Guest redyellowblue

Curious - what is your religious belief (including atheism) and what supports / why this belief?

99 posts in this topic

EWZ, this misconception is spread around primarily by the movie zeitgeist and its premises are not believed by any of the credible mainstream historians . This is Hollywood history. Even the major Egyptologists don't believe this as well as atheist New Testament critical scholars , and not even by the Jesus seminary which is way out in left field .

Here is a great video by an expert in this area doctor mark Foreman which shows that Christianity and the ancient Egyptian religions have almost nothimg in common and as far as pagan religions , most of them borrowed from Christianity and not the other way around.

I spent a few years checking this stuff out.

This video will explain what scholars have found about Christianity and the ancient Egyptian religions .

See for yourself if they are comparable in any way. :)

I've never seen that movie. And yes, all religions from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East are all related, the parables are the same, all have similar gods. Christianity borrows heavily from Zoroastrianism and the pagan religions of Europe. And if the Bible is the infallible word of god, then how come the Bible has been changed by so many councils over the years, and translated wrong so many times? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just wondering, what in archaeology confirms the bible? Shouldn't archaeology disprove it based on carbon dating? When do you believe the earth was made?

I am glad that you asked. I have found three links to share.

Does Archaology Support the Bible?

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/does-archaeology-support-the-bible

http://www.whatchristianswanttoknow.com/does-archeology-support-the-bible-a-look-at-the-evidence/

http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/15778538-the-genius-of-ancient-man (Book)

According to carbon dating, we should ask ourselves a question(s) like this: Is the explanation of the data derived from empirical, observational science, or an interpretation of past events (historical science)? Are there any assumptions involved in the dating method? Are the dates provided by 4C dating consistent with what we observe? Do all scientists accept the 4C dating method as reliable and accurate? Ask you again, do you accept carbon dating is reliable and accurate?

Most scientists have skipped the questions and blindly accept the 4C dating method as accurate and reliable. Most of them are evolutionists and believes in an old earth which they will interpet items and anything to prove their "evidences" and shows that they are correct. Evolutionists usually make assumption then make it as a "fact" of course - all the scientists do have a belief and biased. It's unfortunate. Creationism vs. Evolution (actually it is Christianity vs. Humanism) are fighting over the same earth, same evidences, same fossils, same tools & chemicals to use, etc.

Since the Bible is the inspired Word of God, God is infallible, we are not, we are fallible and have limited knowledge. Our thinking areas should be based on Word of God. The use of carbon-4 dating is often misunderstood. Carbon-4 is mostly used to date once- living things (organic material). It cannot be used directly to date rocks; however, it can be used to put time constraints on some inorganic material such as diamonds (diamonds contain carbon-4). Because of the rapid rate of decay of 4C, it can only give dates in the thousands- of-year range and not millions.

So, you are asking ME what I believe in, here is the explanation below

Of course, the Bible doesn’t say explicitly anywhere, “The earth is 6,000 years old.†Good thing it doesn’t; otherwise it would be out of date the following year. But we wouldn’t expect an all-knowing God to make that kind of a mistake.

God gave us something better. In essence, He gave us a “birth certificate.†For example, using a personal birth certificate, a person can calculate how old he is at any point. It is similar with the earth. Genesis 1 says that the earth was created on the first day of creation (Genesis 1:1–5). From there, we can begin to calculate the age of the earth.

Let’s do a rough calculation to show how this works. The age of the earth can be estimated by taking the first five days of creation (from earth’s creation to Adam), then following the genealogies from Adam to Abraham in Genesis 5 and 11, then adding in the time from Abraham to Christ. Also, Christ to Today.

Adam was created on day 6, so there were five days before him. If we add up the dates from Adam to Abraham, we get about 2,000 years, using the Masoretic Hebrew text of Genesis 5 and 11. Whether Christian or secular, most scholars would agree that Abraham lived about 2,000 B.C. (4,000 years ago).

