"The God Virus"

[RolandtheHeadless]

The essence of science is critical thinking. It doesn't work without critical thinking.

Of course, there are bad scientists. And scientists who are too timid or unimaginative to challenge the status quo. But it's absurd to suggest that all scientists over the last 150 years have blindly accepted evolution as dogma.

Darwin's books aren't treated the way in science that the Bible is treated in church. No one claims that Darwin is God or inspired by God. He's just a great scientist who discovered one of the truths about the natural world.

 

[AquaLung]

That's incorrect. Recent observations show variations in the cosmic background radiation, which reflect variations in the Big Bang that gave rise to structures (stars, galaxies) in the universe.

The issue involving the Horizon Problem is far from being resolved. There are speculations made concerning the issue, but that's all they are.

It is also not true that Darwinian evolutionists are stuck in dogma as much as Biblical creationists. Such an argument reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of how science works. In fact, any scientist who could discover a better theory for explaining the myriad species of life that live and have lived on the earth would make quite a name for himself in history.

But in 150 years of serious study of the problem, no such theory has survived.

In a way that's correct. Evolution is not a religion as one would say Christianity is. I agree that Evolutionary scientists don't have a problem with a better theory coming onto the scene (particularly if they are individually a part of it). The problem with many Evolutionary scientists would be the validity of Creation Science. And it's not a misunderstanding of how science works. It's an issue of how the the mind of the Evolutionary Scientists work.

There's no question that it's a very religious issue. About 95% of biogists within the National Acadamy Of Sciences are atheists or agnostics. So there's no doubt that there's a world view being played here. Atheistic Scientists in general won't suffer from another theory taking over, so long as Creationism is not a part of it. If anyone suffers from a downfall of Evolution,it would probably be Hollywood more so than (current) Evolutionary Scientists.

 

[AquaLung]

The essence of science is critical thinking. It doesn't work without critical thinking.

Of course, there are bad scientists. And scientists who are too timid or unimaginative to challenge the status quo. But it's absurd to suggest that all scientists over the last 150 years have blindly accepted evolution as dogma.

Darwin's books aren't treated the way in science that the Bible is treated in church. No one claims that Darwin is God or inspired by God. He's just a great scientist who discovered one of the truths about the natural world.

It's been exploited in much the same way the Bible has been.

 

[Mars Man]

Thanks, AquaLung the 'roof of Japan' is fine and exciting, but very windy and busy.

That the Israelite tribes were polytheistic before uniting into a nation state, is as good as fact. That pre-Hebrew texts describe believed-in creator gods which were quite different from that which the Hebrew theist-involved religious belief system eventually developed, is as good as fact. ... That Yahweh is not Allah is a fact. (spelling correction and arrangement for present purpose mine)

The questions would be (unless one insists that neither actually exist), are both one and the same; but one being misrepresented, or misunderstood? Does just one of the two exist, and the other non-existent? Or is one legit, and the other a spiritual deception (a Satanic figure posing as the One True God)?

Let me presently get back with this much, here.

I have set the contextual setting that we will find plays in inescapable role towards any conclusion, as well. Of course--as you will know--I argue that Yahweh, like all the creator gods before him, which we hold to be nothing more than figments of imagination, is not an external actuality of nature at large. The evidence which supports that conclusion is quite substantial enough to set it as I have. I wish to point out that this is because of the nature of what is essentially the 'time-locked value.' We cannot change the intention to communicate that a locked-in-time (relative to the present) author would have presented and shared with his, or her, direct and immediate audience. The intended communication of the original, is the original intention. Striving to grasp just what that may be, of course, is a slightly different matter, but keeping the better methodology, maintaining consistence to witness and best understood texts (textual criticism), and taking care not to cherry pick, but to let every item of evidence speak its value and such, will make for a best possible understanding.

It is very clear that Yahweh, as described and prescribed by the authorship and direct and immediate audience (as best seen in extratextual texts and artifacts) of the Second Temple Period (and a little during the first, too, of course) cannot be the god described and prescribed by the Quran. There is simply too much stark difference. The prime one being the very name. Yahweh makes it all to clear that he just loves his name, and will never ever let that be lost to his worshipers and his people. Yahweh did not know of, never proposes, nor even allows the Quranic hell. There are a number of other examples, but maybe later. The first question of their being the one and the same god is ruled out easily.

The second question is a good one, actually. I have found that concern a very important factor to keep in mind. We find, most obviously and logically correct, that we will generall have to hold to chronological order. Any god which has been published first, will, at face value, be taken as being a possible actuality of nature at large; until found to fail that order. (This works on taking the neutral stance and holding all other things equal while investigation claims to know, know of, and know about that god and what that god has done historically and relative to known and knowable nature) Yahweh was first. In investigating the claims to know made by the Quran, therefore, we will have to weigh and compare them to claims made by the Tanakh. We will find that they both cannot be the ultimate creator god by mere definition--a superlative single allows only one. In jumping across a bit of small print, we find that neither of them have passed the test of being actualities of nature at large.

The third question, we will surely find, is based on an assumption which is kind of an apriori of sorts, and kind of circular in reasoning. Satan, as is thought of by some as reflected in question number three, is not a product of the system which had published Yahweh. Actually, that likely came (again) from the Greek theist-involved religious belief system. However, we can understand that to substantiate the idea of spiritual beings--which gods and goddesses and such are--we once again, have only the original claims to know about such, and can only glean from such sorces, what that is all about. We'll find, that this notion fails too. The conclusion, going from a number of routes, will always lead back to that portion in parenthesis there.

I'll get back later. Also, I think I'll start a thread to house that other information too. Let me get to that a little later on tonight, please.

 

[Half-n-Half]

While it can certainly be stated that Creationists study science in light of the Bible (or have a bias), the same holds true for Evolutionists. For instance, in evaluating the age of the Universe, the Creationist is stuck with the problem of light-time travel. So Creationists are researching possibilities on how this may have happened within the given time frame noted in Genesis. The Evolutionist is stuck with the problem of similar temperatures between vast distances, which would be impossible under the Big Bang model. So Evolutionists are researching possibilities as to why this is while remaining within the confines of the Big Bang theory.

The difference is that the "Creationist" would forever be locked to his Bible, while the "Evolutionist" would be free to disregard his theory if enough evidence contradicted it. To be specific to your example, the reason cosmologists (as opposed to the blanket term "Evolutionists") work within the BB theory is because there is a convincing amount of evidence to support it. It is of course incomplete so one would expect to find phenomena unexplained by the current theory, but that doesn't imply it is flat out wrong as it does not rule out the body of evidence that already supports it.

The issue involving the Horizon Problem is far from being resolved. There are speculations made concerning the issue, but that's all they are.

If you are referring to inflationary theory, it is hardly speculative (by "speculative" I mean based on conjecture) since it has made predictions that have been confirmed by observation. Of course it's not on the same grounds as more robust theories, but speculative it is not.

