never exaggerated in their holy texts??? Should we believe the Talmud when it says that the Romans killed a BILLION Jews, when there has never been a billion Jews at one time? Should we believe the Talmud, which has a version of Jesus that existed much later than ?our Jesus?? Should we believe the OT when it says that the Exodus happened, when there is no evidence for it, and evidence that this may be based on an earlier event where Semites were DRIVEN from Egypt? Should we believe the OT when it claims that Israel defeated the Assyrians due to God?s angel that slaughtered 180-odd thousand Assyrian soldiers, when history shows us that the Assyrian King withdrew due to conflicts elsewhere and the MASSIVE TRIBUTES and CONCESSIONS showered upon him by the Jewish king? Please?

The NT Church: I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible; your comments on the NT church really highlight your lack of knowledge in the subject, and echo the attitudes of the KJV-only believers. For one thing, there is no one NT. There is not a single NT canon that is agreed upon by all Christians today. Let alone thousands of years ago. Being fans of the Peshitta, this should be obvious to all of us. And of course, most early Christians didn't have the NT. Like Paul. Or Clement. Please note that the earliest Christians were around before Jesus was even said to have been born. They believed in a mythical Christ, who like Buddha and Lao Tzu, had some pretty awesome teachings. Even later Christians like Paul (if Paul even existed) and Marcion seem to refer to the teachings of Christ and don't know the details of his life (notice how Marcion's Gospel misses the first 2 chapters, just like the EARLIEST copies of Luke's gospel...). Now when the earliest Christians believed in the Christ's teachings, BEFORE the time of Christ, what does that tell you? What more does it tell you when the DETAILS of Christ's life come about more than a hundred years later? It suggests to me that this was all a myth and some people took it very seriously, and added their historical fictions over time.

Denying Christ: I'm not even really saying the earliest Christians DENIED Christ. It's like saying an atheist denies god. I'm saying the earliest Christians didn't believe in a literal Jesus. Read up on the texts of the Gnostics and the Essenes. See how a Christ like figure, teaching Christ's teachings, appears DECADES before Jesus was supposedly born.

Marcion's omissions: You claim that Marcion's omissions are clear as day. That is a horrendous claim to make. Once again, let's not put the cart before the horse. It's an unwritten rule in Biblical scholarship that the longer texts came after the shorter ones. All of Marcion's NT books are shorter than the later copies. This suggests that his works are original, or at least, "more original". This corroborates the historical timeline wherein we find no evidence for the existence of the NT books BEFORE Marcion. Upsetting as it may be to a believer, it really looks like their Bible is a heavily edited (mostly additions) version of that heretic Marcion's NT.

I encourage you. Don't just sit there at your computer, writing whatever comes to mind. Regurgitating what you read on some Christian website. Get out there and do some real research. Ask honest questions. Look at history's honest answers.

And please realise: we can all be great Christians and great people, without spreading the lie (or at best, the unjustifiable claim) that there is/was a literal Jesus/Yahweh.

To this day, there is still no evidence that Jesus (or Yahweh) even existed. Let alone, whether their supposed claims (like belief being necessary for salvation) were true.

p.s. I?ve been drawn into a rather long (and probably pointless) conversation about the existence or non-existence of Jesus and Yahweh. I was originally asked by Sean why I stopped believing as a fundie does. Did I answer your question sufficiently, Sean?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com">http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#21
Thank you for your input. You do not have to answer me if you do not feel like it.


Quote:On evidence: An atheist need not present evidence. Atheism is not an ideology. It is simply the lack of belief in any particular personal god. If a fundie wants to claim that their god exists, that's fine. If they want to kill in that god's name, change laws in that god's name, have a say on what our children get taught in science class etc., they had better prove their position. The burden of proof always lies with the believer. My point is, though I am Christian, it is up to Christians to prove their god is real, and is the true god. So far this hasn't been done.
Atheism is not only the absence of belief in a deity (although atheists like to say that). It is much more the belief that there is no deity. That is why the burden of proof is just as heavy on the atheist as on the believer.
The mere absence of belief in deity is called agnosticism, by the way.


