Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[joelr]

If the majority are ignorant, whose fault would that be?
I'm sure the poor would love to give their children a good education..

That is a different situation, I'm talking about militant and non-militant Muslims, Sunni/Shia.

Imam Mohamad is explaining at 9:45 the majority have a militant interpretation of Islam.​

Who's fault is it? According to Armins in the video I posted about his suicide attempt to avoid hell at 15 y.o., it's the fault of the text.

..but..

A study by the World Institute for Development Economics Research at United Nations University reported that the richest 1% of adults alone owned 40% of global assets in the year 2000. The three richest people in the world possess more financial assets than the lowest 48 nations combined..
Economic_inequality - Wikipedia

The global financial system that is propped up internationally is to blame.
Enmity cannot cease as the situation is only getting worse.

I don't think the financial system has anything to do with how to interpret the Quran? The moderates are attempting a rereading of the text which is more peaceful but as Armand says, it's ignoring the text.

..much the same as anybody else .. I would evaluate it, according to scholars of all stripes.

Now I'm peeved. You have been spending post after post putting historical scholars down, without justification, reason, method or any logical reason. You level absurd and false, mainly unproven (no evidence or source) that they are this and that without even knowing, understanding or even trying to understand one single argument. You just assume they cannot be correct because it doesn't match what you think is true.

Now you are telling me you would do the exact opposite and listen to scholars, when you didn't just do it with your own religion?

That is a bold face lie. You are not an honest interlocker and a huge waste of time. You will say whatever you can get away with in the moment, none of it is reliable or can be considered true after such a massive lie.

Mislabel historical scholarship-
"What you mean is, you prefer to believe in a materialist interpretation of history.
One in which the concept of G-d is man-made.


Claim evidence from literature, tablets and ancient historians is conjecture-
"No amount of evidence can lead you to know whether your belief is correct.
It is nothing but conjecture."


Claim they are doing misleading work for monely (there is far more money in apologetics and laymen evengelizing)
Joelr - "Yes each religion should be examined, there are people who do it for a living. Historical scholars.."

Muhammad-isa = "I mistrust anybody who claims something about religion, who's motivation is "to earn a living"

"You conclude that Abrahamic religion is all a conspiracy, consisting of 'copy-cat' fraudsters."


Claim the the consensus on historical evidence isn't because of evidence and it's all some conspiracy because they don't believe, despite the evidence is given and free to examine

"There are many books .. and they are written by all sorts of people..
..some believe, and some don't.

Then fail to acknowledge PhDs who are well respected for their honest and fair work (it's the evidence you don't like and try to blame it on scholars)
"You seem to like those authored by disbelievers, and claim they are 'experts'"

gaslight the historicity field to try and make it something it isn't

"I am not interested in random videos.."

"This is merely conclusions of disbelievers, and not evidence."

Fail to understand most historians were fundamentalists until they studied the evidence of history and saw there was no argument it wasn't myth
"It really doesn't. It's just that you enjoy reading books written by disbelievers, who happen
to be 'experts' on ancient history.
I don't believe in historians who claim to know whether G-d exists. They should
stick to their 'facts', and not write books making such unreliable conclusions."


and then try to put forth a narrative you would "evaluate" evidence. You would not.
You would lie about them, special plead, gaslight, deny, belittle them, conspiracy theory them, if it didn't agree with your beliefs.

You've done it to me as well. You have no credibility and will say anything to protect your beliefs.
You still have not answered the simple question which Jewish sect believed people went right to heaven, you said there was a sect, yet now can't seem to answer which one. The dishonesty is all I'm going to get. So I no longer care what you have to say.

 

[joelr]

The Baha'i Faith depends greatly on the Bible to support their claims. They use Daniel to "proof" that their guys, the Bab and Baha'u'llah were predicted. They use the "spirit of truth", "comforter" and the "prince of this world" as prophecies that told of Baha'u'llah. Then, my favorites, but not becomes they are real or prove anything, the Baha'i claim that the "two witnesses" were Muhammad and Ali, and that the "three Woes" were Muhammad, the Bab and Baha'u'llah.

Daniel is a forgery, there is really solid evidence that the later perts were written way later. Carrier has a blog post that sums up the evidence.

Prophecies are always super vague. Except when they are not. A book comes out called The Challenge of Balluha and it goes through 27 prophecies picked out of Bahai scripture. Every single one is historical predictions that people were already making at the time, or scientific predictions that are plain wrong.
One was so wrong the author had to say he was speaking in weird wu-wu terms he called "con-I-ventional" and didn't explain further. Didn't explain what it meant exactly, why he used it, why he never used it again?
HE also said caner would be found to be communicable, alchemy would be common, the missing link would never be found, magnetism and electricity has no physicalness to it, humans are not animals, evolved separately or were just created.