5 days (Creation to Adam)

~2,000 years (Adam to Abraham)

~2,000 years (Abraham to Christ)

~2,000 years (Christ to Today)

~6,000 years (The Age of Earth)

I hope it answers your question(s). Thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bippy123,

You explained very well. Thank you for sharing. I will check them out. I'm a curious person and seek truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've never seen that movie. And yes, all religions from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East are all related, the parables are the same, all have similar gods. Christianity borrows heavily from Zoroastrianism and the pagan religions of Europe. And if the Bible is the infallible word of god, then how come the Bible has been changed by so many councils over the years, and translated wrong so many times?

Again , the link shows why no major scholars believe anymore why Christianity doesn't borrow from the ancient Egyptian religions because there isn't even a remote parallel between the 2. I suggest you listen to the link I provided and you will understand why. This theory was very popular on the 19th century but as soon as scholars started to look hard into it the theory died down because they knew there was very little parallel at all.

As far as Christianity borrowing from pagan beliefs, the evidence shows that It was actually the other way around.

Lets start with Zoroastrian beliefs and lets see if this is true .

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html

According to Egyptian mythology, Horus was originally believed to be the son of Ra and Hathor and the husband/brother of Isis. Later he

was seen as the son of Osiris and Isis once Hathor and Isis were merged into one being. Horus was considered the sky, sun, and moon god

represented by a man with the head of falcon.

Zoroaster was an Iranian prophet and founder of Zoroastrianism. Though the dating of his life is heatedly debated, he is believed to be a

contemporary of King Hystaspes, making a 6th century B.C. dating most likely. Evidence is shown throughout the Avesta which mentions

personal conversations between the two. One example is as follows:

"'I am a pious man, who speaks words of blessing,' thus said Zarathushtra to the young king Vishtaspa 'O young king Vishtaspa! [i bless

thee]" Vishtasp Yasht, 1

VIRGIN BIRTH There is no mention of a virgin birth in any Zoroastrian text nor do the events of Zoroaster's birth seem to have any relation

to Jesus. The actual accounts regarding his birth are given below:

Version 1: Zoroaster's parents (Dukdaub and Pourushasp) were a normal married couple who conceive a son through natural means.

Zoroaster is described as laughing when he is born as well as having a visible, glowing aura about him:

"[Zoroaster] had come into the posterity...who are Pourushasp, his father, and Dukdaub who is his mother. And also while he is being born and

for the duration of life, he produced a radiance, glow, and brilliance from the place of his own abode..." Denkard, Bk 5 2:1-2

Version 2: In a later text, an embellishment is added by Zoroastrian followers. We are told Ahura Mazda (the main deity of Zoroastrianism)

implants the soul of Zoroaster into the sacred Haoma plant and through the plant's milk Zoroaster is born.

TEMPTED IN THE WILDERNESS Zoroaster is also said to have been tempted by an evil spirit to renounce his faith with the promise of

receiving power over the nations. However, this story is found in the Vendidad, the Zoroastrian text which lists the laws regarding demons,

penned sometime between 250 - 650 A.D. (centuries after the life of Jesus):

"Again to him said the Maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu: 'Do not destroy my creatures, O holy Zarathushtra... Renounce the good Religion

of the worshippers of Mazda, and thou shalt gain such a boon as...the ruler of the nations.'" Vendidad Fargad 19:6

SEED OF A WOMAN The Christian Old Testament refers to the savior of mankind being born of a woman. Critics claim this concept was stolen

from Zoroaster whose name means seed of the woman. Apparently no one investigated this claim because the name is an ancient Iranian

compound of zareta (old, feeble) and ustra (camel). His original Persian name Zarathushtra (Zoroaster is the Greek/English translation)

literally translates as owner of old feeble camels. Source and Source Zoroaster was also allegedly called The Word Made Flesh and The Living

Word but no such references exist.

As you can see many of the later beliefs here actually were embellishments added hundreds of years later and hundreds of years after Christianity. It is far more likely that they saw the popularity of Christianity and started to add these stories to their beliefs. As we have seen here there is virtually no comparisons between the original Zoroastrianism and Christianity, and this is why al isn't no modern day scholars believe this..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As I have stated before, the belief that Christi

I've never seen that movie. And yes, all religions from Europe, North Africa and the Middle East are all related, the parables are the same, all have similar gods. Christianity borrows heavily from Zoroastrianism and the pagan religions of Europe. And if the Bible is the infallible word of god, then how come the Bible has been changed by so many councils over the years, and translated wrong so many times?