Quote:There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that the NT Gospels or the Pauline epistles existed BEFORE Marcion. This is very serious. Because of this FACT, we cannot just assume that Marcion copied these books from other sources and edited them. It is very possible that he created those books and/or used proto-books.
it all depends on what you accept as evidence. That, by the way, is always true if you are attempting to determine truth. Evidence comes in shades and on different levels. A myriad of mere indications can, for example, even outweigh near-concrete evidence. If it stands evidence against evidence, one has to take into account all information involved. If i do that with the evidence at hand concerning the NT, i have to inveitably come up with the conclusion that the NT books (the 27) are 1st century material. Also, it is extremely unlikely that all the NT books had proto-books. This can only possibly be true for maybe Mark and Luke. All other books do not suggest such a conclusion. Of course, i cannot sufficiently present the information involved right here.

Quote: Explaining why NT references appear late 2nd Century: Your theories unfortunately do not help the situation. The truth is, since they do not directly quote the NT books until the late 2nd century (note that they do quote the OT directly) we cannot take these quotes as evidence for the early existence of the NT books. It only means that SOME of the teachings existed (I say some because the basic messages of Christ appear first, then later, much later, the details of his life appear - oddly enough...). This is undisputed. Many of the Christ teachings even came before Jesus was supposedly around. Again, oddly enough...
As i tried to explain before: There ARE early 2nd century quotes. It would make absolutely no sense to refer to the books by name, as most christians did not even know those books. There is nothing to suggest proto-books here. Proto-books would have names too, so the absence of a named reference means nothing. It is simple logic. Also, there is not a single reference to proto-books in all of history. You said believer has to proof. You have no proof for proto-books, yet you believe. What is interesting, though, is that all of the Bible books just popped up out of nowhere in thousandfold copies all over the world within a year or so.
Fact: No evidence for proto-books.
Fact: There are onlyfew early 2ndcentury writings that survived (where do you possibly expect quoted without any text)
Fact: Ignacius and Polycarp (early 2nd century) quoted many NT books
Fact: Since nothing suggests otherwise, it is entirely feasible to conclude the NT books are 1st cetury material

Quote:On morals: Thank you for getting my point. We still have a problem though. Billions of people believe in a book that teaches them it is okay to kill their relatives if they stray from the faith, rape little girls, kill baby boys etc. I think it is fair that they be able to PROVE their beliefs true before they act on them. Fair enough? Or shall we let any psychopath do whatever he pleases (including raping our daughters, killing our parents, etc.) because he says god told him it pleased him? I for one would demand this person's evidence. Right after I and other just-minded people opened a can of whupass that is!
i do not want to fight with you on that, but personally, as a christian, i believe there are certain situations killing can be justified. Yet, your description sounds much more like islam, not the OT. Also, i said that christians do not have such a problem, as they do not (originally) have any set code of conduct. True christian faith justifies nothing except for the very best one can do, which means that which is best for all people, though first the believers (second the rest of the world, which includes one self).

Quote:Scholars: On this we do find some agreement. Scholarly consensus can be meaningless. It is the truth that matters. And thus it is evidence that matters. If most Bible Scholars believe Jesus existed, I am not impressed. Most bible scholars are religious, and the ones that aren't, were conditioned to accept certain things as true. The fact is, whether they believe something or not, it is the evidence that matters. And the evidence is lacking for Jesus/Yahweh's existence, let alone their claims. Shall we ask what Quran scholars think of the Bible? Would we expect them to deny Allah? Bible scholarship is a joke; it shouldn't be considered a real academic field. Any fundie can study at BJU and become a "Bible scholar".
Maybe i am really wrong on this, but it is my impression most unbelieving historians, archaeologians, ... believe that Jesus actually lived (or is at least based on a real living person), based on the available proof. i was actually amazed you believed it is not so, as i know hundreds of atheist that know Jesus actually lived. Also,Quran scholars have a high regard for the Bible (at least for whatthey think it originally was).

