It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the fall had to occur

page: 12
5
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 02:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

No the universe has not been confirmed flat.



Not confirmed, it still could be too big to measure the curvature.
You're strip mining pop-sci articles to fit your religious views which is so anti-science, it hurts my teeth.

Please go here:
www.physicsforums.com...


originally posted by: chr0naut

If the universe arose from nothing, as is suggested, there isn't anything outside of the universe.

If it didn't arise from nothing, then we have an issue of original cause just being pushed back further.

Since we have no evidence or measurement of anything but our universe, everything else is tenuous beyond hypothesis.


I agree it is a mystery.


originally posted by: chr0naut

Hard to debunk for you!
I don't hear any counter-arguments that are are putting stress on his arguments.



Besides the problem of original cause I don't hear you debunking any of those either. It's still a kind of god-in-the-gap to put a god as the first cause. But I'm not against deism of some sort, I really don't know?


originally posted by: chr0naut
- The many worlds interpretation has an issue of where all that energy comes from.

- The huge proliferation of universes for explaining the observations of an observer. In a way it does not respect the Occam's razor. (Many worlders claim MWI respects it since this interpretation has an economy of principles).

- The problem of preferred basis, where we subjectively find ourselves in one branch. There are major problems with this interpretation.

- Different branches can and will recombine in the future. This is seldom emphasized, but this throws a wrench in the interpretation. In fact, for a system in thermal equilibrium, branching and recombination happens at an equal rate. It's only thanks to the fact that locally, we are out of equilibrium that one-way branching makes any approximate sense at all.

- There's no canonical preferred basis in general, not even macroscopically. Decoherence works most of the time at macroscopic scales, but with many important exceptions. If decoherence were universal at macroscopic scales, do you think we'd be able to observe double slit experiments or superconductivity or quantum optics? Even more troubling is the fact that the basis to be chosen can depend contextually upon future decisions, as in the delayed choice experiment.

- In the many minds interpretation, subjectively fixing the conscious state of the observer still leaves most of the rest of the universe in an indeterminate superposition. Only those coarse-grained properties of the "world out there" corresponding to our internal conscious states will be determined by entanglement.

- If the other worlds out there have some objective existence, how come we can't extract information from them, except in very special cases where we have a coherent variation in the phase and amplitudes between the many branches which then recombine? Not only that, after recombination, the separate worlds lose their separate identities. Besides, a coherent variation rules out the possibility of a complex intelligent observer, at least in the part of the wave

- Defining a suitable measure of probability to achieve Born rule (i.e. p(x)=|ψ(x)|2).

- Other universes can not be observed. (A variation of saying it does not respect Occam's razor)

- It is rather a psychological way of thinking about Q.T. rather than a real ontology.


I've seen this list before. You are just copy pasteing a bunch of reasons why some physicist doesn't agree with relative state. I'm not a proponent of the relative state formulation so I'm not sure why you copied this?


originally posted by: chr0naut

Science is about objective evidence, without objective evidence, it isn't science.


You don't accept objective evidence that goes against your faith based beliefs.
And those pop-sci articles that support steady state are hypothetical.

This is what science literate say about that stuff:

Multiverse theory is speculative. Discussion of a particular peer-reviewed paper exploring it might be ok, but general discussion based on Wikipedia is not. Thread closed.

Reference www.physicsforums.com...



edit on 23-1-2018 by joelr because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2018 by joelr because: html




posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 02:46 AM
link   

originally posted by: chr0nautWe can also ignore history and decide that it is all allegory.


We don't have to ignore all history. History tells us Christianity is mythology.

originally posted by: chr0naut
You can decide Mormonism is historically accurate, along with Zeus and his demigod son Hercules. That could be accurate.
But probabilistically it's probably allegory. Equally so is the Christian mythology.



Probabalisticly, you could be wrong. Therefore you are.

You see, it is a slippery slope.

So Thor was real, great! See, it's actually not a slippery slope at all because I know you know there was no Thor.

See how easy it is.



originally posted by: chr0naut

What tests?


There have been many many tests of ESP, I used to read about them. Uri Gellar for example was tested a bit. Physics have been tested all the time. James Randi has done a lot of work in trying to dis-prove ESP powers as well.

Over the years I've read about all kinds of double-blind experiments on random number generators, all that sort of stuff.

Anyways, the entire supernatural thing is basically one big zero. I used to believe SOMEONE had to have something, but nope. No proof whatsoever.





originally posted by: chr0nautHowever, there is no evidence that damns every single accused and there is evidence which acquits the vast majority.

Do we reject all science because scientific fraudsters have been found out? No.


That's because Science WORKS. Supernatural happenings have NEVER been shown true. You are trying so hard to convince yourself that a supernatural religion could be true.




originally posted by: chr0naut
To paraphrase you; 'Every scientific hypothesis created by humans, is clearly a mythology as they are based upon assumptions that cannot be proven. The origins are traceable, the words are obvious metaphor, allegories, the drama is 100% pseudoscientific syncretism'.


No that's not even close. I'm actually saying the same thing you are saying. All religions (except Christianity) and mythologies and fictional stories and Marvel comics are not actually real things.
I'm just going one further and saying also Christianity.
Your worldview allows for ANY of the thousands of mythological characters created by humans to be true.

But you know they are not. You wouldn't even consider it.
You probably don't even believe what original Christians DID believe- that the other gods did exist but were demonic. Christianity was originally monolithic, not monotheistic.




originally posted by: chr0naut
Romulus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not even close.


Ouch. Your source on Romulus is Wiki?? That's embarrassing for you. You like to correct my spelling. Well your methods need correcting.
www.youtube.com... at 12:15

Carrier sources his work in his book.
D.M. Murdock spoke on the fact that encyclopedia articles written decades ago are often what's used in making Wiki articles. But decades ago you could not publish information about a pre-Christian dying and rising god who was similar to Jesus. It could not happen.
The word "parthenogenesis" had to be used to refer to a non-Christian virgin birth. You get the idea.


So no, scholarship can show that Romulus came first.




originally posted by: chr0naut
You know this. So Theism had no proof or even any scientific probability of being real.
Or about the same as Thor.


You have no proof of any of your circular reasoning. It is unfounded opinion.

You see, probabalisticly, you could be wrong. Therefore you are.




Ok so Thor was real. I guess you showed me.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 04:40 AM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

Because Acts is accepted as forgery


What proof do you have that it was forged?


and in Paul's letters there is no mention of any earthly Jesus or his works.


That is because Paul became a Christian after Jesus was dead and never met Jesus before His Crucifixion.

If Paul wanted to big-note himself and made stuff up, he could have claimed that he sat at the feet of Jesus in his youth. He made no such claim because he was honest.


None whatsoever.
It's likely Paul was referring to a Jesus in the celestial realm.


Paul doesn't ever say that and no contemporary sources say that about him either.


Here: www.youtube.com...
at 40:30 information on the celestial realms and how it relates to resurrection and as a general concept in those days and reasons why Paul was probably referring to a celestial Jesus.

"Archaeons of this Aeon" is a phrase Paul uses to describe who killed Jesus and a phrase that is also later used to refer to demons.


Actually Paul said, in 1 Corinthians 2:6, "We do, however, speak a message of wisdom among the mature, but not the wisdom of this age (Greek: 'aion') or of the rulers (Greek: 'archons') of this age (Greek: 'aion'), who are coming to nothing".



Paul only knows of Jesus through revelation and scripture.
Mark takes the Pauline Jesus and creates an earthly story around it.


If Jesus was a fabrication by Paul, how could there exist a Christian church that Paul was persecuting, before Paul became a Christian?

After Paul's vision on the way to Damascus, Paul spent 3 years learning about Jesus, before Paul started his mission.


"Suffer not a woman to teach, blah blah" There are various reasons we know Paul's letters to Timothy are forgery but one is that originally Paul was very supportive of women in the church but by the 2nd century Christians were not into woman having power so they forged supposed letters from Paul taking power away from women. The writing styles as well as historical mistakes have shown Acts to be false.


In the 3 years after his conversion and before his ministry, Paul was taught by Phoebe of Corinth (Romans 16:1-2).

Paul also didn't write the Acts of the Apostles.



originally posted by: chr0naut
The dates that the 1st gospel is written is not known but it's safe to say they were not written until 1 human lifespan had passed.


Nope complete unfounded BS.



originally posted by: chr0naut
No, the news does not report parables.


I didn't say that. I said that news stories used common idiom. Some of these idioms are founded in religion. As a textual criticism, the use of idiom does not invalidate attribution and is really a weak argument.


The leading bible archeologist William Denver, straight up - The Bible is NOT HISTORY.