As I have shown Christianity shows almost no co parison between itself and the ancient pagan and Egyptian religions, it was very popular to assume this in the 19th century but almost no scholar with credentials today believes this, and for very good reason.

The second part of your post also can be answered. Bart Erhman is the popularizer of the embellishment of the bible theory.

He mentions in his books that there are 200,000 errors in the original bible texts making it almost impossible to tell what the original bible says, but what he forgets to tell his audience is that almost all these errors have nothing to do with the core foundational messages of Christianity which was well understood in early Christianity. On top of that we have the writings of the apostolic fathers which match perfectly with the New Testament . People like clement of Rome, ignatius if Antioch , Polycarp and barnabas .

If you want to look to research the bible you must start at the beginning during the 4 councils that put together the original bible, these were the councils of Rome, Nicaea, Carthage and Hippo. Sure there are some mistranslations in some modern day bibles but even with that if you go back to the original bible you will see that there is nothing that changes the original message of the bible. Almost all scholars agree with this . Plus on top of that the dates of ancient New Testament papyrus keep getting adjusted to early dates, and not the other way around. Last year a fragment from the book of mark was unearthed that was originally dated to 66 ad, and if this holds up to scholarly criticism will make the historicity of the New Testament even more solid.

While we will always have spelling and grammar errors, the core teachings of the New Testament have stayed the same throughout the centuries and even match up well with the writing of the apostolic fathers between 80 and 110 ad.

EWZ, why not go through the writings of the original bible and verify what I said? I have and I spent much time looking into it myself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bippy123,

You explained very well. Thank you for sharing. I will check them out. I'm a curious person and seek truth.

Thanks frog :). .As an Catholic Christian inclusivist, I truly believe that seeking the truth is what pleases God above anything else :)
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again , the link shows why no major scholars believe anymore why Christianity doesn't borrow from the ancient Egyptian religions because there isn't even a remote parallel between the 2. I suggest you listen to the link I provided and you will understand why. This theory was very popular on the 19th century but as soon as scholars started to look hard into it the theory died down because they knew there was very little parallel at all.

As far as Christianity borrowing from pagan beliefs, the evidence shows that It was actually the other way around.

Lets start with Zoroastrian beliefs and lets see if this is true .

http://www.thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html

According to Egyptian mythology, Horus was originally believed to be the son of Ra and Hathor and the husband/brother of Isis. Later he

was seen as the son of Osiris and Isis once Hathor and Isis were merged into one being. Horus was considered the sky, sun, and moon god

represented by a man with the head of falcon.

Zoroaster was an Iranian prophet and founder of Zoroastrianism. Though the dating of his life is heatedly debated, he is believed to be a

contemporary of King Hystaspes, making a 6th century B.C. dating most likely. Evidence is shown throughout the Avesta which mentions

personal conversations between the two. One example is as follows:

"'I am a pious man, who speaks words of blessing,' thus said Zarathushtra to the young king Vishtaspa 'O young king Vishtaspa! [i bless

thee]" Vishtasp Yasht, 1

VIRGIN BIRTH There is no mention of a virgin birth in any Zoroastrian text nor do the events of Zoroaster's birth seem to have any relation

to Jesus. The actual accounts regarding his birth are given below:

Version 1: Zoroaster's parents (Dukdaub and Pourushasp) were a normal married couple who conceive a son through natural means.

Zoroaster is described as laughing when he is born as well as having a visible, glowing aura about him:

"[Zoroaster] had come into the posterity...who are Pourushasp, his father, and Dukdaub who is his mother. And also while he is being born and

for the duration of life, he produced a radiance, glow, and brilliance from the place of his own abode..." Denkard, Bk 5 2:1-2

Version 2: In a later text, an embellishment is added by Zoroastrian followers. We are told Ahura Mazda (the main deity of Zoroastrianism)

implants the soul of Zoroaster into the sacred Haoma plant and through the plant's milk Zoroaster is born.