So what about the prophecies that were wrong? A few vague forged books which would fit hundreds of situations is cherry-picked into that situation? If the prophect said "two woes" they would have said it was the Bab and Baha'u'llah. If it said "one woe" it would have been Baha'u'llah and still been a hit. Total confirmation bias.

Yes, what are we? Back in grade school? I don't answer TB directly, but I know, or believe, not claim, that she'll read this. She smarter and better than that. She doesn't have to resort to copying someone's words and flipping it back at them. Time to get deeper into the questions.

We have been through it many times, it ends with denial, confirmation bias and then just things like copying my words. It's at the point where the only thing to be said is "I just have faith" but for some reason sometimes people cannot do that so it's just the same fails over and over.

Deeper into these questions would be nice. Baha'is claim Abraham, Noah, Adam and Moses were all manifestations of God. But were they even real? If the stories weren't written until centuries later, where did the writer's get their information? I think it's much more likely that the stories were made up. Made up to tell a story about a people and their God.

No, it's not a discussion where historical scholarship that doesn't support the belief will be talked about in a rational manner. We have done that, if Yahweh looks to be a myth in Genesis it just switches to "but Bahai is real so...."

And, from what some Baha'is have said, they don't necessarily believe the stories are real either. Yet they believe the characters in those stories were real? Including the main character, "El", "Yahweh" and the various other names their God went by.

There is no logical, rational chain of thinking or evidence.

In my opinion, or belief, again not a claim, the Baha'is are doing exactly what you've been saying about what people and cultures have always done... borrow religious ideas from other people and cultures and make them their own.

The Baha'i Faith borrows mostly from Islam, then Christianity and Judaism. But leaves out things that they don't want or need. Then Baha'is give a token mention to Zoroastrianism, Buddhism and Hinduism. What does they really use out of those religions? I don't know of anything. But what do they really use out of Christianity?

So, in a way, the Baha'i Faith doesn't need any of those previous religions. Because they don't really believe in what those religions teach. All they need them for is to say that the Baha'i version of God was the same God in all those religions. And then to say that this same God sent divine messengers to different people at different times. And that somehow, these messages were all consistent in some way? But, because they weren't, the Baha'is say the followers and religious leaders in each religion changed the "original" teachings.

I see this as a clever way to pretend that Baha'is believe in all those older religions, in their original form, but then to be able to deny their validity in how they actually are by what they teach and believe today. And, because each got corrupted, it makes it necessary for their God to have had to send yet another messenger to straighten out the false teachings that crept into the original message.

Anyway, by the time Baha'is are done. All religions are one. They all came from the same God. All the messengers were from that God and equal. But the newest and latest messenger has the best and most important teachings. And any "true" believer in God would be able to see and know that "truth". It is so clear to them that all the previous religions have lost their way. And this new messenger has a message that fits the times and is designed to unite the whole world in peace and harmony. All we have to do is believe in him and follow and obey all his rules and teachings.

The more it breaks down and older religions are brought up I see it's just "deny anything that doesn't fit with the new message". And of course the evidence on the positive side is zero, on the negative side is high, no god, supernatural ever demonstrated, the prior religions present as mythology, no evidence in Bahai scripture of anything new and of course a huge amount of incorrect science prophecies.

Yes, I can see why some people like it and believe it. But will it work? Can it work? And are their claims true? All the Baha'i Faith asks is for people to investigate for themselves. Trouble is, when some of us do, we find things that, to us, aren't true. Then what? We ask the Baha'is and get answers that don't adequately answer the question. We press harder. And we are called "scoffers" and "hecklers" by some of the Baha'is.

Many religions say to "investigate", they mean to read apologetics that favor their religion. In this case the apologetics are easy to debunk. The one book that listed and commented on 27 prophecies was really a joke. He would say "prophecy # 15, a war will break out in Prussia and they will lose the throne" and you look up the political climate in 1870 and it was like "war was expected in Prussia and it was known they would be crushed because this and that...."

A few people here (you and Firedragon are a couple of them) have a lot of knowledge about religions and how they got started. How many of them, if not all, used myth to invent or build a story that became the foundation of their beliefs. This is the type of information that you have brought into these threads. Is it true? Can we research this stuff on our own to verify it? Yes. Intro level religious and cultural anthropology classes in college touch on these things. If anyone cared, they could go deeper.