The actual full quote (just under the second picture) from William Dever is,"I like to point out to my undergraduate students that the Bible is not history; it's 'His' story—Yahweh's story, God's story."

How incredibly deceptive of you.


Carrier goes on to describe many of the parables, borrowed mythology and so forth in his free lectures. I can lead one to information if one wants to remain ignorant have at it.


originally posted by: chr0naut
Christians believe whatever they want, I'm listening to historians and archeologists and that is EXACTLY what they say.


No, you are listening to only those who you think support your opinions. Your views do not reflect the majority view of scholars and archaeologists.



originally posted by: chr0naut
Too much to explain, I'll have to let Carrier do it:

www.youtube.com...

go to 17:15


I'm not interested in the vapourous and unsubstantiated.

Please stop referring to Dick Carrier on YouTube and provide actual academically credentialed and peer reviewed support for your statements.



originally posted by: chr0naut
You don't understand at all how religious syncretism works.


But I do know how to spell the word better than you. Perhaps it is you that doesn't understand?


The dying and rising messiah cult was the "thing" and slowly made it's way through various religions. We know for sure of 5 or 6 that for sure pre-date Christianity but likely they all do. Each time they change a little bit but add elements of the religion they are being adapted into.
They all feature personal salvation and baptism. It's a Jewish version of the messiah cult, with Jewish salvation and a Jewish savior.

Jesus simply replaces the temple and the need to attend daily temple rituals. The fig tree parable is explaining how the temple is no longer needed now that we have Jesus to forgive our sins.
Jewish metaphysics didn't even have an afterlife never mind Jesus/Satan rivalries before it was adapted from the messiah cults.


originally posted by: chr0naut
It's accepted that every mention of Jesus outside of the gospels is either a forgery or simply referencing the already known gospels. End of story.


No, it isn't "end of story". You have made a statement that has no basis in fact. You have not provided even a strong reason to doubt the majority view. It is your opinion only.



originally posted by: chr0naut
Not true.

The book is The Gnostic Gospels, I'm holding it right now in fact.


That's not what you called it before.


The Nag Hammandi contained over 52 texts including the gospel of Thomas. This was Pagels source material.


The 13 codices of the Nag Hammadi Library have 51 'titles' but they aren't actually separate texts.

As an example of the integrity of the content, the "Republic by Plato" in Codex 6 is not Plato's "Republic", the complete text of which is totally different to, and far longer than, the Nag Hammadi "version".



originally posted by: chr0naut
We do not even know who wrote the gospels.
John has multiple endings, Mark has 2 endings, signs that stuff was added later. We don't know which Acts is the original.
The author of John may have been Lazarus - internal evidence says it's source was the "beloved of Jesus" which was only Lazurus.
We also know Lazurus was invented to invert the parable of Lazurus and Luke.


Now you are suggesting something that isn't supported by either the texts or by extra-Biblical sources.

You say that Jesus was not historical and then that Jesus was only a man (which implies that He was historical, doesn't it?).

You said that all Biblical and extra-Biblical texts were fakes but you make wild interpretations based upon them.

Can you see the rational inconsistencies of what you have been saying?



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 04:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0nautNo the universe has not been confirmed flat.


Not confirmed, it still could be too big to measure the curvature.
You're strip mining pop-sci articles to fit your religious views which is so anti-science, it hurts my teeth.

Please go here:
www.physicsforums.com...


WMAP, Planck and BOOMERanG have independently confirmed that the observable universe is flat with a 0.4% margin of error.

You can't negate the science with posts in a pop-sci forum topic (and stop the bruxism, perhaps you have worms?).

(I am also an occasional contributor on physicsforums, thanks for the free promo)





originally posted by: chr0nautIf the universe arose from nothing, as is suggested, there isn't anything outside of the universe.

If it didn't arise from nothing, then we have an issue of original cause just being pushed back further.

Since we have no evidence or measurement of anything but our universe, everything else is tenuous beyond hypothesis.
I agree it is a mystery.


originally posted by: chr0naut

Hard to debunk for you!
I don't hear any counter-arguments that are are putting stress on his arguments.


Perhaps you need to put your head closer to the keyboard, to hear?



Besides the problem of original cause I don't hear you debunking any of those either. It's still a kind of god-in-the-gap to put a god as the first cause. But I'm not against deism of some sort, I really don't know?


Having God as first cause leaves no gaps.

You cannot claim your ignorance as the basis of an attack on someone else's reasoning. That would be you being ignorant and an admission of basing your opinion on little, or no, reasoning at all.



originally posted by: chr0naut
- The many worlds interpretation has an issue of where all that energy comes from.

- The huge proliferation of universes for explaining the observations of an observer. In a way it does not respect the Occam's razor. (Many worlders claim MWI respects it since this interpretation has an economy of principles).

- The problem of preferred basis, where we subjectively find ourselves in one branch. There are major problems with this interpretation.

- Different branches can and will recombine in the future. This is seldom emphasized, but this throws a wrench in the interpretation. In fact, for a system in thermal equilibrium, branching and recombination happens at an equal rate. It's only thanks to the fact that locally, we are out of equilibrium that one-way branching makes any approximate sense at all.

- There's no canonical preferred basis in general, not even macroscopically. Decoherence works most of the time at macroscopic scales, but with many important exceptions. If decoherence were universal at macroscopic scales, do you think we'd be able to observe double slit experiments or superconductivity or quantum optics? Even more troubling is the fact that the basis to be chosen can depend contextually upon future decisions, as in the delayed choice experiment.

- In the many minds interpretation, subjectively fixing the conscious state of the observer still leaves most of the rest of the universe in an indeterminate superposition. Only those coarse-grained properties of the "world out there" corresponding to our internal conscious states will be determined by entanglement.

- If the other worlds out there have some objective existence, how come we can't extract information from them, except in very special cases where we have a coherent variation in the phase and amplitudes between the many branches which then recombine? Not only that, after recombination, the separate worlds lose their separate identities. Besides, a coherent variation rules out the possibility of a complex intelligent observer, at least in the part of the wave

- Defining a suitable measure of probability to achieve Born rule (i.e. p(x)=|ψ(x)|2).

- Other universes can not be observed. (A variation of saying it does not respect Occam's razor)

- It is rather a psychological way of thinking about Q.T. rather than a real ontology.
I've seen this list before. You are just copy pasteing a bunch of reasons why some physicist doesn't agree with relative state. I'm not a proponent of the relative state formulation so I'm not sure why you copied this?


Yes, I copied and pasted. I did so because you asked for reasons and I didn't feel the need to waste my time reformatting what were entirely adequate answers to your request. I did not attribute them to myself and they were publicly and anonymously posted.

The points I responded with were issues with the Many Worlds interpretations of which Everett's 'relative state' is one particular 'flavor'.

Only one of the posted points raised specific issues with relative state although there are more general points that could also apply to a relative state interpretation.



originally posted by: chr0naut

Science is about objective evidence, without objective evidence, it isn't science.
You don't accept objective evidence that goes against your faith based beliefs.


I'm still waiting for some objective scientific evidence to be tendered, that would argue against my faith based beliefs.

For example, it is usual for those who disagree with the existence of God to cite an absence of evidence for God. This does not mean that there is an absence of evidence for God, it is just that they reject that evidence. Therefore they have no evidence to present.

One cannot apply scientific method to an absence of evidence, so while they believe they are being 'reasonable' and 'scientific', they are instead, clearly deluded.


And those pop-sci articles that support steady state are hypothetical.


Yes. As are the ones that support a Big Bang, it just took us a while of collecting data to see that.


This is what science literate say about that stuff:

Multiverse theory is speculative.


That was my point. That was why I raised that list of objections to MWH's that you obviously didn't understand.


Discussion of a particular peer-reviewed paper exploring it might be ok, but general discussion based on Wikipedia is not.


Wikipedia represents a topical accumulation of the knowledge of subject matter experts.

I'm not sure why anyone would have objection to it, except in an academic situation where it might be misused by students who copy and paste from it, without actually gaining an understanding of its contents or implied associations with other related subjects.

Wikipedia quite accurately condenses related peer-reviewed papers down to concise summation by topic and is therefore at least as credentialed as the papers from which it is written and which are linked to in the footer references.

Perhaps you would not have responded with copy and paste non-answers (as you have done four times so far in this thread), if you had read and understood the Wikipedia articles on the subjects?



Thread closed.


I doubt it. You'll be back.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 05:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
What proof do you have that it was forged?

Sure, in this lecture Carrier shows the 3 most accredited peer reviewed and accepted books on how Acts is fiction right at the start. 0:29
www.youtube.com... all scholars who are NOT Carrier.