 

[AquaLung]

The difference is that the "Creationist" would forever be locked to his Bible, while the "Evolutionist" would be free to disregard his theory if enough evidence contradicted it. To be specific to your example, the reason cosmologists (as opposed to the blanket term "Evolutionists") work within the BB theory is because there is a convincing amount of evidence to support it. It is of course incomplete so one would expect to find phenomena unexplained by the current theory, but that doesn't imply it is flat out wrong as it does not rule out the body of evidence that already supports it.

Well again, the Evolutionist is generally closed to Creationism (or more specifically Biblical Creation). So they are not really open as one may suggest. They are generally bound by a world view called 'Naturalism'. Which in reality is merely an alternative to a supernatural involvement (from a human perspective).

If you are referring to inflationary theory, it is hardly speculative (by "speculative" I mean based on conjecture) since it has made predictions that have been confirmed by observation. Of course it's not on the same grounds as more robust theories, but speculative it is not.

Not even all secular scientists embrace the inflationary theory, so there's certainly not empirical evidence. I wouldn't say there's a nail in the casket either. But neither is there a nail involved with a variation of light travel that may support a much younger universe. There's a lot we just don't know about concerning light travel. We know that from A to B doesn't necessarily equal B back to A.

 

[AquaLung]

Thanks, AquaLung the 'roof of Japan' is fine and exciting, but very windy and busy.



Let me presently get back with this much, here.

I have set the contextual setting that we will find plays in inescapable role towards any conclusion, as well. Of course--as you will know--I argue that Yahweh, like all the creator gods before him, which we hold to be nothing more than figments of imagination, is not an external actuality of nature at large. The evidence which supports that conclusion is quite substantial enough to set it as I have. I wish to point out that this is because of the nature of what is essentially the 'time-locked value.' We cannot change the intention to communicate that a locked-in-time (relative to the present) author would have presented and shared with his, or her, direct and immediate audience. The intended communication of the original, is the original intention. Striving to grasp just what that may be, of course, is a slightly different matter, but keeping the better methodology, maintaining consistence to witness and best understood texts (textual criticism), and taking care not to cherry pick, but to let every item of evidence speak its value and such, will make for a best possible understanding.

It is very clear that Yahweh, as described and prescribed by the authorship and direct and immediate audience (as best seen in extratextual texts and artifacts) of the Second Temple Period (and a little during the first, too, of course) cannot be the god described and prescribed by the Quran. There is simply too much stark difference. The prime one being the very name. Yahweh makes it all to clear that he just loves his name, and will never ever let that be lost to his worshipers and his people. Yahweh did not know of, never proposes, nor even allows the Quranic hell. There are a number of other examples, but maybe later. The first question of their being the one and the same god is ruled out easily.

The second question is a good one, actually. I have found that concern a very important factor to keep in mind. We find, most obviously and logically correct, that we will generall have to hold to chronological order. Any god which has been published first, will, at face value, be taken as being a possible actuality of nature at large; until found to fail that order. (This works on taking the neutral stance and holding all other things equal while investigation claims to know, know of, and know about that god and what that god has done historically and relative to known and knowable nature) Yahweh was first. In investigating the claims to know made by the Quran, therefore, we will have to weigh and compare them to claims made by the Tanakh. We will find that they both cannot be the ultimate creator god by mere definition--a superlative single allows only one. In jumping across a bit of small print, we find that neither of them have passed the test of being actualities of nature at large.

The third question, we will surely find, is based on an assumption which is kind of an apriori of sorts, and kind of circular in reasoning. Satan, as is thought of by some as reflected in question number three, is not a product of the system which had published Yahweh. Actually, that likely came (again) from the Greek theist-involved religious belief system. However, we can understand that to substantiate the idea of spiritual beings--which gods and goddesses and such are--we once again, have only the original claims to know about such, and can only glean from such sorces, what that is all about. We'll find, that this notion fails too. The conclusion, going from a number of routes, will always lead back to that portion in parenthesis there.

I'll get back later. Also, I think I'll start a thread to house that other information too. Let me get to that a little later on tonight, please.

The Bible also indicates that there will be many peoples (tribes, ethnicities, nationalities, languages) represented in Heaven. This would indicate to me that God does in fact reveal Himself to peoples well outside of the confines of certainly western nations as well as Near Middle Eastern regions. And this would probably include many peoples from a Muslim background. And the interest in Allah may be a tool of sorts as road to the Messiah. There are already reports of Muslims receiving visions of Christ the Messiah.

 

[Half-n-Half]

Well again, the Evolutionist is generally closed to Creationism (or more specifically Biblical Creation). So they are not really open as one may suggest. They are generally bound by a world view called 'Naturalism'. Which in reality is merely an alternative to a supernatural involvement (from a human perspective).

I wouldn't say they are closed, though. It's hard to make a general statement like this since the term "Evolutionist" encompasses a wide-range of people. How would you define an "Evolutionist" (forgive me if you already have somewhere)? I would say they are resistant to ideas for which there is little to no evidence. If evidence were to be found that the universe was created as described in the Bible, Evolutionists would (should) follow the evidence. Currently, though, that's not the case. To say ahead of time that a phenomenon you are trying to describe is caused by a deity is to introduce an unnecessary bias. In science you should not draw the conclusion first and then find the evidence to support it.

Not even all secular scientists embrace the inflationary theory, so there's certainly not empirical evidence. I wouldn't say there's a nail in the casket either. But neither is there a nail involved with a variation of light travel that may support a much younger universe. There's a lot we just don't know about concerning light travel. We know that from A to B doesn't necessarily equal B back to A.

You will always have scientists who don't embrace a given theory but that doesn't mean there isn't empirical evidence. The mechanism of how inflation occurred is not well understood, but the cosmic microwave background radiation as well as observations by WMAP and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey have all given empirical evidence to support inflation.

 

[RolandtheHeadless]

NASA - NASA's WMAP Project Completes Satellite Operations

 

[AquaLung]

I wouldn't say they are closed, though. It's hard to make a general statement like this since the term "Evolutionist" encompasses a wide-range of people.

It's true that we're also dealing with individuals who have different thoughts and mindsets. However, I would say that there's a sort of general mindset we see expressed certainly in the various forms of media. It's also tough at times to tell exactly what the issues are. As I've discussed with Mars Man, the term religion is thrown out a lot, but it's reference is either vague, or in my opinion obviously an alternative word for Christianity. And then the issue seems to teeter around Christians, and God as presented in the Bible. On the one hand Christians are the problem being the supposed cause of wars, racism, etc., and on the other Christians are hypocrites for not practicing old Israelite laws concerning punishment.

How would you define an "Evolutionist" (forgive me if you already have somewhere)?

No, I hadn't mentioned that anywhere. I agree that Evolutionist can have a broad meaning. A Theistic Evolutionist for instance may look at the Creation issue differently than an atheist or agnostic evolutionist. I've been throwing it out in a more general fashion. I probably would be referring more to the more outspoken (or activist) atheist/evolutionist. I have no doubt that there are many evolutionists who stay very quiet, and don't think a whole lot on the issue.

I would say they are resistant to ideas for which there is little to no evidence. If evidence were to be found that the universe was created as described in the Bible, Evolutionists would (should) follow the evidence. Currently, though, that's not the case. To say ahead of time that a phenomenon you are trying to describe is caused by a deity is to introduce an unnecessary bias. In science you should not draw the conclusion first and then find the evidence to support it.