They cannot. Pointing out the afterlife beliefs don't come from Judaism but exclusively from Hellenism, with a lecture from one of the leading experts, Dr Tabor, and saying it's a myth only prompted the question, "how do you know it's a myth"?
How do I know Greek mythology is a myth? What else can you do with that?

If something came from Jesus and you believe in Jesus I can see how one might think something is true. But no one is saying the ancient Greeks from 300BC were talking to Yahweh? Yahweh strongly dislikes other nations, makes a rule that in war you are to kill every living thing in 6 entire cities he names, because he hates their religion. The Greeks were evil pagans. Yet now their stories might be true?
The cherry-picking is beyond bizarre. But real discussion is over.

But... does a true believer, a Baha'i or a fundy Christian, want to go deeper? And that's the problem... There is a chance they will learn something that they don't want to know... that maybe everything they believed, took for granted and assumed to be true was not true.

Why do it then? When the easier and safer thing to do is deflect, ignore, discredit the person giving the information and do a religious form of the "rope-a-dope" and keep dodging the questions.

It's a no-win for them. They know they can't prove you wrong. And to research it on their own is going to be a long and tedious journey that takes them to a place they don't want to go. Much easier to say, "Yeah, I know you are, but what am I?"

Exactly, that is exactly why I'm getting it I believe.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't think the financial system has anything to do with how to interpret the Quran?

No .. but civilisation relies on education. The UN is all too aware of that.

Furthermore, poverty and deprivation causes enmity, as is all too clear.

Now you are telling me you would do the exact opposite and listen to scholars, when you didn't just do it with your own religion?

Huh?
I listen to all .. Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim etc.
..and evaluate in light of the whole. It doesn't mean I'll end up agreeing with them all.

..Claim the the consensus on historical evidence isn't because of evidence and it's all some conspiracy because they don't believe, despite the evidence is given and free to examine

"There are many books .. and they are written by all sorts of people..
..some believe, and some don't.

It isn't the evidence I object too, it is the CONCLUSIONS that many authors derive
from it.

You still have not answered the simple question which Jewish sect believed people went right to heaven, you said there was a sect, yet now can't seem to answer which one..

You are rambling again..
Pharisees believed in an afterlife,
while Sadducees did not.

 

[joelr]

Huh?
I listen to all .. Christian, Hindu, Sikh, Muslim etc.
..and evaluate in light of the whole. It doesn't mean I'll end up agreeing with them all.

It isn't the evidence I object too, it is the CONCLUSIONS that many authors derive
from it.

Nope, this is a lie and I'm done here, you have lost all credibility.
All you do here is add to the lie.
You did not evaluate any of the historical evidence I presented, you mocked it, claimed they only find this evidence because they are non-believers, (completely wrong), refused to look at it claiming it's just non-believer influenced propaganda, which it isn't.

Now you say it's the CONCLUSIONS, yet you didn't even look or read any of it. Which means you also didn't find reasons why you think it's wrong, find other historians to counter it (if possible, you wouldn't know). You ignored it and now pretend as if you would evaluate evidence. You will not, you will do the same thing you already did, as outlined in my response.
The actual truth is meaningless to you . So believe in magic tales all day, I'm not interested in dishonesty on that scale.

You are rambling again..
Pharisees believed in an afterlife,
while Sadducees did not.

Deflection will not help you. Calling a straight forward question "rambling" is just more cheap tactics.
And you are doing it again?

The question was which sect of Jews believed in the Hellenistic model of afterlife, which you claimed one did. (they did not).
Now with some deflection you are passing off the Pharisees as them, which is not true. They believed in the Persian afterlife, a bodily resurrection at the end times.
Greek thought went straight to the NT. You were simply wrong.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The question was which sect of Jews believed in the Hellenistic model of afterlife, which you claimed one did. (they did not).
Now with some deflection you are passing off the Pharisees as them, which is not true. They believed in the Persian afterlife, a bodily resurrection at the end times.
Greek thought went straight to the NT. You were simply wrong.

You said in post #840..
"What sects in Judaism believed you go to heaven upon death before the influence of Greek Hellenism? What historian has this evidence?"

..so you are telling me that no Jews believed in an afterlife at any time before the Romans ruled
Palestine in the time of Jesus?
What, exactly?

I don't believe that is true, in any case .. I do not NEED any historian to prove it .. it cannot be proved.
However..