OR just keep listening and he covers much of the material. Accepted material.


originally posted by: chr0naut

If Paul wanted to big-note himself and made stuff up,.


But Pauls documents are the first we have and there is no mention of an Earthly Jesus and the gospels are highly suspect.


originally posted by: chr0naut

Paul doesn't ever say that and no contemporary sources say that about him either.

Paul only refers to revelation and scripture. Carrier makes a case as to why he may be referring to a celestial Jesus.
Epistles only speak of scripture and a pre-existant celestial being.
www.youtube.com... go to 5:20



originally posted by: chr0naut

If Jesus was a fabrication by Paul, how could there exist a Christian church that Paul was persecuting, before Paul became a Christian?

I'll have to take this to a different thread.




originally posted by: chr0naut



Paul also didn't write the Acts of the Apostles.

Yes but the 6 versions of Acts that mention Paul are Christian forgeries. Same video 6:24


originally posted by: chr0naut

Nope complete unfounded BS.

All scholarship agrees the gospels were not written until at least 30 years had passed but that's the low limit.
47 years was a lifetime. I can source this.


originally posted by: chr0naut

I didn't say that. I said that news stories used common idiom. Some of these idioms are founded in religion. As a textual criticism, the use of idiom does not invalidate attribution and is really a weak argument.


We have gospels clearly stolen from earlier myths and full of parables and allegory based on writing analysis and historical mistakes. One can fantasize that this stuff is real but a scientific analysis reveals it to be mythology.
The evidence is so overwhelming that there is no doubt. Any other opinion is simply a faith based belief, hence my original point that there is no science here in believing in these myths.


originally posted by: chr0naut

How incredibly deceptive of you.


He's not saying "gods story" means it's a real actual god and you know this to be true. He's saying it's not historical and attempts to make it so have led to frustration by Christian archeologists.
There is no deception here.
"faith is faith is faith—take your proofs and go with them." this is what I've been saying, science, proof, nope, you don't get to say it's scientifically true with religion. It's only faith. I've said this from my 1st post.


originally posted by: chr0naut

No, you are listening to only those who you think support your opinions. Your views do not reflect the majority view of scholars and archaeologists.


You keep bringing up scholarship and their opinion, fine let's go with that. There was no supernatural Jesus, end of story. This is what the field says so that's it. That is the majority view, you brought it up over and over, there it is.
Now your view is not supported and is fantasy so it's true that your view is not compatible with science.


As to archaeologists it's the same, it can't be used to prove divinity. On both accounts you lose.


originally posted by: chr0naut

I'm not interested in the vapourous and unsubstantiated.


He's the last PHd to do a historicity study since 1926 but most of his opinions are simply standard of the field.
The entire idea of a supernatural Jesus is a myth that scholarship does not believe.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Please stop referring to Dick Carrier on YouTube and provide actual academically credentialed and peer reviewed support for your statements.


How dare you. You've been posting all kinds of apologetics crap including the idea that "recent archeological findings support the Jesus story" - pure bull# and now you think you can pull that?
You've lost.


originally posted by: chr0naut

But I do know how to spell the word better than you. ?

Probably. You might as well take you win where you can because your otherwise doing awful.
How about those sources on Carrier and the archeological proofs of Jesus?


originally posted by: chr0naut

No, it isn't "end of story". You have made a statement that has no basis in fact. You have not provided even a strong reason to doubt the majority view. It is your opinion only.


Carriers statements on extra-biblical evidence is not his own it's the current supported evidence in the field.
Bart Ehrman, Elaine Pagels, Price they all debunk any extra biblical sources as either fake or simply referring to the gospels.


originally posted by: chr0naut


", the complete text of which is totally different to, and far longer than, the Nag Hammadi "version".


It's a fascinating look into early Christianity. You should read it.
"By investigating the text of the Nag Hammandi, together with sources well known for well over 1000 years from orthodox tradition, we can see how politics and religion coincide in the development of christianity. We can see, for example, the political implications of such orthodox doctrines as the bodly resurrection - and how Gnostic views of resurrection bear opposite implications. In the process we gain a startlingly new perspective on the origins of Christianity."

Why, it sounds like science! See what you fundamentalists miss out on!

originally posted by: chr0naut

Now you are suggesting something that isn't supported by either the texts or by extra-Biblical sources.


This is all known in scholarship, just because they don't discuss multiple endings and analysis of writing styles in church doesn't mean it doesn't actually happen in the field. Do you not know the gospels were not written by said authors? "Kata Memori" I think - "as told to me by" they all start with that Greek


originally posted by: chr0naut


Can you see the rational inconsistencies of what you have been saying?


This is what the field says. The gospels cannot be verified except as stolen mythology and through writing analysis we see the parables. Pick one specific extra-biblical source and we can examine it through scholarship. It's going to be either a proved forgery or something where we can't tell if the writer is just referring to Jesus from the scriptures. Therefore it can't be used as evidence supporting divinity.
edit on 23-1-2018 by joelr because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2018 by joelr because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2018 by joelr because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2018 by joelr because: (no reason given)

edit on 23-1-2018 by joelr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 05:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


WMAP, Planck and BOOMERanG have independently confirmed that the observable universe is flat with a 0.4% margin of error.

You can't negate the science with posts in a pop-sci forum topic (and stop the bruxism, perhaps you have worms?).

(I am also an occasional contributor on physicsforums, thanks for the free promo)


I love physcisforums and it simply does not support your belief that the universe MUST be flat.


originally posted by: chr0naut


Perhaps you need to put your head closer to the keyboard, to hear?

All you did is copy&paste a list of why one cosmologist disagrees with relativistic state. It's not even a big part of that lecture at all.
It's also speculative and there are opposing opinions from other cosmologists. For example - the universe CAN expand faster than light because it's space-time moving, not mass moving inside space-time.
There are many potential errors in that list but again, I don't believe in relative state either so this doesnt' even apply to my posts?



originally posted by: chr0naut
Besides the problem of original cause I don't hear you debunking any of those either. It's still a kind of god-in-the-gap to put a god as the first cause. But I'm not against deism of some sort, I really don't know?


Having God as first cause leaves no gaps.


Except you have to explain why there is this god in the first place. It's at least an open argument unlike all that religious fan fiction that people pretend is real.


originally posted by: chr0naut


Yes, I copied and pasted. I did so because you asked for reasons and I didn't feel the need to waste my time reformatting what were entirely adequate answers to your request. I did not attribute them to myself and they were publicly and anonymously posted.

The points I responded with were issues with the Many Worlds interpretations of which Everett's 'relative state' is one particular 'flavor'.

Only one of the posted points raised specific issues with relative state although there are more general points that could also apply to a relative state interpretation.

The lecture on why we don't need a god to start the universe had no bearing on relative state theory?


originally posted by: chr0naut


You don't accept objective evidence that goes against your faith based beliefs.

I'm still waiting for some objective scientific evidence to be tendered, that would argue against my faith based beliefs.


The historicity field shows the bible to be the story of a teacher, no supernatural happenings.
Now Carriers work has shown the mythicist theory to be superior to historicity.
William Denver has shown the bible to be a collection of stories that cannot be related to history.

All you have left is faith. You don't have to accept it, but that's where we are.

originally posted by: chr0naut
For example, it is usual for those who disagree with the existence of God to cite an absence of evidence for God. This does not mean that there is an absence of evidence for God, it is just that they reject that evidence. Therefore they have no evidence to present.


Carrier began his 6 year historicity study open minded about the existence of the Christian deities. His work led him to see it's pure mythology.

originally posted by: chr0naut
One cannot apply scientific method to an absence of evidence, so while they believe they are being 'reasonable' and 'scientific', they are instead, clearly deluded.


So science cannot prove that there was no supernatural Hercules or Thor or Innana?

originally posted by: chr0naut


Yes. As are the ones that support a Big Bang, it just took us a while of collecting data to see that.


Right, we simply don't know, I keep saying this.

originally posted by: chr0naut



That was my point. That was why I raised that list of objections to MWH's that you obviously didn't understand.



Wikipedia represents a topical accumulation of the knowledge of subject matter experts.

I'm not sure why anyone would have objection to it, except in an academic situation where it might be misused by students who copy and paste from it, without actually gaining an understanding of its contents or implied associations with other related subjects.

Wikipedia quite accurately condenses related peer-reviewed papers down to concise summation by topic and is therefore at least as credentialed as the papers from which it is written and which are linked to in the footer references.

Perhaps you would not have responded with copy and paste non-answers (as you have done four times so far in this thread), if you had read and understood the Wikipedia articles on the subjects?