What exactly do you mean by evidence? When you are talking about science, do you include archaeology? What about history? Science is not the only means of discovery. History not being technically categorized as science doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken into consideration by scientists. And to say there's no evidence of Biblical creation is very questionable. Obviously there's a general understanding that there's evidence of a Creator. If not, it would be completely dismissed. If one can embrace the possibility of a Creator, then Biblical history should not be excluded when considering evidences and possibilities.

And the majority of biologists within the National Academy Of Sciences are atheists and agnostics (about 95%). They have a Naturalist perspective. They can't dismiss the supernatural (by human terms), but they look for naturalistic explanations.

You will always have scientists who don't embrace a given theory but that doesn't mean there isn't empirical evidence. The mechanism of how inflation occurred is not well understood, but the cosmic microwave background radiation as well as observations by WMAP and the Sloan Digital Sky Survey have all given empirical evidence to support inflation.

Which model do you find empirical?

 

[AquaLung]

NASA - NASA's WMAP Project Completes Satellite Operations

I find this quote interesting:

WMAP detected E-mode polarization but not B-mode yet. B-mode detection could provide smoking-gun evidence for inflation. But with the temperature map plus the E-mode polarization map, the WMAP team can say several things about inflation.

There's always that catch...."If" they could just find B-mode detection they would have that smoking-gun evidence.

NASA - Ringside Seat to the Universe's First Split Second

 

[Half-n-Half]

What exactly do you mean by evidence? When you are talking about science, do you include archaeology? What about history? Science is not the only means of discovery. History not being technically categorized as science doesn't mean it shouldn't be taken into consideration by scientists.

Yes, archaeology and history are both means of discovery. But they also require evidence to support any claims. We don't believe that a Roman civilization existed because of stories or hearsay, but because we have vast amounts of archaeological evidence to support that claim. And the more evidence you can corroborate to support an idea, the more confident you are in that idea. I'm sure there is some accurate history in the Bible. But what other evidence can we corroborate to verify the claims of miracles in the Bible?

And to say there's no evidence of Biblical creation is very questionable. Obviously there's a general understanding that there's evidence of a Creator. If not, it would be completely dismissed. If one can embrace the possibility of a Creator, then Biblical history should not be excluded when considering evidences and possibilities.

I don't see how the third statement follows from the second. Does that mean that any idea entertained by someone has evidence to back it up, otherwise it would be completely dismissed?

And the majority of biologists within the National Academy Of Sciences are atheists and agnostics (about 95%). They have a Naturalist perspective. They can't dismiss the supernatural (by human terms), but they look for naturalistic explanations.

How would one look for supernatural explanations as opposed to naturalistic ones?

Which model do you find empirical?

I wasn't referring to any specific model of inflation, but instead the evidence to support the general idea that there was an inflationary period in the early universe.

 

[Mars Man]

The Bible also indicates that there will be many peoples (tribes, ethnicities, nationalities, languages) represented in Heaven.

This, however, I find very weak, if not out-right incorrect. First of all, we cannot really say 'Bible' in this case--as though there were, in fact by intention and conscious objective, one book of one authorship. It may seem, on the surface, rather trivial to point this out, yet it does, in fact, make a major difference in the attributes of any number of propositions.

Having investigated this concept (that you have highlighted in the quote above), we find the proof text points provided as being, most usually, those following the cue of Revelation 7:9-17. From there, it seems that the usual flow goes to 1 Timothy 2:1-7; 4:7-10; Titus 2:11; John 3:10-21; Act 17:29-31, then the line presented tends to go over into the Hebrew documents. It is here where error is made, however.

The Millennialism of John the Elder's troupe--which is most likely the source of Revelation--which Pauline theology seems to have been basically based on, is purely an item of the earlier early Christian segment of Judaism. The Tanakh itself, does not maintain that doctrine item. Therefore, the likes of Genesis 22:15-18; Zec 8:20-23; Isa 2:1-4; 45:18-25, are to be understood within the framework of Second-Temple-Period Judaism alone. What is clear--in the process of trying to make heads or tails out of it all--is that even the early to middle early Christian movement started relying more and more on the Hebrew document of Isaiah to support the imagery of Yeshua which had come to be worked up. They applied it to the period in which they had lived, of course. It's falseness proved itself then, so there is no reason to think that it has suddenly become true for us, simply because time has passed.

This would indicate to me that God does in fact reveal Himself to peoples well outside of the confines of certainly western nations as well as Near Middle Eastern regions. And this would probably include many peoples from a Muslim background. And the interest in Allah may be a tool of sorts as road to the Messiah. There are already reports of Muslims receiving visions of Christ the Messiah.

Again, taking this to be referring to the god of Christianity, I think we'll run into so much problem, that the proposition falls flat on its face. If, on the other hand, you were to be saying this with Yahweh in mind, there might be a little bit more room, but still, it's obviously asserting an hypothesis which has failed, namely, that Yahweh is an actual being as is described and prescribed by the Tanakh.

The Quran, of course, holds that Yeshua was a prophet, just as the other prophets which are (at least) identified by the works to which their names have been assigned. (Remember, that the trail to canonical establishment was a somewhat long and rocky, and cherry-picking process.) [I'll post details later maybe, but if one follows through Quran II.1:2-4, 5:40, 41, 47-53; 8:62; 13:111, 112; 14:113; 16:130-136; V.10:69, 72, 73, 75, it will be clear that the Quran does not allow the Christian god model.]

I am not sure of just where it is that you get your information from, but that last part sounds fishy in a large way. At any rate, if we were to posit that a proposition, assertion, or claim to know, is an external actuality of nature at large (objective truth and fact), yet have no means whatsoever of supporting it, nor of refuting the evidence which demonstrates its untruthfulness, then would surely be simply allowing ourselves to blind ourselves with wishful thinking. I find that that is something which we as a human society, at the international level, have got to do better in trying to get over.

 

[Mars Man]

Obviously there's a general understanding that there's evidence of a Creator. If not, it would be completely dismissed. If one can embrace the possibility of a Creator, then Biblical history should not be excluded when considering evidences and possibilities.

I don't particularly know of any way to keep a certain post locked into a running record, or what-have-you, so I am simply putting this here so as to keep it easy to see. I want to come back to this, but at a better time, or point in the flow of discussion. Additionally, part of it may be better for the other thread on 'Evolution and Creation.'

 

[pauro12]

One sentence to end this thread. " I believe in God because I experienced God in me." - With this, I don't think anything would change my mind on how I see God, maybe improve but will not diminish. Anyways, beliefs differ in each and everyone as long as your happy of what you believe, and so be it. I believe God will enlighten all of us someday including me for I don't know much about him still but I believe he do exist. Amen.

 

[AquaLung]

Yes, archaeology and history are both means of discovery. But they also require evidence to support any claims. We don't believe that a Roman civilization existed because of stories or hearsay, but because we have vast amounts of archaeological evidence to support that claim. And the more evidence you can corroborate to support an idea, the more confident you are in that idea. I'm sure there is some accurate history in the Bible. But what other evidence can we corroborate to verify the claims of miracles in the Bible?