In 539 BCE the Persians conquered Babylon, and in 537 BCE Cyrus the Great allowed Jews to return to Judea and rebuild the Temple.
...
Although priests controlled the rituals of the Temple, the scribes and sages, later called rabbis (Hebrew for "Teacher/master"), dominated the study of the Torah. These men maintained an oral tradition that they believed had originated at Mount Sinai alongside the Torah of Moses; a God-given interpretation of the Torah.
Pharisees - Wikipedia

As already explained, they became to be known as Pharisees, and believed in an afterlife.
..nothing to do with Hellenism, bla bla.

 

[joelr]

You said in post #840..
"What sects in Judaism believed you go to heaven upon death before the influence of Greek Hellenism? What historian has this evidence?"

..so you are telling me that no Jews believed in an afterlife at any time before the Romans ruled
Palestine in the time of Jesus?
What, exactly?

I don't believe that is true, in any case .. I do not NEED any historian to prove it .. it cannot be proved.
However..

In 539 BCE the Persians conquered Babylon, and in 537 BCE Cyrus the Great allowed Jews to return to Judea and rebuild the Temple.
...
Although priests controlled the rituals of the Temple, the scribes and sages, later called rabbis (Hebrew for "Teacher/master"), dominated the study of the Torah. These men maintained an oral tradition that they believed had originated at Mount Sinai alongside the Torah of Moses; a God-given interpretation of the Torah.
Pharisees - Wikipedia

As already explained, they became to be known as Pharisees, and believed in an afterlife.
..nothing to do with Hellenism, bla bla.

It's like you try really hard to be wrong. Like I'm being pranked. Right above your post is the answer to your bizarre question.

Afterlife in the Torah is sleeping in Sheol.

After the Persian invasion the Persian afterlife beliefs were adopted, you sleep in Sheol but at the end times your physical body is resurrected.
There were different afterlife beliefs but this was the Pharisees belief until the NT.

In the NT the influence of Hellenism is found. A list from Dr Tabor explains the difference between Jewish/Persian afterlife and Hellenism, which was imported into the NT.

why you would think I said no Jews had afterlife beliefs before Jesus is #$%&$# bizarre, especially since I just said:

"The question was which sect of Jews believed in the Hellenistic model of afterlife, which you claimed one did. (they did not).
Now with some deflection you are passing off the Pharisees as them, which is not true. They believed in the Persian afterlife, a bodily resurrection at the end times.
Greek thought went straight to the NT."

The Jewish people that believed in an afterlife were still using the Persian model, God fights devil, wins war, earth becomes a paradise, Jews get a bodily resurrection. It's in the Bible. Christianity was influenced by Greek Hellenism. The body stays in the ground, your soul leaves immediately and goes to your rightful home in heaven. That is all Greek thought since 300 BC.



Hellenistic Greek view of cosmology


Material world/body is a prison of the soul


Humans are immortal souls, fallen into the darkness of the lower world


Death sets the soul free


No human history, just a cycle of birth, death, rebirth


Immortality is inherent for all humans


Salvation is escape to Heaven, the true home of the immortal soul


Humans are fallen and misplaced


Death is a stripping of the body so the soul can be free


Death is a liberating friend to be welcomed


Asceticism is the moral idea for the soul





Genesis view, OT


Creation/body very good, procreation good


Humans are “living breathers”, akin to animals, mortal, dust of the earth


Death is dark silent “sleeping in the dust”


Human history moves toward a perfected new age/creation


Salvation is eternal life in the perfected world of the new creation (Persian belief)


Humans belong on earth


Resurrection brings a new transformed glorious spiritual body (Persian belief)


Death is an enemy


Physical life and sensory pleasures are good

 

[muhammad_isa]

Afterlife in the Torah is sleeping in Sheol..

That is your opinion, that is much like the Sadducees. Not the Pharisees!

After the Persian invasion the Persian afterlife beliefs were adopted, you sleep in Sheol but at the end times your physical body is resurrected..

There were many beliefs, as many Jewish sects became Hellenised .. as you well know.

"The question was which sect of Jews believed in the Hellenistic model of afterlife, which you claimed one did. (they did not).

You cannot prove to me that some Rabbis were NOT Hellenised.
Of course, you call that "the Persian beliefs", but that is because you are convinced there is no
correct belief i.e. that there is indeed an afterlife, REGARDLESS of details

Christianity was influenced by Greek Hellenism..

No doubt .. and so was Judaism.

The body stays in the ground, your soul leaves immediately and goes to your rightful home in heaven. That is all Greek thought since 300 BC.

It does not matter WHEN a person goes to heaven .. it is more a question of "if" ..