When it comes to pre-Christian religions the Wiki articles are written to steer away from angry fundamentalists.
When you pick up a book on biblical history written by a scholar you will find much more current and revealing information.
I've spoken to D.M. Murdock and Elaine Pagels about these issues. Encyclopedia articles much of this information was taken from are written in times when any anti-Christian information was frowned upon. It could result in poor sales or loss of jobs. SO running off to Wiki to learn about savior gods is not going to proving the same current information scholars write in their books.

Also, there are too many crank books about the Nicean council and alternate mythicist theories written by amateurs that have poisoned the well. So things proceed with caution. If you want accurate history, read the books I've pointed you to.

originally posted by: chr0naut
Thread closed.


I doubt it. You'll be back.


That's not me saying that, that is what the science advisor said about speaking of multiverse, flat/curved universe as if we know the answer. The thread was closed it's so non-science. Look at the thread I linked to.
I'm demonstrating your big bang cosmology is so speculative that it gets a thread closed in a real science forum.
So don't use it like it's accepted science.



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 07:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut

If Jesus was a fabrication by Paul, how could there exist a Christian church that Paul was persecuting, before Paul became a Christian?

Paul didn't invent Christianity, it looks like Mark did. Mark, right after the Jewish war wanted to re-write the OT stories in a more modern setting.

Mark's Jesus are stories about Elijea or Moses but changed to be Jesus stories. The OT message was growing old.
Mark also is taking ideas from Homer (it's in Greek) and using those stories.
He's creating a new Moses and such.

www.youtube.com... at 1:16 Carrier goes over the position of scholarship on the Mark gospel. He explains we know that Mark wasn't actually a poor, lowly person but an educated writer. His dialect is reflective of his entire message throughout the gospel "the least shall be first"



posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 07:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut


We don't have to ignore all history. History tells us Christianity is mythology.


Quite the opposite.

Historicity of Jesus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Historiography of early Christianity From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Christianity - New World Encyclopedia




originally posted by: chr0naut
Probabalisticly, you could be wrong. Therefore you are.

You see, it is a slippery slope.
So Thor was real, great! See, it's actually not a slippery slope at all because I know you know there was no Thor.


Have you seen the movies?



But, joking aside, what part of "you are wrong" equates to "Thor exists"?

Do you see that even your excuses for your opinion are irrational?


See how easy it is.

originally posted by: chr0nautWhat tests?

There have been many many tests of ESP, I used to read about them. Uri Gellar for example was tested a bit. Physics have been tested all the time. James Randi has done a lot of work in trying to dis-prove ESP powers as well.

Over the years I've read about all kinds of double-blind experiments on random number generators, all that sort of stuff.

Anyways, the entire supernatural thing is basically one big zero. I used to believe SOMEONE had to have something, but nope. No proof whatsoever.


You do realize that those claiming to have supernatural powers do not encompass all things supernatural?

From a point of reasoning, a thousand fakes can't prove that a truth does not exist.

There are still physical traces and evidence of things that have no natural explanation. Therefore something supernatural is evidenced. A single instance of something genuinely inexplicable by natural means, indicates that the supernatural exists.



originally posted by: chr0nautHowever, there is no evidence that damns every single accused and there is evidence which acquits the vast majority.

Do we reject all science because scientific fraudsters have been found out? No.
That's because Science WORKS. Supernatural happenings have NEVER been shown true. You are trying so hard to convince yourself that a supernatural religion could be true.


My contention is, and was, that science is incapable of making a determination about anything supernatural. You seem to now assume that I'm arguing the opposite (in fact, you have shown little consistency in your various posts).

We know that Incompleteness tells us that there must necessarily be things beyond natural explanation (i.e: supernatural). We know that there is physical evidence of things beyond natural explanation (supernatural). Yet you say science works (in capital letters!)? Surely science has failed big time, there.



originally posted by: chr0nautTo paraphrase you; 'Every scientific hypothesis created by humans, is clearly a mythology as they are based upon assumptions that cannot be proven. The origins are traceable, the words are obvious metaphor, allegories, the drama is 100% pseudoscientific syncretism'.
No that's not even close. I'm actually saying the same thing you are saying. All religions (except Christianity) and mythologies and fictional stories and Marvel comics are not actually real things. I'm just going one further and saying also Christianity.


I'm stepping back one, saying Christianity is not myth and opting for much modern science being mythological. We aren't saying the same thing at all.


Your worldview allows for ANY of the thousands of mythological characters created by humans to be true.

But you know they are not. You wouldn't even consider it.
You probably don't even believe what original Christians DID believe- that the other gods did exist but were demonic. Christianity was originally monolithic, not monotheistic.


Jewish monotheism, from which Christianity draws as basis for its core beliefs, was established thousands of years before Jesus. The following are from the New Testament:

"The foremost is, 'Hear, O Israel! The Lord our God is one Lord; " Mark 12:29
"you do not seek the glory that is from the one and only God?" John 5:44
"I and the Father are one." John 10:30
"This is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God" John 17:3
"The glory which You have given Me I have given to them, that they may be one, just as We are one" John 17:22
"since indeed God is one" Romans 3:30
"there is no God but one" 1 Corinthians 8:4
"yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him; and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him." 1 Corinthians 8:6
"Now a mediator is not for one party only; whereas God is only one." Galatians 3:20
"There is one body and one Spirit, one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all." Ephesians 4:4-6
"Now to the King eternal, immortal, invisible, the only God" 1 Timothy 1:17
"which He will bring about at the proper time—He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen." 1 Timothy 6:16
"For there is one God, and one mediator also between God and men, the man Christ Jesus," 1 Timothy 2:5
"You believe that God is one . You do well; the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19
"For certain persons deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ." Jude 4
"the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen. Jude 25


Clearly monotheist.



originally posted by: chr0nautRomulus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNot even close.
Ouch. Your source on Romulus is Wiki?? That's embarrassing for you. You like to correct my spelling. Well your methods need correcting.

www.youtube.com... at 12:15


And your source is on YouTube? Honestly?




Carrier sources his work in his book.
D.M. Murdock spoke on the fact that encyclopedia articles written decades ago are often what's used in making Wiki articles.


Dotty Murdock? She'd know, wouldn't she.




But decades ago you could not publish information about a pre-Christian dying and rising god who was similar to Jesus. It could not happen.


Wrong.



The word "parthenogenesis" had to be used to refer to a non-Christian virgin birth. You get the idea.

So no, scholarship can show that Romulus came first.


Romulus was supposed to have founded the Roman kingdom and historically was way after the establishment of Judaism.


originally posted by: chr0naut
Ok so Thor was real. I guess you showed me.


Nope, I never said that, it must be just a product of the voices in your head.




posted on Jan, 23 2018 @ 09:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


We don't have to ignore all history. History tells us Christianity is mythology.


Quite the opposite.

Historicity of Jesus From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Scholars in the field believe all supernatural aspects of christianity to be fiction/mythology. With or without those wiki articles this is what historians believe.


originally posted by: chr0naut

Have you seen the movies?

But, joking aside, what part of "you are wrong" equates to "Thor exists"?

Do you see that even your excuses for your opinion are irrational?


I love the Thor movies! But I'm saying any idea you use to suggest Jesus was a superhero could easily apply to Thor as well.


originally posted by: chr0naut


You do realize that those claiming to have supernatural powers do not encompass all things supernatural?


There are still physical traces and evidence of things that have no natural explanation. Therefore something supernatural is evidenced. A single instance of something genuinely inexplicable by natural means, indicates that the supernatural exists.


Sure, something beyond our current science may exist, something we would now call supernatural. I don't think that this fact makes any ancient mythology one iota more real. Zalmoxus still did not allow his followers forgiveness of sins or allow them a special place in the afterlife. In fact the entire model of some sky-father being pissed off at his creations for worshiping the wrong god and making fun of gods name and other various "sins" doesn't become any more real.
Hela wasn't really a death goddess anymore than Ashera was the companion goddess to Yaweh. Stories of demigods with Earth mothers and sky-fathers do not become any more true just because there are realms and metaphysics science hasn't discovered yet.


originally posted by: chr0naut
We know that there is physical evidence of things beyond natural explanation (supernatural). Surely science has failed big time, there.


That's just silly circular reasoning." Science has failed because there is stuff science hasn't yet discovered"??
There is no failure there? Sure there are probably many discoveries that await science. There may be an advanced race so far ahead of us they seem like supernatural gods to us.