Quote:Israeli archaeology: I think you haven't really looked into this. I'm not talking about no Hittites here... I'm talking about the lack of evidence that the Israelites razed Canaanite villages and wiped them out. I'm talking the evidence that the Israelites WERE Canaanites. I'm talking the lack of evidence for Yahweh, Moses, Abraham etc. I'm talking the evidence that Yahweh was one of MANY gods, and wasn't even the highest god. I'm talking the total lack of evidence for the Exodus. Even if the Egyptians didn't want to record such embarrassing moments, do you think someone may have noticed 2 million people leaving a country of 6 million? Do you think this may have caused havoc with Egypt's economy? Do you think this would have caused massive social problems? No evidence for ANY of this. Nor is there any evidence for the 2 million people wandering around the desert for 40 years. Not even a damned chicken bone...
Again, it depends on what serves as evidence for you. Also, the Israelites originated in canaan, the Bible says so. i must say, though, that i do not know what you are refering to with all these claims. i know not that much about the different theories around. However
About egypt, the land the israelites left behind supposedly was the best in egypt. Fields that were ploughed, vacant houses, lots of space. Why would that cause problems for the economy? It just became a less populated country. Economy always adjusts (even today though it has so many more weaknesses). And i belive there is proof for the exodus, you just need a permit to dig for jewish artifacts in those muslim countries (improbable). Also, there has been evidence presented in the past.
And, yes, it is the same as with the hitites. People claiming one thing based on virtually nothing (the hittites didn't exist / there was no exodus) until the real facts appear.

Quote:God's people's truth-telling: You're kidding right? I don't want to throw around racist stereotypes, but do you think Jews have never exaggerated in their holy texts??? Should we believe the Talmud when it says that the Romans killed a BILLION Jews, when there has never been a billion Jews at one time? Should we believe the Talmud, which has a version of Jesus that existed much later than ?our Jesus?? Should we believe the OT when it says that the Exodus happened, when there is no evidence for it, and evidence that this may be based on an earlier event where Semites were DRIVEN from Egypt? Should we believe the OT when it claims that Israel defeated the Assyrians due to God?s angel that slaughtered 180-odd thousand Assyrian soldiers, when history shows us that the Assyrian King withdrew due to conflicts elsewhere and the MASSIVE TRIBUTES and CONCESSIONS showered upon him by the Jewish king? Please?
i would like a reference for that tribute payment. The Talmud is not Bible, i was referring to truth telling of the real people of God. The Talmud does not agree with the Bible. Interestingly, you have to draw from an outside source to disprove the Bible. The Bible also says they were driven from egypt. After the plagues.

Quote:The NT Church: I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible; your comments on the NT church really highlight your lack of knowledge in the subject, and echo the attitudes of the KJV-only believers. For one thing, there is no one NT. There is not a single NT canon that is agreed upon by all Christians today. Let alone thousands of years ago. Being fans of the Peshitta, this should be obvious to all of us. And of course, most early Christians didn't have the NT. Like Paul. Or Clement. Please note that the earliest Christians were around before Jesus was even said to have been born. They believed in a mythical Christ, who like Buddha and Lao Tzu, had some pretty awesome teachings. Even later Christians like Paul (if Paul even existed) and Marcion seem to refer to the teachings of Christ and don't know the details of his life (notice how Marcion's Gospel misses the first 2 chapters, just like the EARLIEST copies of Luke's gospel...). Now when the earliest Christians believed in the Christ's teachings, BEFORE the time of Christ, what does that tell you? What more does it tell you when the DETAILS of Christ's life come about more than a hundred years later? It suggests to me that this was all a myth and some people took it very seriously, and added their historical fictions over time.
Naturally, this is a matter of opinion. The NT church, to me, is the church that followed the teachings of Christ. Christ said that everyone should follow the teachings of the apostles, the apostles approved of Paul, and that is it. There is no christian reason to believe in any writings after the apostolic age to be inspired. That is why the canon ended up containing books only until John's Revelation. Yes, there were other canons, but except for Marcion's, they did not deny any NT book (though they were often unaware of some books). For reference: http://www.ntcanon.org/table.shtml
So, in my opinion, the canon should not contain books after the apostle's and paul's death, as they cannot verify or deny the content, and they did not declare anyone to act to that purpose, and christ only approved of the apostles. As long as the apostles lived, they were very active in approving and denying certain doctrines. This is what the NT chruch is to me. The apostolic one.
i also enjoy reading apocryphical writings, but the acceptance of the NT is, after all, a belief in something supernatural, regardless of what canon it is. You need to be a christian to determine a canon.