The evidence that points to not only Jesus having been a real person in history, but to His resurrection is there. The reason why it's been resolved by many as hearsay is because people generally don't raise from the dead. The evidence is there. It's only skepticism of such an event happening that reduces it in the opinion of many that it's hearsay.

I don't see how the third statement follows from the second. Does that mean that any idea entertained by someone has evidence to back it up, otherwise it would be completely dismissed?

I may not be understanding your question either. But basically what I mean is, the possibility of a highly intelligent entity purposefully bringing us into existence is not out of the question for practically anyone. However, for many, the Biblical Creator has been eliminated from this universally acknowledged possibility. The God of the Bible has been reduced to being the equivalent of ancient fables/mythology, parodies like The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Floating Teapot, etc.

The question I pose to this is simply why is the God of the Bible eliminated from this universally acknowledged possible Creator? And reduced to being the equivalent of TFSM, and TIFT?

How would one look for supernatural explanations as opposed to naturalistic ones?

It's a good question, but you might have misunderstood me. I'm not actually promoting looking for supernatural explanations. It's the more absolute dismissal that I'm questioning. And as I think I mentioned in the other thread, just the embracing of the possibility of a Creator alone opens up that door. The most ambitious of humans generally don't consider creating a universe. The most ambitious materialistic megalomaniac type will want to be the most richest/powerful man in the world, or politically take over the world . The more ambitious humanistic visionary may want to seek to extend life, make humans immortal in a natural sense, develop molecular transportation, etc. But create a universe? It's not a human concept.

I wasn't referring to any specific model of inflation, but instead the evidence to support the general idea that there was an inflationary period in the early universe.

I'm just wondering why you think it's empirical?

Inflation Theory Takes a Little Kick in the Pants

Science In Crisis: Inflationary Theory... A Warped Speculation

 

[AquaLung]

This, however, I find very weak, if not out-right incorrect. First of all, we cannot really say 'Bible' in this case--as though there were, in fact by intention and conscious objective, one book of one authorship. It may seem, on the surface, rather trivial to point this out, yet it does, in fact, make a major difference in the attributes of any number of propositions.

Having investigated this concept (that you have highlighted in the quote above), we find the proof text points provided as being, most usually, those following the cue of Revelation 7:9-17. From there, it seems that the usual flow goes to 1 Timothy 2:1-7; 4:7-10; Titus 2:11; John 3:10-21; Act 17:29-31, then the line presented tends to go over into the Hebrew documents. It is here where error is made, however.

The Millennialism of John the Elder's troupe--which is most likely the source of Revelation--which Pauline theology seems to have been basically based on, is purely an item of the earlier early Christian segment of Judaism. The Tanakh itself, does not maintain that doctrine item. Therefore, the likes of Genesis 22:15-18; Zec 8:20-23; Isa 2:1-4; 45:18-25, are to be understood within the framework of Second-Temple-Period Judaism alone. What is clear--in the process of trying to make heads or tails out of it all--is that even the early to middle early Christian movement started relying more and more on the Hebrew document of Isaiah to support the imagery of Yeshua which had come to be worked up. They applied it to the period in which they had lived, of course. It's falseness proved itself then, so there is no reason to think that it has suddenly become true for us, simply because time has passed.


Again, taking this to be referring to the god of Christianity, I think we'll run into so much problem, that the proposition falls flat on its face. If, on the other hand, you were to be saying this with Yahweh in mind, there might be a little bit more room, but still, it's obviously asserting an hypothesis which has failed, namely, that Yahweh is an actual being as is described and prescribed by the Tanakh.

The Quran, of course, holds that Yeshua was a prophet, just as the other prophets which are (at least) identified by the works to which their names have been assigned. (Remember, that the trail to canonical establishment was a somewhat long and rocky, and cherry-picking process.) [I'll post details later maybe, but if one follows through Quran II.1:2-4, 5:40, 41, 47-53; 8:62; 13:111, 112; 14:113; 16:130-136; V.10:69, 72, 73, 75, it will be clear that the Quran does not allow the Christian god model.]

I am not sure of just where it is that you get your information from, but that last part sounds fishy in a large way. At any rate, if we were to posit that a proposition, assertion, or claim to know, is an external actuality of nature at large (objective truth and fact), yet have no means whatsoever of supporting it, nor of refuting the evidence which demonstrates its untruthfulness, then would surely be simply allowing ourselves to blind ourselves with wishful thinking. I find that that is something which we as a human society, at the international level, have got to do better in trying to get over.

There's always the possibility that any report, even if basically authentic, can be sensationalized. Or, even flat out false. I know for a fact that these scenarios have happened within Christendom, and probably happens fairly frequently. Particularly in the Western world, where we have more freedom to use the media for sensationalism, commercialism, etc. From my personal experience from the day I became a believer, my experience was fairly profound. Therefore, I don't have a problem with believing that others will have similar experiences. So for me, it's not really an issue of wishful thinking. If someone fabricates a conversion experience, which I'm sure happens when considering the historical con-artistry specifically in the U.S., I'm not shaken by it. I will say however, that it's considerably more difficult to publicly sensationalize such things in Muslim nations. In the U.S. one could potentially fabricate a conversion experience for public exposure. Such a thing however is deadly in countries like Iraq.

As far as your scriptural references, what would your views be if you had something akin to a Road To Damascus Experience? If you had that type of revelation, could you adjust, for instance, to the idea that the Bible is interconnected as opposed to scattered?

 

[Mars Man]

There's always the possibility that any report, even if basically authentic, can be sensationalized. Or, even flat out false. I know for a fact that these scenarios have happened within Christendom, and probably happens fairly frequently.

I would, honestly, hope to make it clear that there is one very pertinent fact that we have to bear in mind all along, namely, that we could not have had a 'now happens within Christendom' without a 'had happened in Judasim.' It is simply a brute fact. I leave the matter of bearing that it does have, for those times and points when it directly comes into bearing on a particular point being discussed.

From my personal experience from the day I became a believer, my experience was fairly profound. Therefore, I don't have a problem with believing that others will have similar experiences.

I'll leave this for later, as it does not adjust biblical history (meaning the development of the textual tradition of documentation within Second Temple Judasim, Esenne Judasim, the early Christian movement, and the slide into later early Christian movement), nor does it adjust known-to-be-sound-and-valid natural history to date.

As far as your scriptural references, what would your views be if you had something akin to a Road To Damascus Experience? If you had that type of revelation, could you adjust, for instance, to the idea that the Bible is interconnected as opposed to scattered?

This question, as specifically worded, if we were to think about it clearly, is quite unanswerable realistically. That said event (occurrence) handed down by Luke is quite fixed in its doctrine-ladened setting. There is no way to surgically remove that said historical contextual setting from it, other than to point to possible common neurological events that can be thought of.