This is NEVER going to double back and make human fiction come true. Maybe the Enterprise space ship could be built in the future but mythology from our past is not going to suddenly be real. Thor isn't going to jump out of the sky if we prove ESP to be a real skill.
We can use the scientific method to judge if a mythology is probabilistically true. This has been done and the supernatural aspects of all religions is mythology.


originally posted by: chr0naut

I'm stepping back one, saying Christianity is not myth and opting for much modern science being mythological. We aren't saying the same thing at all.

Some science will turn out to be myth as pointed out by the author of these great essays on teh mythology of the Matrix movies:
blogs.wylfing.net...

At some point he talks a lot about Joseph Campbell and his works as a way to understand mythical literature.
Then he suggests to look for mythology in Hawkings Brief History of Time.

But no old mythology is going to become literal fact, Hercues isn't going to turn up even though he has a sky-father Zeus and a virgin Earth mother.
The gospels are myth:
www.youtube.com...

originally posted by: chr0naut


Jewish monotheism, from which Christianity draws as basis for its core beliefs, was established thousands of years before Jesus. The following are from the New Testament:


Clearly monotheist. No they were monolatrist:


For the LORD your God is God of gods, and Lord of lords. Deuteronomy 10:17

Worship him, all ye gods. Psalm 97:7

O give thanks unto the God of gods. Psalm 136:2

Now I know that the LORD is greater than all gods. Exodus 18:11

Our Lord is above all gods. Psalm 135:5

The gods that have not made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from the earth, and from under these heavens. Jeremiah 10:11

And against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment. Exodus 12:12

Upon their gods also the LORD executed judgments. Numbers 33:4

God standeth in the congregation of the mighty, he judgeth among the gods. Psalm 82:1

For the Lord ... is to be feared above all gods. Psalm 96:4

Wilt not thou possess that which Chemosh thy god giveth thee to possess? Judges 11:24

And the king said unto her, Be not afraid: for what sawest thou? And the woman said unto Saul, I saw gods ascending out of the earth. 1 Samuel 28:13

For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 1 John 5:7

I don't buy the "Trinity" bunk, also angels are like gods. Monolatry.




originally posted by: chr0naut

And your source is on YouTube? Honestly?


The Wiki article is missing information. So here is a PHd who applied his doctorate specifically to biblical times explaining Romulus was a dying and rising Roman state god, who has been confirmed by scholarship standards to be pre-Christian.
www.youtube.com... go to 13:00


originally posted by: chr0naut

Dotty Murdock? She'd know, wouldn't she.


She would:
Acharya S, whose real name is D.M. Murdock, was classically educated at some of the finest schools, receiving a degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College, the 17th oldest college in the United States. At F&M, listed in the "highly selective" category in guides to top colleges and universities, Ms. Murdock studied under Dr. Robert Barnett, Dr. Joel Farber and Dr. Ann Steiner, among others.

Murdock has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete. Murdock has traveled extensively Europe,and she speaks, reads and/or writes over 10 languages.

I have spoken to her on the problem of information being purposefully emitted from articles, she confirms it as a very real truth.



originally posted by: chr0nautBut decades ago you could not publish information about a pre-Christian dying and rising god who was similar to Jesus. It could not happen.
Wrong.


Thomas Thompson, in the 1970's, a professor of old testament came out with a study claiming Moses and the Patriarchs were fictional. The effort to ruin his career was monumental and it still scares people today.
Thomas Brody, catholic priest, buried by the church for suggesting mythicism. This effects any and all speech and text that may go against Christianity and it relates to many encyclopedia articles also.




originally posted by: chr0naut
Romulus was supposed to have founded the Roman kingdom and historically was way after the establishment of Judaism.


But Romulus was before Jesus.



posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut
Scholars in the field believe all supernatural aspects of christianity to be fiction/mythology. With or without those wiki articles this is what historians believe.


Sure, there are kooks, even among scholars.

My almost 6 year old grandson attends school. He is, by definition, a scholar. He doesn't attend sunday school, but if he did, that would make him a scholar in the field of Biblical studies.

So, I trivialize, your weak attempt at appeal to authority. Reductio ad absurdum.



originally posted by: chr0naut
I love the Thor movies! But I'm saying any idea you use to suggest Jesus was a superhero could easily apply to Thor as well.


But I didn't suggest that Jesus was a superhero.



originally posted by: chr0naut
Sure, something beyond our current science may exist, something we would now call supernatural. I don't think that this fact makes any ancient mythology one iota more real. Zalmoxus still did not allow his followers forgiveness of sins or allow them a special place in the afterlife. In fact the entire model of some sky-father being pissed off at his creations for worshiping the wrong god and making fun of gods name and other various "sins" doesn't become any more real.


You'd be pissed off if someone slandered you and we know people accuse God of all sorts of atrocities.

Seems quite reasonable that God doesn't want the blame for the actions of others and their consequences.

Not sure what ZoolanderZalmoxus has to do with it?




Hela wasn't really a death goddess anymore than Ashera was the companion goddess to Yaweh. Stories of demigods with Earth mothers and sky-fathers do not become any more true just because there are realms and metaphysics science hasn't discovered yet.

That's just silly circular reasoning." Science has failed because there is stuff science hasn't yet discovered"??

There is no failure there? Sure there are probably many discoveries that await science. There may be an advanced race so far ahead of us they seem like supernatural gods to us.


No, the objective evidence exists but science cannot explain it. It is a failure of science, right here, right now.

Suggestions of what might be aren't a valid scientific justification because they are speculative.


This is NEVER going to double back and make human fiction come true. Maybe the Enterprise space ship could be built in the future but mythology from our past is not going to suddenly be real. Thor isn't going to jump out of the sky if we prove ESP to be a real skill.
We can use the scientific method to judge if a mythology is probabilistically true. This has been done and the supernatural aspects of all religions is mythology.


That isn't scientific method.

By his own admission, Dick Carrier's Bayesian method demonstrates the enormously wide error margins in such attempts because of initial assumptions.

His work says that if we assume it is mythology, and use that as an input, it has a probability that it is mythological.

I'd guess he doesn't have his Ph.D for his mathematical ability?



originally posted by: chr0naut
www.youtube.com...


A YouTube video has lower academic cred than Wikipedia. You have not, in this thread, linked to an academic and peer-reviewed article.



originally posted by: chr0naut
Clearly monotheist. No they were monolatrist:

...snip...

I don't buy the "Trinity" bunk, also angels are like gods. Monolatry.


Psalm 86:10 — For thou art great, and doest wondrous things: thou art God alone.

1 Chronicles 17:20 — O LORD, there is none like thee, neither is there any God beside thee.

John 17:3 — And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent.

1 Corinthians 8:4-6 — As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one
.

... and many other verses.

Biblical references, which do talk about 'gods' other than YHWH, describe them as false gods.

Clearly monotheist. The one and only true God.



originally posted by: chr0naut
The Wiki article is missing information. So here is a PHd who applied his doctorate specifically to biblical times explaining Romulus was a dying and rising Roman state god, who has been confirmed by scholarship standards to be pre-Christian.
www.youtube.com... go to 13:00


Still waiting for the peer reviewed supporting paper... [crickets].



originally posted by: chr0naut
Acharya S, whose real name is D.M. Murdock, was classically educated at some of the finest schools, receiving a degree in Classics, Greek Civilization, from Franklin & Marshall College, the 17th oldest college in the United States. At F&M, listed in the "highly selective" category in guides to top colleges and universities, Ms. Murdock studied under Dr. Robert Barnett, Dr. Joel Farber and Dr. Ann Steiner, among others.


She isn't listed as an alumni by the college. The actor Roy Schneider is.

Perhaps she was too controversial.

Perhaps she 'exaggerated'? She also claimed to have authored a Ph.D thesis but it isn't indexed at Google scholar and she provides no link to it, hmm?


Murdock has served as a trench master on archaeological excavations in Corinth, Greece, and Connecticut, USA, as well as a teacher's assistant on the island of Crete. Murdock has traveled extensively Europe,and she speaks, reads and/or writes over 10 languages.

I have spoken to her on the problem of information being purposefully emitted from articles, she confirms it as a very real truth.


I suppose you spoke to her back in 2004. Sadly, Dotty Murdock died of breast cancer at Christmas in 2015. My sincerest condolences to all.

However, returning to the topic thread, Bart Ehrman (BA, M Div, Ph.D) says, "all of Acharya's major points are in fact wrong" and her book, 'The Christ Conspiracy', "is filled with so many factual errors and outlandish assertions that it is hard to believe the author is serious."... "Mythicists of this ilk should not be surprised that their views are not taken seriously by real scholars, mentioned by experts in the field, or even read by them."



originally posted by: chr0naut
Thomas Thompson, in the 1970's, a professor of old testament came out with a study claiming Moses and the Patriarchs were fictional. The effort to ruin his career was monumental and it still scares people today.