Quote:Marcion's omissions: You claim that Marcion's omissions are clear as day. That is a horrendous claim to make. Once again, let's not put the cart before the horse. It's an unwritten rule in Biblical scholarship that the longer texts came after the shorter ones. All of Marcion's NT books are shorter than the later copies. This suggests that his works are original, or at least, "more original". This corroborates the historical timeline wherein we find no evidence for the existence of the NT books BEFORE Marcion. Upsetting as it may be to a believer, it really looks like their Bible is a heavily edited (mostly additions) version of that heretic Marcion's NT.
In text criticism, one always has to explain why the omission or addition occured. That is the key. For marcion's texts, this will inevitably lead to the conclusion that his were omissions, especially in the light of his teachings and beliefs. There simply is no reason to make the additions insuch a fashion (other than possibly giving the impression that marcion omitted text whereas he did not, which would be ridiculous).

Quote:I encourage you. Don't just sit there at your computer, writing whatever comes to mind. Regurgitating what you read on some Christian website. Get out there and do some real research. Ask honest questions. Look at history's honest answers.
i say this with all honesty, i am quite certain it is you that did not honestly answer those questions, though it seems you tried. i have answers, i have consistency in my understanding, i do not have to hide from the truth, i am always doing "real research", i don't care what christian websites say, i ask all questions. Just because i did not answer all your claims does not mean iknow nothing of it. it is just vain to say "no it is not true" when you will just say "yes it is". Neither of us gave a lot of references, and i know of those opinions on OT research and how they are based on nothing. History, by the way, is manipulated as we speak. It was never honest.

Quote:And please realise: we can all be great Christians and great people, without spreading the lie (or at best, the unjustifiable claim) that there is/was a literal Jesus/Yahweh.

To this day, there is still no evidence that Jesus (or Yahweh) even existed. Let alone, whether their supposed claims (like belief being necessary for salvation) were true.
All depends on definition of evidence. Personal proof is real, and is in no way wrong.
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#22
Hi Andrej,

I feel compelled only to address your first and last points. All you said in the middle highlighted your lack of knowledge on the early texts and beliefs of the early Christians, and your lack of knowledge even of your own bible. To say that my bit about morality sounds more like I?m criticising Islam rather than the OT, highlights your ignorance and your bigotry. I always cringe when Christians criticise Islam over the often bloodthirsty Quran; the OT is as bad or worse. You also highlighted your lack of understanding of economics. As if 2 million people (forming a massive part of the work force) leaving a country of 6 million wouldn't be noticed...

You also constantly say "In my opinion" and "I don?t know about?" If there's so much you don't KNOW about your Bible, about the early churches, about Jewish archaeology... Don't you think you should get out there and do some research before stating your certainty that your god/religion/holy book is true??? That's what I would expect of someone before they use their beliefs to kill others, convert them, change their laws etc.

Your first point: You stated that atheists have a BELIEF that there is no deity. That is not what atheism is. You have no right to tell millions of people what they believe or don?t believe. You have also put words in my mouth, as I do not make this claim. I have a position of intellectual honesty. I let believers in all of the millions of potential gods make their case. As I haven?t seen any convincing evidence, I see no reason to reject the null hypothesis. I will stick to the default position, which is a total LACK of belief in any god. Thus, the burden of proof lies with believers.