TEMPTED IN THE WILDERNESS Zoroaster is also said to have been tempted by an evil spirit to renounce his faith with the promise of

receiving power over the nations. However, this story is found in the Vendidad, the Zoroastrian text which lists the laws regarding demons,

penned sometime between 250 - 650 A.D. (centuries after the life of Jesus):

"Again to him said the Maker of the evil world, Angra Mainyu: 'Do not destroy my creatures, O holy Zarathushtra... Renounce the good Religion

of the worshippers of Mazda, and thou shalt gain such a boon as...the ruler of the nations.'" Vendidad Fargad 19:6

SEED OF A WOMAN The Christian Old Testament refers to the savior of mankind being born of a woman. Critics claim this concept was stolen

from Zoroaster whose name means seed of the woman. Apparently no one investigated this claim because the name is an ancient Iranian

compound of zareta (old, feeble) and ustra (camel). His original Persian name Zarathushtra (Zoroaster is the Greek/English translation)

literally translates as owner of old feeble camels. Source and Source Zoroaster was also allegedly called The Word Made Flesh and The Living

Word but no such references exist.

As you can see many of the later beliefs here actually were embellishments added hundreds of years later and hundreds of years after Christianity. It is far more likely that they saw the popularity of Christianity and started to add these stories to their beliefs. As we have seen here there is virtually no comparisons between the original Zoroastrianism and Christianity, and this is why al isn't no modern day scholars believe this..

I think reading some articles on that website gave me cancer. The amount of pseudoscience and just straight up lies on that website and those linked to it are beyond appalling. Just straight up dismissing history and ignoring facts is what these sites are "teaching" people.

 

Remember, dinosaur bones were put on earth by the devil!

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think I'm still Agnostic, or just someone who has a horribly mutated idea of religion.. :P

Josh , there are quite a few people that have this thinking. I have a friend who left Christianity because it was constantly pounded into him that if he didn't life a perfect life that he would go to hell was it his fault that he left religion ? It sure wasn't, it was the fault of the church that preached this way to him. He is now an agnostic with possibilities again after many months of conversations , but as you can see , it's very easy for a person in position of preaching authority to drive a person away from God if he preaches legalism without preaching the heart of the law which is love.

And as an inclusivist we don't believe that God will judge someone harshly for something that they didn't even know or wasn't their fault.

The church that drilled the fire and brimestone sermons into him will have a lot to answer for though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think reading some articles on that website gave me cancer. The amount of pseudoscience and just straight up lies on that website and those linked to it are beyond appalling. Just straight up dismissing history and ignoring facts is what these sites are "teaching" people.

Remember, dinosaur bones were put on earth by the devil!

So almost all contemporary Egyptologists and New Testament scholars are lying? If u make the claim of a conspiracy it is you that now needs to defend it with evidence. Just saying something isn't going to make it untrue. These people are historical experts and the fact that very few historians defend these comparisons should tell u something . As I said before your theory was very popular in the 19th century but it is no longer taken seriously by most modern scholarship, even atheist New Testament scholars.

Try emailing any if the major Egyptologist and ask them if they believed if there was any co parison between Horus and Jesus.

And no I don't believe that dinosaur bones were put there by the devil and as an old earth creationist (formerly a theistic evolutionist for 42 years) I see no problem with the bible and an old u I else and old earth. The word YOM used in genesis can mean literal day or time period.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So almost all contemporary Egyptologists and New Testament scholars are lying? If u make the claim of a conspiracy it is you that now needs to defend it with evidence. Just saying something isn't going to make it untrue. These people are historical experts and the fact that very few historians defend these comparisons should tell u something . As I said before your theory was very popular in the 19th century but it is no longer taken seriously by most modern scholarship, even atheist New Testament scholars.

Try emailing any if the major Egyptologist and ask them if they believed if there was any co parison between Horus and Jesus.