Thomas Brody, catholic priest, buried by the church for suggesting mythicism. This effects any and all speech and text that may go against Christianity and it relates to many encyclopedia articles also.


I think if a physicist published a paper that said Newton was an inept deluded liar then they'd have issues getting tenure, too.




posted on Jan, 24 2018 @ 05:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

If Jesus was a fabrication by Paul, how could there exist a Christian church that Paul was persecuting, before Paul became a Christian?

Paul didn't invent Christianity, it looks like Mark did. Mark, right after the Jewish war wanted to re-write the OT stories in a more modern setting.


That isn't what you said a few posts back. Consistency!


Mark's Jesus are stories about Elijea or Moses but changed to be Jesus stories. The OT message was growing old.
Mark also is taking ideas from Homer (it's in Greek) and using those stories.
He's creating a new Moses and such.

www.youtube.com... at 1:16 Carrier goes over the position of scholarship on the Mark gospel. He explains we know that Mark wasn't actually a poor, lowly person but an educated writer. His dialect is reflective of his entire message throughout the gospel "the least shall be first"


I'm not interested in the slightest about your self-promotion as I am now fairly convinced from your posts that you are Dick Carrier.

... and I agree that writer of the Gospel attributed to Mark, was young, educated and wealthy, a cousin of Bartholomew and one who vacillated in his faith during Jesus ministry and in the early Christian years. He did settle down, though.

I am not convinced that Mark is the originator of the accounts of Jesus (Q & all that) and I am convinced of the historicity of Jesus, which is clearly the origin by all accounts.



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 11:39 AM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

...Can you help me find something in the stories about Romulus ... to corroborate what you described there about Romulus (if that is how you meant it)? Please don't just point me to some ancient document about Romulus without quoting what is relevant from it regarding the things you just mentioned:

1. rose from the dead in 3 days
2. conquer death for its (his?) followers
3. giving them forgiveness of sins and a place in everlasting life
4. rose up to heaven
5. leaving behind his 12 disciples to spread his word.
...


originally posted by: joelr

M.Phil. (Ancient history), Ph.D. (Ancient history) Richard Carrier touches on this here:
www.youtube.com... at 11:02

That didn't help me find out much about those specifics. He made similar claims to yours but most of what he said was something different than the details/specifics you claimed regarding Romulus.

"1. rose from the dead in 3 days"

He said nothng about 3 days and regarding rising from the dead or the topic of resurrection he gives no specific quotations from ancient documents (in the relevant context so one doesn't get the wrong idea about what is being spoken of for those who like to share half-truths+spin). I've found something myself via google regarding the topic of resurrection from the dead, or rose from the dead, but the quotations are rather vague if that's all there is (I would expect something more clear about death and rising from the dead). Nothing about specifically 3 days in those quotations either though.

Back to you:

there is much more detail with sources in his main book.

Well, that's not of much help. What do you want me to do, buy his book? Or go find an online version and look for the specifics you applied to the ancient stories about Romulus (apparently I didn't misunderstand you, you were applying all these specifics to Romulus). I don't feel like going out of my way to dig up evidence for your claims regarding Romulus, I would expect someone who makes these types of claims to be able to back them up with direct quotations from the relevant ancient sources about Romulus without the need for taking them out of context. It would be even better if they used the word "resurrection" or "rose from the dead" after 3 days of being dead. That would be great evidence for such a claim. For the moment, I'm assuming it does not exist until shown otherwise. Not that it will affect my opinion about who might be borrowing from who timingwise (Chronaut said something about that as well).

2. conquer death for its (his?) followers
3. giving them forgiveness of sins and a place in everlasting life
4. rose up to heaven
5. leaving behind his 12 disciples to spread his word.

Again, you haven't been of much help to back up these claims regarding Romulus. The only match I could find myself via google is a quotation from Plutarch about "Romulus, since he had been caught up into heaven" (Parallel Lives, 1914 translation), but since Plutarch was a greek philosopher whose works were published somewhere around the turn of the 1st and 2nd century CE (or AD), that doesn't really surprise me that much given the bible already being completed and its message spreading at an increasing rate and popularity throughout the Roman Empire. I'd borrow from what is rising in popularity as well if I were in his position glorifying a Roman legend to score some points with the Romans. And if I were pretty unscrupulous in my dishonesty to get some attention and make some money selling what I'm writing about as some people selling books nowadays are as well. Then again, I've also encountered some blatant deliberate mistranslations of ancient works (sometimes for this very purpose* among other reasons) and I haven't looked into that yet. Questions such as "is this the same type of 'heaven' that the bible is referring to?" also pop-up in my mind when I read such a translation of ancient Latin or Greek (philosophies and/or stories).

*: the purpose described in the previous sentence
edit on 25-1-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


Sure, there are kooks, even among scholars.

There is my point, sure you can call the field kooks but your not speaking scientifically, your speaking from a fundamentalist point of view.
No one believes in supernatural stories in scholarship, I don't care how you spin it. I'm not referencing your grandson I'm referencing the majority of PHd peer reviewed works.

I can call the field of evolutionary biologists or particle physicists kooks all day, but I still lose that argument. Hard loss.



originally posted by: chr0naut

But I didn't suggest that Jesus was a superhero.

If you believe the supernatural tales of the Bible then you believe Jesus was a superhero. In modern mythology (Marvel Comics) some of the heroes get their powers from god.


originally posted by: chr0naut

You'd be pissed off if someone slandered you and we know people accuse God of all sorts of atrocities.


I don't know what that has to do with the bible being mythology?


originally posted by: chr0naut
Not sure what ZoolanderZalmoxus has to do with it?


Jesus, Zalmoxus, Hercules.....it's myths. So I speak of them as equal.


originally posted by: chr0naut

Stories of demigods with Earth mothers and sky-fathers do not become any more true just because there are realms and metaphysics science hasn't discovered yet.

That's just silly circular reasoning." Science has failed because there is stuff science hasn't yet discovered"??


Well science hasn't "proven" any mythological god, demigod, or any supernatural character didn't exist.
This doesn't make Zeus or Jesus any more real? So if someone doesn't believe in Leprachons you can say "No they must exist or that's circular reasoning", all day long but they still won't exist in reality.


originally posted by: chr0naut

No, the objective evidence exists but science cannot explain it. It is a failure of science, right here, right now.


Then all supernatural stories are actually true and science has failed? Sure, that's a nice fantasy to live in. As far as calling this view scientific, it's the biggest fail I've ever heard. My original point holds.


originally posted by: chr0naut

That isn't scientific method.

By his own admission, Dick Carrier's Bayesian method demonstrates the enormously wide error margins in such attempts because of initial assumptions.

His work says that if we assume it is mythology, and use that as an input, it has a probability that it is mythological.

I'd guess he doesn't have his Ph.D for his mathematical ability?


I'm not referencing or using the Bayesian method here at all. I'm not prepared to defend that, it's not needed anyways.
Do I need the Bayesian method to show that Krishna wasn't a literal demigod (the answer is no), so likewise Christian mythology doesn't need it to be disproven either. Archeology, and historicity studies have done just fine.


originally posted by: chr0naut


A YouTube video has lower academic cred than Wikipedia. You have not, in this thread, linked to an academic and peer-reviewed article.

Like I said, the peer reviewed stuff that is accepted as part of the field says Jesus was just a man.
Above you already called the field "kooks" so it's clear, peer reviewed or not you're not going to accept anything except Christian fundamentalist words.
Carrier has a PHd and is mostly just using established information. In fact I posted references to actual peer reviewed books in another video. Just like you won't accept anything from Pagels who IS peer reviewed.

You can't debunk Carrier so you pretend like he's not a scholar. This is a loss for you. Science is on my side.


originally posted by: chr0naut
Clearly monotheist. No they were monolatrist:

...snip...

I don't buy the "Trinity" bunk, also angels are like gods. Monolatry.


Yes monolatrist, I thought I said that? Guess not?



originally posted by: chr0naut
Biblical references, which do talk about 'gods' other than YHWH, describe them as false gods.

Clearly monotheist. The one and only true God.

That's funny. God, Jesus, angels, there are several gods. I don't buy that workaround.


originally posted by: chr0nautstate god, who has been confirmed by scholarship standards to be pre-Christian.

Still waiting for the peer reviewed supporting paper... [crickets].