These days, most Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in an afterlife.
..and most people are a LOT more educated than they were back when.

 

[joelr]

That is your opinion, that is much like the Sadducees. Not the Pharisees!

No, it is not "my opinion". It is the Bible. In the early books Sheol is like sleeping in a grave, nothing happens.


"Sheol is mentioned 66 times throughout the Hebrew Bible.[5] The first mentions of Sheol within the text associate it with the state of death, and a sense of eternal finality. Jacob avows that he will "go down to Sheol" still mourning the apparent death of his son Joseph.[6] Later on, the same formula is repeated when describing the sorrow that would befall Jacob should another of his sons, Benjamin, not return to Israel with his remaining brothers."

There were many beliefs, as many Jewish sects became Hellenised .. as you well know.

First, they were influenced by the Persians and added a bodily resurrection at the end times. The Persian occupation is the 2nd Temple Period

"While the Hebrew Bible appears to describe Sheol as the permanent place of the dead, in the Second Temple period (roughly 500 BCE – 70 CE) a more diverse set of ideas developed. "

Then it was influenced by Hellenism but that showed up in the NT:

"When the Hebrew scriptures were translated into Greek in ancient Alexandria around 200 BCE, the word "Hades" (the Greek underworld) was substituted for Sheol, owing to its similarities to the Underworld of Greek mythology.[2] The gloss of Sheol as "Hades" is reflected in the New Testament where Hades is both the underworld of the dead and the personification of the evil it represents.[4]"

You cannot prove to me that some Rabbis were NOT Hellenised.

There was a Hellenized Judaism but it failed and was erased. It is believed what remains is what became Christianity.
What would it matter if some Rabbi picked up Greek myths? What would being that specific help?. We are talking the overall movements.

Of course, you call that "the Persian beliefs", but that is because you are convinced there is no
correct belief i.e. that there is indeed an afterlife, REGARDLESS of details

Yeah any afterlife
Sleeping in Sheol
bodily resurrection at end times
soul goes to heaven

is from an older mythology and as real as Zeus, Inanna or Thor.

Persian beliefs are what was taken from Persian myth and NOT HELLENISM. I gave you a list of the general ideas that came from Hellenism and into the NT.
Persian myths were a bodily resurrection after the final God/devil war, a coming messiah, an uncreated God, good vs evil, the modern ideas of a devil and other things.

No doubt .. and so was Judaism.

Not in the OT. It's all in the NT.

It does not matter WHEN a person goes to heaven .. it is more a question of "if" ..

I'm pointing out in the Hellenistic model you don't wait in Sheol, you have an eternal soul that goes "home" to heaven. A Greek myth, that is still a myth regardless of what religion picked it up.

These days, most Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in an afterlife.
..and most people are a LOT more educated than they were back when.

Long blank stare.




1) people believing a myth doesn't make it true. Millions to billions believed aliens crashed at Roswell. It was a hoax.

2) People are more educated which is why we now have millions of secular people. Very low percentage of educated scientists and philosophers are religious. 7% scientists and .01% philosophers. So the people who are educated are not religious.
Also every religious historian who was a fundamentalist (which got them started in going to study religion) deconverted.
Islam does not have critical-history programs.

3) We have detected no supernatural or evidence for any afterlife. The "more educated" in in science, the universe, the supernatural is very unlikely real AND in historical and archaeological studies which shows up these religions were not getting information from revelations but actually from older myths. Demonstrating it's just continued mythology.
This information doesn't get to the general public unless they try to educate themselves. Church leaders do not teach this information. So the general public is unaware these beliefs were earlier myths. "God" started out as a typical deity with a body, earthly passions and superpowers and changed as Greek philosophy was tacked on to it.

4) Despite being massively more educated in these subjects you completely deny and hand wave scholarship in a desperate attempt to invalidate knowledge. But then still use the fact that we are more educated as if it supports your position and you were not completely dismissive and dishonest about it.

5) You are poising the well here (probably not intentionally) by saying most Christians, Muslims and Jews believe in an afterlife. That is basically saying "most people who believe in an afterlife believe in an afterlife". Yes and most people who believe in alien abductions believe in alien abductions.
Yes, the afterlife they believe is either the Hellenistic mythology or the Persian/Jewish mythology. It started as a myth and remains a myth

6) If you listen to call-in shows like The Line or Atheist Experience where people call in to explain their beliefs and why, many people have very poor reasons for beliefs.
Before it was proven by telescopes and science everyone thought the sun went around the earth. Then modern religion came in 1000 BC and by the 15th century AD people were still being burned alive for saying the sun went around the earth. (Bruno)

 

[muhammad_isa]

First, they were influenced by the Persians..