What we will thus find, if we were to focus on the possible brain workings, therefore, is that we know relatively well enough how brains work that we know that for present day humans, and humans living 2,000 years ago, it is the same. THIS line, however, goes way off topic. Also, we don't really have any need to go off on that line anyway. We will need the evidence that the god which Saul had worshiped in the first place, Yahweh, can be said to demonstrate fairly that that was an external actuality of nature at large, or, rather, was simple that thing which existed in his brain.

BUT, the scriptural references I had presented earlier, were simply those which likely would be alluded to to support that notion you had earlier on mentioned. If we were to want to verify that notion, we would have to test the proof texts provided for that, verify their adherence to that notion in light of their actual immediate and overall contextual setting, and then we would have to verify that chronological development of the idea itself, to test for soundness--thus proper believability.

To keep from wandering too much, we might have to backtrack in our exchanges just a little. If I have time today, I'll see if I can check that out. (It may be that there is no need to do so.)

 

[Mars Man]

Welcome to JREF, pauro12 ! I do hope you hang around and join in our lively and deep discussions and debates.

One sentence to end this thread. " I believe in God because I experienced God in me."

I am not sure, so would like to make sure. Do you wish to state that you are only wiling to express your belief here, and then never come back to this thread? Or, do you think that by having written what you have, that the thread would somehow end? Or, are you just exercising poetic license here? At any rate, I'd like to know just why you have worded it that way.

I find the above statement to be lacking, however. I think that you cannot really say that you 'experienced God' in you without firstly having had some knowledge of what saying such a thing would be supposed to mean. You are referring, I take it, to the Christian god, and not to some other god, right?

With this, I don't think anything would change my mind on how I see God, maybe improve but will not diminish. Anyways, beliefs differ in each and everyone as long as your happy of what you believe, and so be it. I believe God will enlighten all of us someday including me for I don't know much about him still but I believe he do exist. Amen.

To express, however, that one believes God will enlighten all of us someday, we will find some questions that must be answered.

For one, who would this 'we' be? Why would you believe that God would do that, if God were just something you had experienced in you? And, as hinted at above, as well, what did you know about God before you had this experience which you attribute to God being in you? I hope your sport in taking this up in discussion and debate.

 

[Mars Man]

However, for many, the Biblical Creator has been eliminated from this universally acknowledged possibility. The God of the Bible has been reduced to being the equivalent of ancient fables/mythology, parodies like The Flying Spaghetti Monster, Invisible Floating Teapot, etc. The question I pose to this is simply why is the God of the Bible eliminated from this universally acknowledged possible Creator? And reduced to being the equivalent of TFSM, and TIFT?

This is what must be answered to. We can do it in this thread, or the one I have pointed to in the other thread. That other possible thread of interest will be linked to with this. Of course, the answer I have already provided, however. All god models have failed.

 

[AquaLung]

This, however, I find very weak, if not out-right incorrect. First of all, we cannot really say 'Bible' in this case--as though there were, in fact by intention and conscious objective, one book of one authorship. It may seem, on the surface, rather trivial to point this out, yet it does, in fact, make a major difference in the attributes of any number of propositions.

Having investigated this concept (that you have highlighted in the quote above), we find the proof text points provided as being, most usually, those following the cue of Revelation 7:9-17. From there, it seems that the usual flow goes to 1 Timothy 2:1-7; 4:7-10; Titus 2:11; John 3:10-21; Act 17:29-31, then the line presented tends to go over into the Hebrew documents. It is here where error is made, however.

The Millennialism of John the Elder's troupe--which is most likely the source of Revelation--which Pauline theology seems to have been basically based on, is purely an item of the earlier early Christian segment of Judaism. The Tanakh itself, does not maintain that doctrine item. Therefore, the likes of Genesis 22:15-18; Zec 8:20-23; Isa 2:1-4; 45:18-25, are to be understood within the framework of Second-Temple-Period Judaism alone. What is clear--in the process of trying to make heads or tails out of it all--is that even the early to middle early Christian movement started relying more and more on the Hebrew document of Isaiah to support the imagery of Yeshua which had come to be worked up. They applied it to the period in which they had lived, of course. It's falseness proved itself then, so there is no reason to think that it has suddenly become true for us, simply because time has passed.

First off, I don't want to give the impression that I'm following everything you say (not that I don't follow any of it, just some certain things). Whatever problems others are having, I'm having an equal problem. But this is not a demand to change your style by any means. The world doesn't revolve around me and my simplistic preferences. Therefore, I just want you to understand that there could be some potential frustrations on your part, but I will try to follow your posts to the best of my ability. I understand that I use a lot of words myself (as opposed to being brief, and to the point). One of the problems I'm having is this line you've used a second time ( or something similar): "It's falseness proved itself then, so there is no reason to think that it has suddenly become true for us, simply because time has passed."


What exactly has been proven false? And why?

Again, taking this to be referring to the god of Christianity, I think we'll run into so much problem, that the proposition falls flat on its face. If, on the other hand, you were to be saying this with Yahweh in mind, there might be a little bit more room, but still, it's obviously asserting an hypothesis which has failed, namely, that Yahweh is an actual being as is described and prescribed by the Tanakh.

The Quran, of course, holds that Yeshua was a prophet, just as the other prophets which are (at least) identified by the works to which their names have been assigned. (Remember, that the trail to canonical establishment was a somewhat long and rocky, and cherry-picking process.) [I'll post details later maybe, but if one follows through Quran II.1:2-4, 5:40, 41, 47-53; 8:62; 13:111, 112; 14:113; 16:130-136; V.10:69, 72, 73, 75, it will be clear that the Quran does not allow the Christian god model.]

I fully understand that there's much criticism concerning the canonical establishment. Must of the criticism I've seen seem to be assumptions based on human nature (specifically concerning the political arena).

I am not sure of just where it is that you get your information from, but that last part sounds fishy in a large way. At any rate, if we were to posit that a proposition, assertion, or claim to know, is an external actuality of nature at large (objective truth and fact), yet have no means whatsoever of supporting it, nor of refuting the evidence which demonstrates its untruthfulness, then would surely be simply allowing ourselves to blind ourselves with wishful thinking. I find that that is something which we as a human society, at the international level, have got to do better in trying to get over.

What would you consider trustworthy information? The problem with information involving religion and religious experiences is that they generally fall into 3 categories.:

1. General textbook information that are more public school friendly, that due to a general mandate to be neutral, will exclude specifics like spiritual experiences.

2. Information originating from a specific religion's source. These by default will be considered biased.

3. Information originating from a skeptic's point of view, an anti-theist's point of view, atheist's point of view, etc.

The latter 2 sometimes seem to be mistaken for general public text-book information.

 

[AquaLung]

I would, honestly, hope to make it clear that there is one very pertinent fact that we have to bear in mind all along, namely, that we could not have had a 'now happens within Christendom' without a 'had happened in Judasim.' It is simply a brute fact. I leave the matter of bearing that it does have, for those times and points when it directly comes into bearing on a particular point being discussed.

This is true in any arena of life. What happens within Christendom happened/happens in Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, and Secularism (or the Secular realm).

I'll leave this for later, as it does not adjust biblical history (meaning the development of the textual tradition of documentation within Second Temple Judasim, Esenne Judasim, the early Christian movement, and the slide into later early Christian movement), nor does it adjust known-to-be-sound-and-valid natural history to date.