No you're not, you'll just say they are kooks (see above). Carrier sources his work in his book. You're playing games now.
It's known by historians that there are at least 5 pre-Christian messiah gods. I'm not digging through other books, it's a fact and when I prove it you'll fluff it off like it doesn't matter.
How about this, I find the scholarship you admit I win hands down. Didn't think so.....


originally posted by: chr0nautst 5 pre-Chrhighly selective" category in guides to top colleges and universities, Ms. Murdock studied under Dr. Robert Barnett, Dr. Joel Farber and Dr. Ann Steiner, among others.


She isn't listed as an alumni by the college.
Perhaps she 'exaggerated'? She also claimed to have authored a Ph.D thesis but it isn't indexed at Google scholar and she provides no link to it, hmm?

I suppose you spoke to her back in 2004. Sadly, Dotty Murdock died of breast cancer at Christmas in 2015. My sincerest condolences to all.


I spoke with her via her forum which is still up. I would research her creds but you'll just say "oh she's scholarship? They are kooks too".... You failed at this debate.
You spend all this effort showing Murdock isn't a scholar yet outright reject work done by a PHd?
You're all over the map here scrambling, just give it up.



originally posted by: chr0naut
However, returning to the topic thread, Bart Ehrman (BA, M Div, Ph.D) says, "all of Acharya's major points are in fact wrong" and her book, 'The Christ Conspiracy',


Cool. I've dealt with this years ago. What actually happened is Bart Ehrman ended up saying mythicist arguments are plausible and his criticisms were completely debunked by Murdock.
freethoughtnation.com...

He actually went back and forth with her on the forum and completely lost.
D.M. Murdock wasn't just a flash in the pan, she debunked all criticism and took on several scholars on her forum. Still available to read. Dr. Robert M. Price endorses her work fully.



originally posted by: chr0naut

Thomas Brody, catholic priest, buried by the church for suggesting mythicism. This effects any and all speech and text that may go against Christianity and it relates to many encyclopedia articles also.



It's weird that you don't think the church had influence over things like that. I can link to a PHd scholar explaining that it's still very difficult for careers to go against Christian dogma. But they are all kooks, so..



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 06:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut


I'm not interested in the slightest about your self-promotion as I am now fairly convinced from your posts that you are Dick Carrier.




Carrier does a good job debunking Q as well. He shows that Mark was first and all other are re-wrires. Copies of historical mistakes, writing styles etc..

It's a good compliment that you think I'm Carrier but I'm sure he would be far more detailed and knowledgable.

I'm actually Joel R, I could reveal myself with my website but I'm not sure it's wise? I'm not a historian.

If you look at my other posts I probably know too much physics to be Carrier, he's busy with history.

Plus Carrier claims to be "polyamorous" right on his FB page. That's such a bad idea for so many reasons. What if you meet Mrs Right and she's monogamous, that could kill it right there. You play that stuff by ear. Yeah, I like lot's of women, of course! But if you meet that once in a lifetime woman who's worth switching sides for that's when you're all "Monogamy, oh yeah, me too!"
By the time you get home and erase your FB page she's all like "ewwww..."
edit on 25-1-2018 by joelr because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 06:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: whereislogic

...Can you help me find something in the stories about Romulus ... to corroborate what you described there about Romulus (if that is how you meant it)? Please don't just point me to some ancient document about Romulus without quoting what is relevant from it regarding the things you just mentioned:


...


There is some sources for Romulus and other messiah gods here:
atheologica.wordpress.com...


originally posted by: whereislogic
Back to you:

Well, that's not of much help. What do you want me to do, buy his book? Or go find an online version and look for the specifics you applied to the ancient stories about Romulus (apparently I didn't misunderstand you, you were applying all these specifics to Romulus). I don't feel like going out of my way to dig up evidence for your claims regarding Romulus, I would expect someone who makes these types of claims to be able to back them up with direct quotations from the relevant ancient sources about Romulus without the need for taking them out of context. It would be even better if they used the word "resurrection" or "rose from the dead" after 3 days of being dead. That would be great evidence for such a claim. For the moment, I'm assuming it does not exist until shown otherwise. Not that it will affect my opinion about who might be borrowing from who timingwise (Chronaut said something about that as well).




I don't care what you assume? You can believe any mythology you want, all day long.
If you're not interested in truth then fine, have a nice time with that.

I've asked Carrier questions about specific material and he got right back to me with answers and sources. Specifically about the "pre-existing angel who was the first born son of god" thing. I couldn't understand his source and didn't want to use make believe material when debating but he set me right.

Here:

www.facebook.com...

ask him his source on Romulus



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut

There is my point, sure you can call the field kooks but your not speaking scientifically, your speaking from a fundamentalist point of view.
No one believes in supernatural stories in scholarship, I don't care how you spin it. I'm not referencing your grandson I'm referencing the majority of PHd peer reviewed works.

I can call the field of evolutionary biologists or particle physicists kooks all day, but I still lose that argument. Hard loss.


I did not call any entire field of scholars kooks. I said "there are kooks, even among scholars". This clearly means that there are kooky individuals in among non-kooky others. How is your response any sort of rational logic?. You seem to be even unable to parse language.



originally posted by: chr0naut
If you believe the supernatural tales of the Bible then you believe Jesus was a superhero.


I just told you I didn't call Jesus a superhero. How is your response any sort of rational logic?.


In modern mythology (Marvel Comics) some of the heroes get their powers from god.


originally posted by: chr0naut
I don't know what that has to do with the bible being mythology?


Of course you don't. Goldfish (purportedly) also have very short periods of recollection. I doubt that they could follow this topic thread either.



originally posted by: chr0naut
Jesus, Zalmoxus, Hercules.....it's myths. So I speak of them as equal.


originally posted by: chr0naut
Well science hasn't "proven" any mythological god, demigod, or any supernatural character didn't exist.


Science is mute on the subject. Most people don't venerate ignorance as you do.


This doesn't make Zeus or Jesus any more real? So if someone doesn't believe in Leprachons you can say "No they must exist or that's circular reasoning", all day long but they still won't exist in reality.


How is that any sort of rational logic?



originally posted by: chr0naut
Then all supernatural stories are actually true and science has failed? Sure, that's a nice fantasy to live in. As far as calling this view scientific, it's the biggest fail I've ever heard. My original point holds.


More irrationality.



originally posted by: chr0naut
I'm not referencing or using the Bayesian method here at all. I'm not prepared to defend that, it's not needed anyways.
Do I need the Bayesian method to show that Krishna wasn't a literal demigod (the answer is no), so likewise Christian mythology doesn't need it to be disproven either. Archeology, and historicity studies have done just fine.


Not true. The vast majority of historical and archaeological studies confirm the Gospel accounts.




originally posted by: chr0naut
Like I said, the peer reviewed stuff that is accepted as part of the field says Jesus was just a man.


If these peer-reviewed academic papers are in such proliferation, why can't you link to some of them directly?


Above you already called the field "kooks" so it's clear, peer reviewed or not you're not going to accept anything except Christian fundamentalist words.


I did not call the entire field kooks. Your reasoning is defective.


Carrier has a PHd and is mostly just using established information. In fact I posted references to actual peer reviewed books in another video.


Books are not published according to academic peer review, nor is video.


Just like you won't accept anything from Pagels who IS peer reviewed.


I never said that.

I acknowledge that Pagels is an expert on the Nag Hammadi texts.


You can't debunk Carrier so you pretend like he's not a scholar. This is a loss for you. Science is on my side.


No, science, reasoning, history, philosophy, textual criticism and archaeology are not on your side.




originally posted by: chr0naut
Yes monolatrist, I thought I said that? Guess not?


The "one and only God", established in the earliest scriptures, means that there isn't any other 'gods'. So, not monolatrist.



originally posted by: chr0naut
That's funny. God, Jesus, angels, there are several gods. I don't buy that workaround.


Your poor understanding of monotheism espoused in scripture, isn't a valid argument.



originally posted by: chr0naut
No you're not, you'll just say they are kooks (see above). Carrier sources his work in his book. You're playing games now.
It's known by historians that there are at least 5 pre-Christian messiah gods. I'm not digging through other books, it's a fact and when I prove it you'll fluff it off like it doesn't matter.
How about this, I find the scholarship you admit I win hands down. Didn't think so.....


If you can show academically peer reviewed papers, I will give you some credence. That would be fair and reasonable.

Don't waste your time quoting from a dubious source such as a video, blog or populist book, though.



originally posted by: chr0naut
I spoke with her via her forum which is still up. I would research her creds but you'll just say "oh she's scholarship? They are kooks too".... You failed at this debate.
You spend all this effort showing Murdock isn't a scholar yet outright reject work done by a PHd?
You're all over the map here scrambling, just give it up.