..and who is to say that "the Persians" didn't have their own prophets, at some time during their history?

There was a Hellenized Judaism but it failed and was erased. It is believed what remains is what became Christianity..

I more or less agree with that.

Yeah any afterlife
Sleeping in Sheol
bodily resurrection at end times
soul goes to heaven

is from an older mythology..

Exactly .. but who is to say that some of that mythology does not derive from former prophets?

4) Despite being massively more educated in these subjects you completely deny and hand wave scholarship..

No, I do not .. I respect ALL academia. We all know that historical narrative often varies with the
narrator, for obvious reasons, but we can compare versions etc.
It is THE CONCLUSIONS about the existence of G-d that I object to.
I do not object to historical evidence that proves the OT wrong/inaccurate, for example.
That is NOT the same as proving non-existence of Abrahamic G-d.

 

[joelr]

..and who is to say that "the Persians" didn't have their own prophets, at some time during their history?

They did, Zoroaster. Every of the 10,000 religions all had some person who heard from a god that this and that was true.
The Persian religion happens to be so much like Christianity because they had a huge influence on the Israelites.

What you are doing is a huge tap-dance to rescue your beliefs. "Well maybe they had a prophet too and got some of the messages correct,,,"/
Yeah but nowhere in the Bible or Quran is Zoroaster mentioned. Even worse is in the 999,000 religions around the world only a ver few in the region, religions who definitely influenced each other happen to use these ideas. No prophet in Asia, the Americas or anywhere else had these ideas to this degree and exact closeness. The probability of it being syncretism is 99.99999%.

Also the Persians only had certain ideas like a final bodily resurrection, a war between god and the devil, an uncreated supreme god, humans have freewill, and heaven and hell.
The eternal soul that goes to heaven is a Greek idea. So Christianity is a combination of both.

The apologetics you are using have incredibly low probability and no supernatural thing has ever been confirmed, but you cannot say for sure. You cannot rule out that we are all wrong and Zeus is the supreme God. So that means evidence and probabilities are the best way to find truth here.

I more or less agree with that.

I have no idea why you "more or less" historical facts that you have never studied, admitted you won't study and don't care about. It was real.

"Hellenistic Judaism - Wikipedia
Hellenistic Judaism was a form of Judaism in classical antiquity that combined Jewish religious tradition with elements of Hellenistic culture. Until the early Muslim conquests of the eastern Mediterranean, the main centers of Hellenistic Judaism were Alexandria in Egypt and Antioch in Syria (now in southern Turkey), the two main Greek urban settlements of the Middle East and North Africa, both founded in the end of the fourth century BCE in the wake of the conquests of Alexander the Great. Hellenistic Judaism also existed in Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period, where there was a conflict between Hellenizers and traditionalists.

The major literary product of the contact between Second Temple Judaism and Hellenistic culture is the Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Bible from Biblical Hebrew and Biblical Aramaic to Koine Greek, specifically, Jewish Koine Greek. Mentionable are also the philosophic and ethical treatises of Philo and the historiographical works of the other Hellenistic Jewish authors.[1][2]

The decline of Hellenistic Judaism started in the second century and its causes are still not fully understood. It may be that it was eventually marginalized by, partially absorbed into, or progressively became the Koine-speaking core of Early Christianity centered on Antioch and its traditions, such as the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and the Greek Orthodox Patriarchate of Antioch.

Exactly .. but who is to say that some of that mythology does not derive from former prophets?

All religious ideas are from prophets. Leaders in all religions at some point say "god has spoken to me, he now says..........."
That is every religion. That is the suicide cult Heavens Gate where you drink poison so your soul goes to a ufo near Saturn. The prophet heard from god that this was what god wanted.
The only time god told people about Hellenistic ideasd were people who were literally occupied by the Hellenistic Greeks. So syncretic transmission of ideas is already a thing here. You are just adding on a supernatural element.

BUT, the Bible and Quran HATE, HATE, HATE other religions with the utmost passion. As in they are fake, heretical and ALL of the information in the religious scripture is new and direct from God.

So when we find out it isn't you have to invent an apologetic - "oh maybe their prophets were really talking to god too but messed up on some things??".
What god? If Greek prophets can mess up stuff so can any prophet. Yahweh and Allah strongly dislike other gods so why would prophets of
Ahura Mazda and all mystery religions - Osirus, Inanna, Baall, Attis, Mithras, be giving correct messages. That is going really far. So Yahweh is really Baall in disguise?
It just doesn't work. And probability wise it's just syncretism.