Your last point: You mentioned that personal proof is real. You?ve just demonstrated why we cannot have a serious academic discussion. I'll leave it to you to argue with the Muslim, the Jew, the Zeusist, and the many many different kinds of Christians, over whose personal proof is "more real" <!-- sCool --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/cool1.gif" alt="Cool" title="Cool" /><!-- sCool -->

And I won?t resort to cheap shots like ?my own personal proof from my pantheistic god tells me you?re wrong.? <!-- s:biggrin: --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/biggrin.gif" alt=":biggrin:" title="Big Grin" /><!-- s:biggrin: -->

I?m impressed that you have studied a bit. Most Christians are happy just to hear carefully selected snippets from the Bible every Sunday. I encourage you to keep studying. And keep asking questions.

Best Regards,

Raphael

p.s. To aid in your studies, here is a selected bibliography for iGod. The books here are fairly accessible. http://www.igodbook.com/bibliography.htm
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com">http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->
Reply
#23
Thank you for your considerate answer.
Thanks for the list, i will most definately check out at least some of the books. i find it funny that you have the "God delusion" on your list. i read it, and it is completely laughable. A whole book, not a single honest and logically sound argument (it is a personal expression of frustration to me). Before i read that book, i was ready to loose my faith, and become an atheist (God knows that's true), but after reading the comic, i was healed from such thoughts. If i ever become an atheist, i will most definately discern myself from that kind of atheism (which is often nothing but hurt feelings and frustration). If the other books are material like that, i am on much safer ground than i thought. As i said, i will check it out still.

i read your book on aramaic primacy. So i know quite well how much information you require to reach a conclusion. i can tell with absolute certainty that you are much easier persuaded by unsecured positions than me. My knowledge about Bible issues is not the question, but i guarantee you, it is not the problem. i read the bible, i know about all the bloodshed, i can easily reconcile it with my position. Also, if the Bible is true, the Israelites had a whole lot of proof for a supernatural being, beginning at the plagues, the red sea crossing, and many more things. If you don't think it's true, why assume the bloodshed is real, it all becomes irrelevant.

Personal proof, to me, is not feeling good, it is irrefutable, undeniable proof beyond statistic probability. Supernatural events that cannot be denied. Yet, it is personal, because the proof is not transferrable. If i'd tell you what i know or remember, that means nothing to you. If i show you some doctor's confirmations it'd mean nothing to you. If i see dead rising up, or food rain from the sky in the middle of a drought, what does it help the overall debate? But it can help me, especially since those things happen in the moment the true people of God start to pray. Also, there are true foretelling of the future on a large scale, as well as the revealing of the secrets of the heart, meaning God grants otherwise unknowable information to one of his servants in order to reveal himself. Yes, i am a believer, and yes, i asked more than my share of questions. At the end it comes down to this:
Act 4:16 Saying, What shall we do to these men? for that indeed a notable miracle hath been done by them is manifest to all them that dwell in Jerusalem; and we cannot deny it.

Just to give you an example, i will refer you to a "documented miracle", though i know you can doubt and criticise all about it. It is just an example, for every documented supernatural act, there are at least 100 that are not documented, many of which are far more spectacular, many of which are even beyond comprehension and physical possiblity. So don't think this is like one of the greatest things i use as personal proof. It is just something documented. And yes, he does heal amputees.
http://www.leestoneking.com/My%20Miracle.htm

Aside from that, there is, of course, also a mental / psychological side to it all, though it is not proof.. i have, in the past, used some kinds of drugs (not that much though), and i know how it makes you feel. i also enjoyed great sex, and went very far in meditation (i think it is called infinite space in buddhism, though i did not have a buddhist approach), and did all the other things that are supposed to make you feel good. Those things were quite nice. but if i compare it to having a relationship with Jesus (whatever that means to an atheist), it is absolutely nothing in comparison. Only deep in Christ can i have true and perfect harmony, even in the very worst of circumstances. The peace that surpasses understanding and the joy unspeakable are things you cannot gain by drugs, or sex, or meditation. At that point, even when the worst of things happen, you can still retain your peace, and Godly sorrow is a concept unknown to eastern philosohpies (with their avoidance of suffering), though it is very wholesome and healing (and important for mental balance). Eastern philosophies are about feeling nothing (which is better than just living), true christian faith is about feeling everything, and being more than okay with it.