Now I can’t tell if you guys are serious or just trolling. If you’re serious, then I’m not going to discuss this or argue with you. Discussing logic, history, and science with a religious fundamentalist is like smashing my head into a wall; nothing will happen to the wall, and I will just end up with a headache. If you’re trolling, they you’re doing a good job. I really, really, really hope you guys are trolling. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now I can’t tell if you guys are serious or just trolling. If you’re serious, then I’m not going to discuss this or argue with you. Discussing logic, history, and science with a religious fundamentalist is like smashing my head into a wall; nothing will happen to the wall, and I will just end up with a headache. If you’re trolling, they you’re doing a good job. I really, really, really hope you guys are trolling.

So no evidence what so ever against my assertions and you end it with ad hominems.

If you had read through The actual writings of modern historians there are very few if any that believe the Jesus Pagan connection, and I have shown evidence from contemporary historical scholarship to back up my position. You responded simply by calling my position silly , ridiculous and you called me a religious fundamentalist. Ask yourself whose position is based on historical evidence and whose position is based on ad hominems and ridiculing his opponent?

This is not how rational discussion takes place, but to each their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So no evidence what so ever against my assertions and you end it with ad hominems.

If you had read through The actual writings of modern historians there are very few if any that believe the Jesus Pagan connection, and I have shown evidence from contemporary historical scholarship to back up my position. You responded simply by calling my position silly , ridiculous and you called me a religious fundamentalist. Ask yourself whose position is based on historical evidence and whose position is based on ad hominems and ridiculing his opponent?

This is not how rational discussion takes place, but to each their own.

Lol, I'm a History and Anthropology major, minoring in Archaeology. Your and the other guy's posts are very tempting to respond to, but I should stop before I start saying some really offensive things. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol, I'm a History and Anthropology major, minoring in Archaeology. Your and the other guy's posts are very tempting to respond to, but I should stop before I start saying some really offensive things. 

 

You can be what you want, but i doubt you have the credential of the top scholars or the top egyptologists. Do you believe that you are the only history and anthropology major out there my friend? What do u make of the majority of historians specializing in these fields that disagree with you? Do you just write them off because most of them dont agree with you?

 

Are the majority of top scholars in their fields simply wrong because you are anthropology major?

 

Im an expert in the shroud of turin. Does that mean I will just simply dismiss what other experts say about it simply because I claim to be an expert?

You never bothered to even listen to the video link of experts in their fields about this.

 

I have video of people sending and recieving email to and from the top egyptologists who laughed at them and asked them to please stop with these foolish comparisons between egyptian Gods and Jesus.

 

Believe me you wont offend me my friend, and I doubt there is anything that you would tell me that I havent read before from the major scholars in this field.

 

Someone who is confident in their knowledge doesnt need to use adhominem and rediculing attacks on anyone.

The fact that you need to tells me alot more about you then your knowledge of these historic evidences.

 

I once had an athropology major that  came up to me and told me that the 3 wisemen in the bible had paralells to egyptian mythology. The problem is the original bible texts never named how many wisemen there were..

 

Again what do u make of the large percentage of historians and experts in their fields that disagree with you?

Does your degree overtake their phd in these fields?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If your field is in history and anthropology maybe we can also discuss the shroud of turin as im always looking for someone to engage with that could teach me about its history. Seeing that you are a major in both these fielkds u should be able to enlighten me on the shroud?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Didn't answer the full question all the way I noticed :D I could just edit my previous post but then I wouldn't have the pleasure of having one more post in my name :P


 


I would like to call myself Agnostic, I was raised with an undertone of Christianity (going to church every Sunday which I still do, praying at Thanksgiving etc) but I always leaned more towards the sciencey side of the battle between religion and science. Every once and a while Id have my doubts, Id lean towards religion, then some crazy religious nutcase would make me run back over to science. I find myself sometimes wishing I had gone religious instead of Atheist for a while, and then finally Agnostic, but I think Im becoming happier with my warped Agnostic views, I would never share my real views with anyone, because I think I could turn both sides against me :P


Its just neither side has all the answers, people can believe the "answers" all they want, but we won't really know until the end.


Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think reading some articles on that website gave me cancer. The amount of pseudoscience and just straight up lies on that website and those linked to it are beyond appalling. Just straight up dismissing history and ignoring facts is what these sites are "teaching" people.

 

Remember, dinosaur bones were put on earth by the devil!