Generally speaking, natural history is neutral history (or at least it's supposed to be). It's not by any means all encompassing, and not guaranteed to be accurate.

This question, as specifically worded, if we were to think about it clearly, is quite unanswerable realistically. That said event (occurrence) handed down by Luke is quite fixed in its doctrine-ladened setting. There is no way to surgically remove that said historical contextual setting from it, other than to point to possible common neurological events that can be thought of.

What we will thus find, if we were to focus on the possible brain workings, therefore, is that we know relatively well enough how brains work that we know that for present day humans, and humans living 2,000 years ago, it is the same. THIS line, however, goes way off topic. Also, we don't really have any need to go off on that line anyway. We will need the evidence that the god which Saul had worshiped in the first place, Yahweh, can be said to demonstrate fairly that that was an external actuality of nature at large, or, rather, was simple that thing which existed in his brain.

BUT, the scriptural references I had presented earlier, were simply those which likely would be alluded to to support that notion you had earlier on mentioned. If we were to want to verify that notion, we would have to test the proof texts provided for that, verify their adherence to that notion in light of their actual immediate and overall contextual setting, and then we would have to verify that chronological development of the idea itself, to test for soundness--thus proper believability.

To keep from wandering too much, we might have to backtrack in our exchanges just a little. If I have time today, I'll see if I can check that out. (It may be that there is no need to do so.)

It may be getting off topic. I won't argue that. And you can answer, or can refrain from answering it at your discretion. I don't think it's unanswerable if you take the incident as it's presented without concern for neurological possibilities.

The interesting part about New Testament individuals like the apostle Paul, is that there are some who actually maintain that he, the apostles, Jesus, didn't exist. And one has to pretty much do that if they wish to maintain that any one of them in particular never existed. And if not, things get messy. So what many do is acknowledge the probable historical existence of these various individuals, but come up with alternative explanations for the miracles stated as historical fact in the scriptures. Paul is a perfect example. It's obviously unwise to claim that his Road To Damascus experience absolutely never happened. So the alternative to the problem is to bank on modern knowledge of neurology, and suggest that Paul and the parties that be couldn't tell the difference. There are suggestions that he experienced a seizure, there are suggestions of being overwhelmed by human guilt, etc. In light of his life, and the results thereafter, render these theories far more over-the-top than the miracles themselves.

If you took the incident as presented in the Book Of Acts, and put yourself in Paul's shoes (and apply it to a modern day scenario), you could answer the question.

If you had some sort of revelation directly from God giving the same message concerning Jesus Christ as given to Paul, you would have 1 of 2 reactions (putting choice aside). Either you would adjust to the new found reality, or...you do something along the lines of going insane. You would have to either comfortably resolve that your worldview was wrong, and you have to look at your view of scriptures in a different light, and probably your view of science in terms of Creation and Evolution.

To use a very crude scenario (and I do mean crude), if you, or even the whole world collectively found out that we were nothing more than cartoon characters (or puppets), and even our cartoons were a part of our created for someone's entertainment realm, this would be hard for anyone to swallow. To find out that all our actions are being produced by an artist (who creates scenarios like terrorist attacks) who could also place mental thought, and physical senses into our animated (or claymated, puppeteered frame), would probably cause mass insanity. It's just too far out a concept to accept. I think there would be mass suicide by those hoping that maybe by doing so they can prove that our actions were not completely controlled, if not for the sole reason of escape from the nightmare.

Is the idea of a God sent savior for mankind really so far off that you couldn't adjust to a knew truth (or world view)? Is Evolution so rock solid a concept that your whole world would shatter if you found out that the Biblical model of Creation is our past history?

 

[Mars Man]

I appreciate your getting back, AquaLung, and hope to satisfy your questions and concerns, as best I can. Being a little tight with time today, please allow to get to just this much for now.

First off, I don't want to give the impression that I'm following everything you say (not that I don't follow any of it, just some certain things). Whatever problems others are having, I'm having an equal problem. But this is not a demand to change your style by any means.

Candor is of course a prime in fair and good communication. It is something the best will always appreciate, and involve themselves in, I am sure. My style of writing is a bit at odds with modern journalistic prescriptions, I know. I often read opinion articles and such from a number of sources, and am often aggrevated at the lack of precise clarity--which to me, at least, seems to lend itself to acquiescing that mass media should be encouraging a general dumbing down of public reading skills and information intake skills. I find that most sad a thing. Of course I do also know, having written and having been expoused to the matter in general, that word space is an economic concern as well. Still, my policy is that if we are going to write, then let's do it in the better way. I hold the better way to be precise, accurate, and as logically tight as possible. I am fully aware that that does not make for laid-back, half-involved reading. Additionally, I am aware that it's not a common style for your normal internet forum discussion board.

On this point, I will make an effort to be careful--because I do know that I can over do it at times--and will ask that any readers who do not understand a point, ask me to re-word, or rephrase any portion not understood. I mean, after all (and your example is a great one !) a person can always ask, right?

One of the problems I'm having is this line you've used a second time ( or something similar): "It's falseness proved itself then, so there is no reason to think that it has suddenly become true for us, simply because time has passed." What exactly has been proven false? And why?

Here I guess we can see that we may be kind of talking on different levels. There is some amount of information which I will possibly take others to have had access to, or to know of, at least, which may not be the case. I kind of feel that if I firstly went ahead and laid out the details, that it would not be so much a discussion process, but rather much more of a presentation process. I hope to be doing a somewhat equal amount of both; at varying times and degrees.

Yes, in the quote you had provided had been talking about the doctrine of The Millennialism of John the Elder's troupe. John the Elder was a very early Christian leader, or teacher, or central figure of a troupe. He may, or may not have been involved with the Sumaritian-based troupe of John, the said disciple of the particular Yeshua which started that general, earliest 'Christian' movement. In the earliest authentic documents attributed to Saul of Tarsus, we find an element of this doctrine, as well as in the synoptic gospel narratives. In the document we call Revelation, which is more likely John the Elder's work, or the work of some member of his troupe, we find the exact doctrine that matches the non-canonical extant documents which can be traces back to that John.

The doctrine held that Jesus as messianic king under Yahweh's command, would return within that century, and usher in 1,000 years of peace after a resurrection of all the dead. It was to be during this period that Gog and Magog would become grouped into action, and that the final battle would take place, and that Satan and all the fallen spiritual sons of Yahweh (angels), and all who were found to not have their names in the book of life, would recieve the second death--utter destruction with no further hope of a resurrection.

It was, as is always the case (and I would hope that you [and all] would carefully and conscientiously keep this in mind, because it is very important a correct understanding) a claim to know. The claim proved false. What this amounts to is that the doctrine was erroneous in its very root. Actually, there are a number of leads which lead exactly to this same conclusion, but here it is clear that the doctrine of the return was a false doctrine. The claim to know has proven itself to be not true--a false claim.