Now, these things are not proof. But, if i was no christian, i would be an agnostic (why become an atheist if you cannot possibly disprove God?). And as such, i would still live as a christian, because it is the most wholesome, hamonic and healthy thing to do. What i am saying, even if Jesus didn't exist, i would live as though he did. Not because i think delusion is awesome, but because that delusion (if it is one) is the best way of life i know. All this i said even without mentionning purpose in life. Also, true atheism is egoism, i wonder how atheists can continuoulsy deny that. Believeing in deity is believeing in a higher purpose, and in a purpose for your fellow human beings. Being an atheist is bleieving that you decide what is of what importance and wheter or not there is purpose in your fellow humans life. They are, then, at your mercy, like at Stalin's or Mao's (both atheists). That is why in the last 100 years there have been more murders in the name of atheism than in the name of any religion in the history of mankind. You better prove there is no God (by your logic).

Finally, i would like to mention that there is reason to accept the Bible (or an equally qualifying document, of which i know none) as an unshakable common ground of belief. As atheist, you will have to argue from nothing to validate your opinions. But, as a Bible believer, you always have a frame of reference, and that can provide unity, and help understand each other (i know it is not like that for most christians, but for the real christians, it is).

Joh 9:24-25 Then again called they the man that was blind, and said unto him, Give God the praise: we know that this man is a sinner [or, did not exist]. He answered and said, Whether he be a sinner or no, I know not [or, whether he existed or not]: one thing I know, that, whereas I was blind, now I see.
Personal proof matters.
Jesus is the one true God of the Bible.
Reply
#24
Hi Raphael, sad to hear that you no longer believe in the true God of the bible. He has proven himself true to me many times, so hopefully I will not stop believing and following Him.
I was not brought up in a practising christian family. I heard about Jesus at school, primary school and his example touched something in me. A few years later I started going to church on my own. In high school this saved me from taking drugs, which some of my friends were taking.
Remember in the new covenant that Jesus taught that we are to love our enemies, bless those who curse us, pray for those who persecute us, and then at the end of his life Jesus practised want He preached and died on the cross, even for His enemies. Remember when Jesus told Peter to put his sword down, for all those who live by the sword will die by the sword.
I never find in the bible that God tells his people to rape little girls, so I don't know who has told you that.
If you look at the different religions they do not teach the same things.
Reply
#25
Christians now are meant to be following those truths that Jesus said in the new testament, that's what I was trying to say in the last post. We are no longer in the old testament or the old covenant, but in a new covenant a better covenant.
Reply
#26
I just read through this post today.
The path that Raphael has taken is line by line Romans 1:21 through Romans 1:23, at the least.
I'm not going to preach at you Raphael, but I will be praying for you.
I hope that everyone else will be also.
Reply
#27
Raphael, i guess you are not planning to reply, i would have a simple question though:
Concerning the definition of Atheism, it seems to me your definition is more along the lines of agnosticism. So, please tell me, what are the differences between agnosticism and atheism by your definition? Also, if atheism does not necessitate the belief that there is no god, then how do you call such a belief (the belief that there is no god, or any supernatural being)?

Also, if you do not deny the existance of the Biblical God, why did you actually write a book on aramaic primacy (which is also contratry to your position of proto-books), in which you wite about embedded codes (which is, due to their alleged complexity, contrary to the position of proto-books, human authorship, and affirms divine preservation, divine authorship)? Not that i necessarily believe in these codes (i tend to deny their validity, though i did not sufficently examine the evidence), but why would someone calling himself an atheist write about them?
Reply
#28
Hi Guys,

Been crazy busy, but see there are a load more questions here for me! I'll try my best...