 

 

Or perhaps you woul;d like to engage with some of the even more knowledgable Christians scholars on this supposed connection between paganism and Christianity? Perhaps William lane craig who even used info from scholars who are critical of Christianity who dont believe there is a parellel to these myths?

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/jesus-and-pagan-mythology

 

The late Robert Funk, founder of the radical Jesus Seminar, used to complain bitterly of the chasm that exists between high scholarship and popular beliefs about Jesus. Funk was thinking primarily of the insulation of popular piety from historical Jesus scholarship; but nowhere does the chasm yawn wider than between popular impiety and historical Jesus studies.

The Free Thought movement, which fuels the popular objection that Christian beliefs about Jesus are derived from pagan mythology, is stuck in the scholarship of the late nineteenth century. In one sense this is flabbergasting, since there are plenty of contemporary sceptical scholars, like those in the Jesus Seminar, whose work Free Thinkers could avail themselves of in order to justify their scepticism about the traditional understanding of Jesus. But it just goes to show how out of touch with scholarly work on Jesus these popularizers are. They are a hundred years out of date.

 
This is robert Funk a scholar who is as anti Christian as you can get saying this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Didn't answer the full question all the way I noticed :D I could just edit my previous post but then I wouldn't have the pleasure of having one more post in my name :P

 

I would like to call myself Agnostic, I was raised with an undertone of Christianity (going to church every Sunday which I still do, praying at Thanksgiving etc) but I always leaned more towards the sciencey side of the battle between religion and science. Every once and a while Id have my doubts, Id lean towards religion, then some crazy religious nutcase would make me run back over to science. I find myself sometimes wishing I had gone religious instead of Atheist for a while, and then finally Agnostic, but I think Im becoming happier with my warped Agnostic views, I would never share my real views with anyone, because I think I could turn both sides against me :P

Its just neither side has all the answers, people can believe the "answers" all they want, but we won't really know until the end.

 

Josh the point is as long as you follow what you see as the truth with all your heart, what more could anyone expect of a seeker of truth.

 

This is exactly why im an inclusivist and not an exlusivist.

 

as far as what is known about in the end have you studied the official government research into remote viewing? (out of body experiences,the soul leaving and existing outside the body). Even the offical government spokeslady for the research has said that it has been proven by science.

 

and also veridical nde's?

 

http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/skeptic-agrees-that-remote-viewing-is.html

 

Excerpt from a January 2008 item in the UK's The Daily Mail newspaper:

In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

She says: "Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

"The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments."

 

So what we do know is that science is being dragged kicking and screaming from a purely materialistic view into a more spiritual view. These are scientists speaking and not religious people my friend.

 

http://www.near-death.com/experiences/evidence02.html

 

Research continues to show that consciousness can and does survive outside the body and the evidence continues to mount for it. The problem now is that science has limited itself to the methodological naturalist view (there is nothing outside of nature or materialism that is true) and true science is supposed to be the pursuit of truth, and that is why spirituality and science are converging and not deverging.

 

Here is an interview with reknowned dutch cardiologist Pim Van lommel who was an atheist before, out of curiousity started to study the new death experiences of his patients. After his research he left atheism and became a spiritualist (notice I said spiritualist and not Christian).

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can be what you want, but i doubt you have the credential of the top scholars or the top egyptologists. Do you believe that you are the only history and anthropology major out there my friend? What do u make of the majority of historians specializing in these fields that disagree with you? Do you just write them off because most of them dont agree with you?

 

Are the majority of top scholars in their fields simply wrong because you are anthropology major?

 

Im an expert in the shroud of turin. Does that mean I will just simply dismiss what other experts say about it simply because I claim to be an expert?

You never bothered to even listen to the video link of experts in their fields about this.

 

I have video of people sending and recieving email to and from the top egyptologists who laughed at them and asked them to please stop with these foolish comparisons between egyptian Gods and Jesus.

 

Believe me you wont offend me my friend, and I doubt there is anything that you would tell me that I havent read before from the major scholars in this field.

 

Someone who is confident in their knowledge doesnt need to use adhominem and rediculing attacks on anyone.

The fact that you need to tells me alot more about you then your knowledge of these historic evidences.