David Hume -
Which is more likely - that a man should be used as a transmitter by God to deliver some already existing revelations, or that he should utter some already existing revelations and believe himself to be, or claim to be ordered by God to do so?

No, I do not .. I respect ALL academia. We all know that historical narrative often varies with the
narrator, for obvious reasons, but we can compare versions etc.

You do not compare versions, you hide your eyes and ears, like you have done. I have told you over and over the historical scholars are in agreement about what I am saying.

It is THE CONCLUSIONS about the existence of G-d that I object to.

History shows that the stories are myth derived from older religions. Archaeology shows that stories are not true, sometimes greatly enlarged or completely fabricated, forged, written way after they claim and sometimes only one version of what happened. The version the writers want to be true.

I do not object to historical evidence that proves the OT wrong/inaccurate, for example.
That is NOT the same as proving non-existence of Abrahamic G-d.

You don't prove a god doesn't exist. You cannot prove Zeus, Osirus, Inanna or Thor did not exist.
You can show they are derived from older myths, like Yahweh and Jesus.
You can show all of the theology like souls going to heaven from this "fallen earth" is from Greek mythology.

You can show Abraham has no evidence for existing, is likely a literary creation, as is Moses, their stories are not unique but borrowed from older and similar stories, as is Eden, the flood, creation, and that every single nation had a set of myths just like the early Bible.
There is no evidence for any gods or supernatural. Angels are a mythical being.

There is no evidence for any theistic deity. There is evidence that the stories were made up and evolved as people made up new ideas about what god is.
The Quran has a palimpsest that shows it's very likely that the book was being worked on over a long period of time and when finished the stories were spread about a miraculous revelation, which is far more likely. There are 12 witnesses to Joseph Smith's golden plates, doesn't mean they were telling the truth.
There are millions of witnesses to Sai Baba doing miracles in India in the 1800s, they were somehow tricked.
Scholars or atheists are not saying there is no god, they are going where evidence points. The current stories about gods are likely made by people.



The Sanaa palimpsest (also Ṣanʽā’ 1 or DAM 01-27.1) or Sanaa Quran is one of the oldest Quranic manuscripts in existence.[1] Part of a sizable cache of Quranic and non-Quranic fragments discovered in Yemen during a 1972 restoration of the Great Mosque of Sanaa, the manuscript was identified as a palimpsest Quran in 1981 as it is written on parchment and comprises two layers of text. The upper text largely conforms to the standard 'Uthmanic' Quran in text and in the standard order of chapters (suwar, singular sūrah), whereas the lower text (the original text that was erased and written over by the upper text, but can still be read with the help of ultraviolet light and computer processing) contains many variations from the standard text, and the sequence of its chapters corresponds to no known Quranic order. A partial reconstruction of the lower text was published in 2012,[2] and a reconstruction of the legible portions of both lower and upper texts of the 38 folios in the Sana'a House of Manuscripts was published in 2017 utilising post-processed digital images of the lower text.[3] A radiocarbon analysis has dated the parchment of one of the detached leaves sold at auction, and hence its lower text, to between 578 CE (44 BH) and 669 CE (49 AH) with a 95% accuracy.[4]

 

[muhammad_isa]

Yeah but nowhere in the Bible or Quran is Zoroaster mentioned..

So what?
There were thousands of prophets sent to the men of old..
I wouldn't expect to know all of their names.

..Even worse is in the 999,000 religions around the world only a ver few in the region, religions who definitely influenced each other happen to use these ideas..

The thing is, religions change/evolve over time (human weakness), which is one reason why messengers
were constantly sent to renew/correct G-d's guidance.

The apologetics you are using..

I have nothing to apologise for..

You cannot rule out that we are all wrong and Zeus is the supreme God.

Maybe you can't .. but I CAN.
That is, what we know about Zeus today, does not teach us anything about G-d's guidance.
If you think that it does, then please elaborate.

All religious ideas are from prophets..

No, they are not !
Some religions claim to be Divine, but many are philosophies that do NOT claim
to be of Divine origin.

BUT, the Bible and Quran HATE, HATE, HATE other religions with the utmost passion.

There is no hate involved .. that comes from the devil(s) and those that follow him/them.

You do not compare versions, you hide your eyes and ears, like you have done. I have told you over and over the historical scholars are in agreement about what I am saying.

How come I became a Muslim, if I don't listen to others?
What 'historical scholars'?
Can you point me to an article in Wikipedia, outlining their names?

ps. not individual people, but a wiki-page on these 'historical scholars'

History shows that the stories are myth derived from older religions.