Andrej(1): I think you just about summed it all up! You said that even if you don't believe in Jesus, you may as well live like he did exist... That's sort of the point of being a "Christian atheist". I don't believe in Jesus or Yahweh at all, but love many of the Christ teachings.

Sean: I implore you to read your Bible then, cover to cover. Before you engage in discussions on it, you probably should know what it says? You could also purchase a copy of my book iGod which gets to those juicy bits quickly and is only a couple of hundred pages.

Noordos: Thanks for your prayers, but prayer has been scientifically shown to be ineffective... Besides, I was miserable as a literalist Christian. Now I am happier than I have ever been. And I am more moral and just than I have ever been. I am a far better person, and, a far better Christian.

Andrej(2): I am not concerned with how you label my position. Nor should you be concerned with what my definitions would be. The REAL definition of atheism is a simple lack of belief in any particular personal god (it is NOT a belief that there is no god). I happen to hold to this position, which is actually peoples' default position, and the most intellectually honest. I am open to all possibilities and am happy to hear out the views of all the MILLIONS of religions and potential religions out there. And when one has provided actual evidence, I would be happy to convert. This hasn't happened yet. In 10,000 years... Game over, I say!

Distazo: Thanks for answering Andrej's question on why I wrote my first book, for me. And for showing your understanding of why I would take the position I do now. Why did you delete that post?

All: In following with what I wrote to Andrej, that there is no evidence for Yahweh or Jesus; if you disagree, and if you feel you have evidence why literalist Christianity is the true faith (without even needing to look at the many different Christian religions...), as opposed to Islam, Judaism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Gnostic Christianity, etc, I would be happy to hear it. Forward your peer-reviewed data to me and I'll be sure to host it over at http://www.ProofThatGodExists.net
Best Regards,

Raph
Reply
#29
Shlama Khulkon:
Have we had enough of this post? If so, let's move on to something more edifying.

Raph:
You are to be commended for the hard work you did in assisting many of us in the past and this must not be forgotten. As you can see many disagree with your conclusions. Nevertheless, you are indeed a useful scholar in the field of Peshitta Primacy though your stance has changed considerably in the past year. You are most certainly welcome here to share your views since it stimulates the rest of us to search the Scriptures more thoroughly. Some of our members have given you good responses and I hope that you will know that they are motivated by love in Christ. I greatly hope that you will once again come to a more traditional viewpoint based upon a common unity amongst all of us that are contributing.
All I ask is that you keep in mind that many on this forum are estranged by your use of paganism as if it was a brother of Christianity. A deeper look will show that the Assyrian Church of the East is not founded upon paganism, but the Word of Alaha. It's tempting to be swayed by the faults within both Christianity and the present Church with all of its divisions but our mandate is indeed founded upon the truth of Yeshua Mashikha and we trace our deep fondness for our LORD to the entire scope of Apostolic teaching. There are many factions in this day and age but these schisms and divisions can not drown the Word of Truth.

Shlama, Akhi Kabiba, and may our gracious LORD Yeshua open all of our eyes to the Truth. I believe that that is our common goal inspite of our different opinions. Though you will find much disagreement amongst we wish you the deepest blessing of Alaha and sincerely desire that you will have a change of heart so that we may all have unified fellowship amongst ourselves. All the best Akhi Kabiba. Please receive this response in the spirit in which it is written.

Shlama,
Stephen Silver
Dukhrana Biblical Research
<!-- w --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.dukhrana.com">www.dukhrana.com</a><!-- w -->
Reply
#30
To Raph, hoping you are well. I have been reading the bible for thirty years, you don't know me from a bar of soap.
Don't be so quick to judge your brothers, especially those you hardly know. I have probably not read Leviticus fully through, as far as I can remember I have read all the other books in the bible. In short many christians do read their bibles.
I believe in the bible, and in God, you don't. So I suppose there will always been different beliefs between you and myself.
If you want to correct something I have written, feel free. I am open to correction.
Reply


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)