 

I once had an athropology major that  came up to me and told me that the 3 wisemen in the bible had paralells to egyptian mythology. The problem is the original bible texts never named how many wisemen there were..

 

Again what do u make of the large percentage of historians and experts in their fields that disagree with you?

Does your degree overtake their phd in these fields?

This is seriously my last post on this topic. I never said I was an expert, I was telling you what I’m majoring in, implying that I know some s*&% about history, and will continue to learn more. Telling you what I’m studying ≠ me being an expert. MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE SPELLED IT OUT FOR YOU IN ALL CAPS.  I don’t care if I offend you or the other guy; I don’t want to offend the other people on this site that I have respect for, even if they don’t know me or like me. And no, I don’t want to discuss the 4th Deathly Hallow with you.

 

Oh Richard Dawkins, where art thou? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is seriously my last post on this topic. I never said I was an expert, I was telling you what I’m majoring in, implying that I know some s*&% about history, and will continue to learn more. Telling you what I’m studying ≠ me being an expert. MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE SPELLED IT OUT FOR YOU IN ALL CAPS.  I don’t care if I offend you or the other guy; I don’t want to offend the other people on this site that I have respect for, even if they don’t know me or like me. And no, I don’t want to discuss the 4th Deathly Hallow with you.

 

Oh Richard Dawkins, where art thou? 

 

Well thats your choice, and maybe after you do finish your studies you will understand why almost none of the historical scholars since the 19th century believe that Christianity grew from or has any parellels to the ancient egyptian or pagan religions. Believe me my friend there is no need for you to be afraid of offending me because I went through these discussion many times before.

 

But as I said before simply saying something is false doesnt make it false, that and the fact that most of the expert scholars are on my side gives me confidence to assert these things. I dont do this to offend you, I do them because I seek truth as a believer.

If you want to hold onto a position that hasnt been held onto by the major scholars since the 19th century be my guest. You major in an area where most of the phd scholars disagree with you on. But people like u are good in that they motivate the rest of us to get to know our faith much better, so you serve a very valuable purpose my friend.

 

Its funny you bring Richard Dawkins as he is good at debating non professional scholars about these things but when William Lane craig is mentioned he avoids craig like the plague. Maybe its because of what Craig did to dennet, harris and hitchens.

 

Trust me when I say that I feel no animosity for you, and I wont redicule you as you have done me :)

 

Hope your week is going well

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth of the Bible is obvious to anyone willing to fairly investigate it. The Bible is uniquely self-consistent and extraordinarily authentic. There are a lot of people have some problems with the Bible or really hate this book because it has full of eyewtiness authors! It has changed the lives of millions of people who have placed their faith in Christ. It has been confirmed countless times by archeology and other sciences. The Bible is truly infallible Word of God.

 

The reality is that if you believe in Christianity you are making a leap of faith. And that's fine... and I respect that. If Christianity resonates with you, and you have complete faith in it: Great. More power to you. I hope it benefits you.

 

But the notion that the truth of the bible is obvious to anyone who investigates it is an absurdity of the highest order. The only way you could feel that way, I think, is because you haven't done any research from the side that doubts its authenticity.

 

I've just purchased a book by Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, who raises lots of doubts regarding the authenticity of the bible. He's written many books and you can find many videos of him debating the other side on YouTube. Here is one video where he gives an argument: http://youtu.be/qO_lS0QcZxs

 

For the record, I do believe this universe was created by God. I just don't believe that any religion is ultimate truth. And I certainly don't believe that Christianity is "obviously true" to anyone after they investigate it: Far from it. It's a leap of faith, like other religions.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reality is that if you believe in Christianity you are making a leap of faith. And that's fine... and I respect that. If Christianity resonates with you, and you have complete faith in it: Great. More power to you. I hope it benefits you.

But the notion that the truth of the bible is obvious to anyone who investigates it is an absurdity of the highest order. The only way you could feel that way, I think, is because you haven't done any research from the side that doubts its authenticity.