Having explained this much, I think you will be able to get the latter portion of what you had asked about there. If you still have any questions on this, then please do ask. What I have presented here, of course, is as close to fact as we are going to get in this field. I'll have to get to some of your other points later. Please be patient. One thing I did notice (and this is not the first time, here either) is that you seem to focus more on what the present situation is, where I am focusing on how the present situation could possibly have come about in the first place. May we can work on get chronologically aligned a bit later on. I'll be back.

 

[Mars Man]

First off, I don't want to give the impression that I'm following everything you say (not that I don't follow any of it, just some certain things). Whatever problems others are having, I'm having an equal problem. But this is not a demand to change your style by any means.

After throwing this around a little more, I came up with an idea of making a deal with the involved readership here. I'll try to make a consistent effort to write in more of a journalistic-friendly flow, if the readership will make an equally consistent effort to reason through what they, and I, write, logically--that is no logic fallacies, no argumentation fallacies, and adherence to rationalized lines of thought development. I think this may be a fair shake. It might mean, I think, that I may need to add footnotes from time to time. I only hope all will make an effort to read those too. Anyway, I'll give a shot (seeing how readership responds to it's end of the offer).

I'd like to ask RolandtheHeadless to allow this little bit of deep embedding here, now. (It'll surely eventually work back up to the general topic about God, as per OP.)

The interesting part about New Testament individuals like the apostle Paul, is that there are some who actually maintain that he, the apostles, Jesus, didn't exist.

I'll quote just this much, but will answer to much of that block. That any character named in any ancient document might have been an actual, historical person, is a given. We have to take what we have, do further research and cross-referencing, and so on. The character of the document may end up being any possible combinations of actual, historical personage, and embellished, imaginative character. Of course, we have to be realistic, right? To fail there is to fail altogether--and far many do. That Saul of Tarsus was a historical person, is quite certain. That there had been a certain Yeshua who had started the movement which became Christianity, is very certain. That the character Jesus, as build up by the gospel narratives and Saul, and others, had been a historical person is far less likely.

It's obviously unwise to claim that his Road To Damascus experience absolutely never happened.

I see no sound and valid knowledge leading to this conclusion.

If you took the incident as presented in the Book Of Acts, and put yourself in Paul's shoes (and apply it to a modern day scenario), you could answer the question.

This is erroneous methodology, however. It is exactly this suggested process which causes a false conclusion to be reached. As I had correctly said before, the question you had presented is unanswerable. Additionally, this is very tied in with another pertinent factor which I had mentioned earlier, too. So, let's run through the facts, then.

The document Acts is attributed to one Luke, a Grecian physician. That document is likely a continuation of the gospel narrative which bears his name, but it was addressed to a single individual. It was explicitly written to reinforce what had been taught to that person. The document as we have received it, does evidence the possibility of more than one hand--editing. The document is somewhat later in date than that of Paul's early authentic letters. Here, specifically, we can focus on 1 Corinthians. This particular Luke was, more likely, a member of Saul's troupe, but seemingly had not been with him all of the time of Saul's work.

At 1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:7-10, we really don't find any detail at all about Saul's claim to have 'seen the messiah.' We don't seem to see any further detail in the rest of his authentic letters, either. We find that the only detail we have, at Acts 9:3-22, lets us know from a third-person report, rather than from a first-person perspective. Since linguistically, the style is different too, we can conclude that Saul had not been directly involved with this report.

Then, we will want to look at the players. We have Judaism--a natural fact. We have Saul, a more likely historical person (which does not mean that anything and everything written about him is historical truth). Saul would have worshiped Yahweh. There were reportedly other Jewish males with him. In Damascus, there was said to be a man named Ananias living. Then, there was the supernatural 'Son of God.' There was thus, Yahweh, the god whose son Jesus was said to have been.

So, assuming the existence of the historically reliable characters (we have to hold the supernatural aside because they are not all agreed upon(1)), we know for a fact that their brains worked as human brains do work. There is no need to bring this to today. There is error in failing to accept the fact that what is known about brain function now, is fully applicable to humans in that day too. To deal with this accurately and correctly--as well as rationally and realistically--we have to apply this knowledge too.

In summary to this point, therefore, it is wrong-headed to require a person living today, to put themselves in the position of a character in an ancient story, and ask them to answer a question which requires holding present knowledge aside. The question cannot be answered. That means, it cannot be answered as a true question with a true answer.

If you had some sort of revelation directly from God giving the same message concerning Jesus Christ as given to Paul, you would have 1 of 2 reactions (putting choice aside). Either you would adjust to the new found reality, or...you do something along the lines of going insane. You would have to either comfortably resolve that your worldview was wrong, and you have to look at your view of scriptures in a different light, and probably your view of science in terms of Creation and Evolution.

This is again erroneous methodology. For one, you are mixing tenses--past and present are getting mixed up. For another, you are firstly assuming a number of matters to be facts, and positing what one would do, if such and such happened. That's error. For this reason, AquaLung, it is methodologically, is mistaken. The question is therefore wrong.

Even in the story provided, it was not God, who did anything at all, but rather it had been Yahweh's son, Jesus. That is a very common Christian mistake. That some documents became canonical documents, means just slightly more than anything beyond the fact that they were documents among a good number of documents used by Christian groups in the late second century, to early third century, CE, which did not become canonical documents. In other words, that we have the books of the New Testament means little more than that there were documents which could have become books of the New Testament. It's really nothing to make any big deal about, actually.

To use a very crude scenario (and I do mean crude), ...

Not sure at all about what you were trying to get at there, but trust me, that type of argumentation (done before, of course) has been shot down as nonsensical and worthless. It makes no sound and valid statement at all about reality.

Is the idea of a God sent savior for mankind really so far off that you couldn't adjust to a knew truth (or world view)? Is Evolution so rock solid a concept that your whole world would shatter if you found out that the Biblical model of Creation is our past history?

Well, if Yahweh had been the real, actual supernatural being that the Tanakh had described and prescribed him as being, believe you me we would have all definitely known about it all along. There is no mistake about that. Also, when I say all along, I mean from the very beginning. It just happens to be, actually, that we do know that Yahweh did not exist all along--and so of course, we lack the required evidence which the creators of that god so diligently put into him.

Again, it is Christian bias which posits the God-sent savior concept most usually. The to-be-sent messiah by Yahweh was of a different nature than the later developed Christian notion which we usually find. In fact, the common Christian notion is totally self-contradictory. It requires that God be some absolutely incoherent being which has no equivalent in nature, and which itself denies Yahweh altogether.

What is happening, is that an assumption is being held to. That assumption is that the claims to know that had been made a long, long time ago, are true. It is from that point that argument is being presented upon the claims. However, the fallacy is failing to firstly verify the claims. To verify all claims made by those of the very first moments of what became Christianity (call them 'the way' [Acts 9;2]), one has to first verify all claims made by those of the Jewish system during the Second Temple Period, the First Temple Period, as well as the several canonical groups. Also, we must verify the claims made before the Jewish system proper had taken the stronger position in early Canaanite Israeli tribal system--before Yahweh was the main god. And, it goes on from there, backwards chronologically, as well.