Why should she not be listed as an alumnus?



originally posted by: chr0naut
Cool. I've dealt with this years ago. What actually happened is Bart Ehrman ended up saying mythicist arguments are plausible and his criticisms were completely debunked by Murdock.
freethoughtnation.com...

He actually went back and forth with her on the forum and completely lost.

D.M. Murdock wasn't just a flash in the pan, she debunked all criticism and took on several scholars on her forum. Still available to read. Dr. Robert M. Price endorses her work fully.


Bart Ehrman made a general comment about mythicists on NPR and Murdoch read it as a specific vindication of her crap - It wasn't. Ehrman never withdrew his remarks and they remain in print in his book 'Did Jesus Exist'.

Both Dick Carrier and Bob M Price criticized Murdock's work. I'm fairly sure that doesn't equate to a full endorsement.

Acharya S, Richard Carrier, and a Cocky Peter (Or: “A Cock and Bull Story”) - The Bart Ehrman Blog.

I cannot comment on posts on the forums of the 'truthbeknown' site because the site is (conveniently) broken and the forums are inaccessible.

Accessible? Nope. Got to truthbeknown.com, click on the forums link, nada.

edit on 25/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: chr0naut


I'm not interested in the slightest about your self-promotion as I am now fairly convinced from your posts that you are Dick Carrier.




Carrier does a good job debunking Q as well. He shows that Mark was first and all other are re-wrires. Copies of historical mistakes, writing styles etc..


What happened to Paul being the originator as you previously suggested?


It's a good compliment that you think I'm Carrier but I'm sure he would be far more detailed and knowledgable.

I'm actually Joel R, I could reveal myself with my website but I'm not sure it's wise? I'm not a historian.

If you look at my other posts I probably know too much physics to be Carrier, he's busy with history.

Plus Carrier claims to be "polyamorous" right on his FB page. That's such a bad idea for so many reasons. What if you meet Mrs Right and she's monogamous, that could kill it right there. You play that stuff by ear. Yeah, I like lot's of women, of course! But if you meet that once in a lifetime woman who's worth switching sides for that's when you're all "Monogamy, oh yeah, me too!"
By the time you get home and erase your FB page she's all like "ewwww..."


Monogamy, are you sure you don't mean monolagmy?




posted on Jan, 25 2018 @ 09:53 PM
link   
a reply to: joelr

Does Richard Carrier Exist? - Dr Glenn Andrews Peoples

...


edit on 25/1/2018 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 10:02 AM
link   
a reply to: joelr
This is why I'm not convinced by your argument regarding those claims about Romulus in comparison with the gospel accounts about Jesus. You have taken little effort to convince me with clear evidence regarding the 5 specific claims you made in regards to Romulus. I have no starting point to evaluate your argument if I cannot confirm all those 5 claims which should be found in ancient documents about Romulus for the rest of your argument to make at least some sense and have an honest and accurate introduction (it's the basis of that argument, the similarities including those specifics like "in 3 days", that's supposed to lend extra credence to your argument about it, not that it's just similar enough that it can be spinned to claim it's the same storyline or part of the story). By pointing me to large swaths of text and lengthy videos without specifics (from ancient documents) that match your specific claims, you haven't given me much motivation to look any further or consider your argument any further.

If the evidence exists and you know what it is, you might want to produce it one day when making these claims. It might help make your argument related to it more convincing. If someone asks for it and even goes through the trouble of finding one match for themselves, you might want to reconsider implying* they are not interested in truth when they are asking for the specific evidence related to the basis of your argumentation.

*: or "questioning if"

Regarding the references made by first- and second-century historians to Jesus and the early Christians, the Encyclopædia Britannica, 2002 Edition, says:

These independent accounts prove that in ancient times even the opponents of Christianity never doubted the historicity of Jesus, which was disputed for the first time and on inadequate grounds at the end of the 18th, during the 19th, and at the beginning of the 20th centuries.

Richard Carrier seems to be listed a lot on wikipages that talk about the so-called "Christ myth theory" or "Jesus mythicism" so I would count him among those mentioned above. As far as I can tell from their methods and yours is that the Encyclopædia Britannica got it right when they decided to use the term "on inadequate grounds". They are usually quite serious about what they decide to put in their Encyclopædia and thoroughly research such matters. It doesn't seem to be the same way for certain other sources and rather biased individuals selling books that tickle the ears of a particular target audience who would perhaps get bored reading an Encyclopædia instead.
edit on 26-1-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 26 2018 @ 08:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: chr0naut
Biblical references, which do talk about 'gods' other than YHWH, describe them as false gods.

False/incorrect (as in: not always as seems to be implied in the phrase above, or the intention of leaving that impression with that comment without mentioning exceptions). At Psalm 8:5 angels are referred to as gods (Hebrew: elohim). They are not false gods and they are not described as false gods. They are really gods; one definition in A Dictionary of Biblical Languages w/ Semantic Domains: Hebrew (OT) for the Hebrew word "elohim" is: heavenly being(s). Another broader definition is: mighty one(s). The words that have been translated to "God, god" or "gods" are not limited in their definition to either false gods or "the only true God" (John 17:3). Even Paul mentions "there are many gods" and "so-called gods" (or "those who are called ‘gods,’" depending on what translation you're reading or using). The bible mentions many gods, it does not describe all these gods as false gods and in some cases such as those angels who are clearly shown to be in the service of Jehovah God, it is clear from the context that these are not false gods, but real gods/mighty ones or heavenly beings (at Psalm 8:5 the latter definition applies quite well, at John 1:1c both "mighty one" or "heavenly being" can apply, and that's why people are kept in the dark about these broader definitions among the other examples some of which are mentioned below).

Standard Trinitarian twist and keeping people in the dark, confusing them about monotheism. Trinitarianism isn't monotheism no matter how good some dishonest or misled (indoctrinated) theologians can twist that issue and do some psychological projection on those acknowledging just like Paul that there are many gods, there is just one that stands out from the rest of them regarding his uniqueness and might, hence the only God who is referred to as God Almighty in the bible whereas Jesus is prophetically referred to as "Mighty God" at Isaiah 9:6, not Almighty God or God Almighty, which is applied to Jehovah at Genesis 17:1 for example (other places as well). There is a distinction between the Almighty God and the other gods like Jesus, the angels, demons, Satan who is the god of this system of things, false gods, human-made gods (or invented), idols (who are also referred to as gods in the bible), etc. That's also why Paul said:

“Even though there are those who are called ‘gods,’ whether in heaven or on earth, just as there are many ‘gods’ and many ‘lords,’ there is actually to us one God the Father.” (1Co 8:5, 6) Jehovah is the Almighty God, the only true God, and he rightfully exacts exclusive devotion. (Ex 20:5) His servants must keep others out of, or excluded from, his proper place in their hearts and actions. He requires his worshipers to worship him with spirit and truth. (Joh 4:24) They should stand in reverent awe of him alone.​—Isa 8:13; Heb 12:28, 29.

Among other mighty ones called “gods” in the Bible is Jesus Christ, who is “the only-begotten god.” But he himself plainly said: “It is Jehovah your God you must worship, and it is to him alone you must render sacred service.” (Joh 1:18; Lu 4:8; De 10:20)

Source: God: Insight, Volume 1

Perhaps the guy in this video explains it better than me:


The 2nd video above might give the wrong impression regarding Hebrews 1:8 but you probably won't watch it anyway or care about what it reminds people of. But just in case someone is out there who does. Just remember if you want a proper response to the standard Trinitarian twist regarding Heb.1:8 go here and search for "Hebrews 1:8".

Psalm 8:5

English Standard Version
Yet you have made him a little lower than the heavenly beings and crowned him with glory and honor.

New American Standard Bible
Yet You have made him a little lower than God, And You crown him with glory and majesty!

King James Bible
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour.

New World Translation
You made him a little lower than godlike ones,* [Or “than angels.”]

And you crowned him with glory and splendor.


All renderings based on the Hebrew word ʼelo·himʹ (gods).

The usual Greek equivalent of ʼEl and ʼElo·himʹ in the Septuagint translation and the word for “God” or “god” in the Christian Greek Scriptures is the·osʹ.

And the possible definitions or meanings for the related words don't suddenly change in the Greek at John 1:1c. Jesus was a heavenly being/god/spirit being and a mighty one when he was with God in the beginning. He was not the same God he was already with, the One verse 18 says about "No man has seen God at any time". Jesus is not the God no man has seen at any time, plenty of people have seen Jesus.
edit on 26-1-2018 by whereislogic because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 9  10  11    13  14 >>

log in

join