I've just purchased a book by Bart Ehrman, a New Testament scholar, who raises lots of doubts regarding the authenticity of the bible. He's written many books and you can find many videos of him debating the other side on YouTube. Here is one video where he gives an argument: http://youtu.be/qO_lS0QcZxs

For the record, I do believe this universe was created by God. I just don't believe that any religion on Earth is ultimate truth. And I certainly don't believe that Christianity is "obviously true" to anyone after they investigate it: Far from it. It's a leap of faith, like other religions.

IAG, I have seen Bart Ehrman arguments, and on they surface they seem sound but when you get down to the details as William lane craig explained during one of his presentations , there are 2 Bart ehrman's , the scholarly one and the popular one. The popular one says that there are over 200,000 errors in the bible, but the scholarly one knows that 98.6% of these errors do not effect the core foundations of Christianity. The Good Bart will conflate these errors in his books to mean that the bible can't be the innerant word of God because Bart believes in his mind that innerant means perfect even without spelling or grammar errors, which is not what Christian scholarship takes it to mean. It was great to see that during his debate with Daniel Gibson that Gibson announced that they found a fragment from the gospel of mark that was tentatively dated from 66 ad , if true that would make it the earliest fragment found from scripture , but we won't know for sure until it passes peer review sometime this year or next year.

Here is the explanation of the good Bart Ehrman and bad Bart Ehrman by William lane craig which exp,aims what I said about Bart very clearly. Now Bart is very knowledgable in defending the historic Jesus but is in error in conflating inerrancy with misspelling and grammar.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe what ever works for you. It backs you up takes pressure off and gives you guidelines. Me I belueve in more spiritual and nature . We are made from nature and the sun gives life . Religion was made by man and man corrupts for power and money . Modern religion is based on older ones. There based on astrology . Stars moon and heavens and the gods taking advantage of human nature and are wishing for great or purpose. When you have the power yo create values life and your life. Goes back to cave man faith healers. People learned quick that guy gets the easy life and in control. Jesus used hemp oil to cure the sick. Good guy or was he taking credit for medicine that can heal anything ? He was a rebellious soul and made the government mad and they killed him. Lol.jesus liked drugs. Lol. Then you have the Vatican . Take donations from people and buy land and save money and gold and not pay taxes. Family came out of the church changed there name to Rothchilds and started the crooked banking system took over europe and the united states government. Them Rockefeller and Morgans few others created the federal Reserve. Holding countries in dept starting wars behind the scenes. Basically church and few rich run the world. They get out of taxes and out of the spot light . We fight each other when higher up is robbing us and lieing . You have to die to know the real answer . They keep you believing in one path no questions while they live the good life and you look to them for direction. But these days they do good things . They just took life flipped it around you must sacrfice . Like you should live while a live but they say waite till ya dead.lol. rewrote life turned it into religion. I would go to church for my wife once and a while . My church is out doors. Man can't be trusted with that much power. Might of been a good thing but crooks get it and corrupt it for power money. World is still run by the church and banks . Look at it.lol. they have killed alot of are people presidents even in Russia. World banks to join holds you're country hostage. You can run ys car on water but nope you can't cause the bankers and they have the money to back you but there laws suppress it any way. God would of wrote it himself and he wouldn't of talked on riddles. He would and could of write on facts how to live a good life and in each situation how to make the right choice. Revamp the schools . There infected by this as well. You learn history but they don't tell you why or how. Just put names up. And they own a lot of media and keep them selves out of the news. Lol. No offense it can be used for good just don't bet ya life on mans creation and what anybody tells ya. Be smart . There is no one path cause it will make most people unhappy. To be happy you are more creative and can have more values.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Religion is fixed point thinking and theres different ones based on the same one but you can't get a long and fighting. People politicians use it to get elected and start wars for god use him to make a choice. They never think of the citizens. Make decisions on humanity. Can't wait for a atheist president. Lol. They believe in brother hood and humanity. Make the world a better place. But banks church got the money. Crazy world . Just another point they grew drugs for medicine saved lives mad3 everything with it. Today you would be a sinner devil for using cannabis. It cures a lot of cancers and helps other problems. Funny how they can make what they want illegal to support there industry's and sell you legal poison drugs that are addicting and dangerous. But you are scared of nature and safe medicine.history is funny. It amazes me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now