1. First century non-Christian Jews denied that any human had been supernaturally a son of Yahweh, Non-Jews denied that Yahweh was a really existing god. The earlier early Christian Jews, even, denied the validity of the then present Jewish system. All the denying amounts to crossing out each other, and therefore none can be equal to the fact that humans were existing beings.

 

[AquaLung]

After throwing this around a little more, I came up with an idea of making a deal with the involved readership here. I'll try to make a consistent effort to write in more of a journalistic-friendly flow, if the readership will make an equally consistent effort to reason through what they, and I, write, logically--that is no logic fallacies, no argumentation fallacies, and adherence to rationalized lines of thought development. I think this may be a fair shake. It might mean, I think, that I may need to add footnotes from time to time. I only hope all will make an effort to read those too. Anyway, I'll give a shot (seeing how readership responds to it's end of the offer).

You and I (and I'm sure others here) seem to definitely have an issue with time. There are some backtracking I'd like to do.

I'd like to ask RolandtheHeadless to allow this little bit of deep embedding here, now. (It'll surely eventually work back up to the general topic about God, as per OP.)

I'll quote just this much, but will answer to much of that block. That any character named in any ancient document might have been an actual, historical person, is a given. We have to take what we have, do further research and cross-referencing, and so on. The character of the document may end up being any possible combinations of actual, historical personage, and embellished, imaginative character. Of course, we have to be realistic, right? To fail there is to fail altogether--and far many do. That Saul of Tarsus was a historical person, is quite certain. That there had been a certain Yeshua who had started the movement which became Christianity, is very certain. That the character Jesus, as build up by the gospel narratives and Saul, and others, had been a historical person is far less likely.

My point is that the character as you put it Jesus, as built up by the Gospel narratives is history. It's in an historical context. He wasn't presented as is for the purpose of using a real person for fables. Basically the historical accounts are either right or wrong. And terms like far less likely are one of a number of phrases used from skeptical perspectives. The only real reasons for the skepticism is due to the fact that miracles are not in the norm. The only reason to suggest, for instance, that Jesus did not walk on water is because it's impossible for humans to walk on liquid. We have an eye-witnessl account given that Jesus walked on water. In addition, we have skepticism because walking on water defies gravitational law. What we don't have is any contradictory eye-witness accounts from anyone else directly involved, nor any eye-witness accounts from any viewing from the outside stating that the water was actually only ankle-deep, turned to ice, etc.

I see no sound and valid knowledge leading to this conclusion.

Do you think it would be wise to claim that it absolutely did not happen?

This is erroneous methodology, however. It is exactly this suggested process which causes a false conclusion to be reached. As I had correctly said before, the question you had presented is unanswerable. Additionally, this is very tied in with another pertinent factor which I had mentioned earlier, too. So, let's run through the facts, then.

The document Acts is attributed to one Luke, a Grecian physician. That document is likely a continuation of the gospel narrative which bears his name, but it was addressed to a single individual. It was explicitly written to reinforce what had been taught to that person. The document as we have received it, does evidence the possibility of more than one hand--editing. The document is somewhat later in date than that of Paul's early authentic letters. Here, specifically, we can focus on 1 Corinthians. This particular Luke was, more likely, a member of Saul's troupe, but seemingly had not been with him all of the time of Saul's work.

I know that one of the arguments concerning various scriptures is the fact that there were more likely second parties who did the actual writing of the various accounts, due to writing style, difference in education level, etc. I see no problems with this at all, as this was not uncommon in the NME (Near Middle East for future reference) in general. I don't see any problem with Luke's possible lack of presence either. At least not without further elaboration.

At 1 Corinthians 9:1, 15:7-10, we really don't find any detail at all about Saul's claim to have 'seen the messiah.' We don't seem to see any further detail in the rest of his authentic letters, either. We find that the only detail we have, at Acts 9:3-22, lets us know from a third-person report, rather than from a first-person perspective. Since linguistically, the style is different too, we can conclude that Saul had not been directly involved with this report.

Again, I don't see any problem. My question to you would be why would you require any more detail that was already given?

Then, we will want to look at the players. We have Judaism--a natural fact. We have Saul, a more likely historical person (which does not mean that anything and everything written about him is historical truth). Saul would have worshiped Yahweh. There were reportedly other Jewish males with him. In Damascus, there was said to be a man named Ananias living. Then, there was the supernatural 'Son of God.' There was thus, Yahweh, the god whose son Jesus was said to have been.

This is where I would follow your at times concern of off-shoot. This particular quote seems to inevitably lead into the Did Jesus Ever Claim To Be God issue.

So, assuming the existence of the historically reliable characters (we have to hold the supernatural aside because they are not all agreed upon(1)), we know for a fact that their brains worked as human brains do work. There is no need to bring this to today. There is error in failing to accept the fact that what is known about brain function now, is fully applicable to humans in that day too. To deal with this accurately and correctly--as well as rationally and realistically--we have to apply this knowledge too.

I agree. And I also believe that they would know the difference back then, even without modern understanding. What is known today doesn't answer the questions of modern day miracles (there are reported miracles today of course), conversions, etc. One of the ironies is the phrases/understanding that The brain is complicated, there is so much we don't yet know about it, can do things we don't yet understand, etc., are used to suggest that any number of unexplained miracles could be merely activities in the brain that we don't yet understand. It's been used as sort of a fall-back for what cannot be explained. All one has to do is say The brain can play funny tricks on us. At the same time there's a hesitancy to admit that we don't know, and all phenomenon has to by default fall into a box labeled What we know about the brain today.

In summary to this point, therefore, it is wrong-headed to require a person living today, to put themselves in the position of a character in an ancient story, and ask them to answer a question which requires holding present knowledge aside. The question cannot be answered. That means, it cannot be answered as a true question with a true answer.

It can be asked in a number of ways. I use Paul's ancient historical account because it's easy to identify with. There are people in modern day who make similar claims that can be used as an example. I can use my account (not my Aqualung account) as an example; but being a contemporary/peer I think poses a common problem. Basically the question involves either an I could accept it, or I couldn't accept it answer.

This is again erroneous methodology. For one, you are mixing tenses--past and present are getting mixed up. For another, you are firstly assuming a number of matters to be facts, and positing what one would do, if such and such happened. That's error. For this reason, AquaLung, it is methodologically, is mistaken. The question is therefore wrong.

Hmm. Maybe see above?

Even in the story provided, it was not God, who did anything at all, but rather it had been Yahweh's son, Jesus. That is a very common Christian mistake. That some documents became canonical documents, means just slightly more than anything beyond the fact that they were documents among a good number of documents used by Christian groups in the late second century, to early third century, CE, which did not become canonical documents. In other words, that we have the books of the New Testament means little more than that there were documents which could have become books of the New Testament. It's really nothing to make any big deal about, actually.

Believe it or not, this is is sort of refreshing to read. So much seems to be made of the canonical documents (from a skeptical perspective), like The Book Of Revelation was placed in purely for political reasons. In more simpler terms, the books of the OT were chosen by virtue of authentic prophets, and the NT by virtue of authentic apostles. Given that alone, there's no reason to suggest, biases, conspiracy theories, etc.

I'll have to continue this a bit later...