That is the conclusions of many authors .. but that opinion is
based mainly on apparent inaccuracies found in the OT ..HOW MANY MORE TIMES??

You can show Abraham has no evidence for existing..

That is absurd .. you take one person out of billions from 1000's of years ago,
and tell me there is no evidence that he existed .. ridiculous!

 

[joelr]

So what?
There were thousands of prophets sent to the men of old..
I wouldn't expect to know all of their names.

But what is mentioned is belief in the one true religion, to avoid other religions, and other religions are false.
And now you are suggesting that other religions had prophets who the same god spoke things to?
Absurd. But it doesn't matter because the obvious answer is already there. It's just syncretism. If it wasn't then prophets in other parts of the world would have also got these messages.
It just so happens the 2 nations who occupied Israel have fake religions but the prophets do still speak to God sometimes. Sometimes, basically if any of their information agrees with yours, then it means god gave them a bit of info, otherwise it's wrong. The names of the deities, all wrong of course. So god let them think his name was something else, and he had a daughter demigod, but still gave them a bit of correct information? That is absurd.
It's really good evidence that Israel just took ideas from these other religions. The timing, place, situation lines up.

But because you have beliefs you have to rescue you have to do these tap dances.

The thing is, religions change/evolve over time (human weakness), which is one reason why messengers
were constantly sent to renew/correct G-d's guidance.

First you have no evidence any religion was changed from what you think it is supposed to say.
But mainly you didn't respond to the point. The point is the only other religions that have similar theology (very similar) are the religions that either occupied Israel or Israel were exiled to and returned home with the ideas.
In fact in the Bible they mention Cyrus, the Persian emissary because he was liked. It isn't surprising that the Jewish religion added Persian ideas. and later added Greek ideas because they were very popular.
Aquinas added even more and the modern idea of god is Graeco-Roman concepts put onto Yahweh.



And.....since you say religions change because of human weakness, which means it's going to happen, Bahai claims to be the new prophet.
so now you have to become Bahai. Oh the Quran cannot change, only other religions. Special pleading and nonsense.

I have nothing to apologise for..

If you don't know what apologetics are we should really end this conversation.

Maybe you can't .. but I CAN.

you cannot, you didn't, go ahead..........show me Zues is not the supreme god

That is, what we know about Zeus today, does not teach us anything about G-d's guidance.
If you think that it does, then please elaborate.

First, Mormonism teaches us about gods guidance, Hindu scripture teaches about gods guidance, Bahai messages teach about gods guidance and Zeus scripture definitely taught about his guidance. All from "revelations".

I read a paper called "Was Zeus really worshipped by his followers" that had more specific examples but I no longer have that. Point is every religion makes the same claims in one way or another.

But Hellenism brought a new type of religion that included personal salvation and guidance which made it popular.

Hinduism also has personal deities who offer guidance which for one is the point of the Bhagavad Gita, :

"Several hundreds of years ago, in a sacred text called Mahabharata, the Pandava warrior Arjuna was in a similar dilemma. But his issues were much graver… He was at war with his cousins and uncles, the Kauravas, on the battlefield in Kurukshetra.

And, just before the war began, Arjuna was paralysed into inaction. Arjuna questioned the futility of killing his relatives… He wondered what good was victory if half his people would be dead at the end of it.

That’s when Lord Krishna, his friend and philosopher, intervened and gave him wisdom that steered him to action. Lord Krishna’s teachings to Arjuna highlighted, that all wars first exist in the mind. Thus, winning in the mind is the first step to winning on the battlefield, and in real life.

The 700+ verses that Krishna taught Arjuna on the battlefield were later compiled into the Bhagavad Gita, a text that continues to be looked upon as the “manual of life”. The Bhagavad Gita is today used by many organisations for better management and even included in the syllabus of some business schools.

Here are some excerpts from the Bhagavad Gita, and how you can use them to resolve your own uncertainties, doubts, fears and confusions.

Lord Krishna’s Teachings for Better Decision-Making

Have you ever been at a crossroads, confused about which direction to take — If you should quit or continue, leave or stay, do or not do…

ritikalalwani.medium.com

No, they are not !
Some religions claim to be Divine, but many are philosophies that do NOT claim
to be of Divine origin.

Almost all religions are a person makes claims to have gotten a revelation from a deity.
as usual, they know nothing a human didn't already know. It's just a re-packaging of the same stuff.

There is no hate involved .. that comes from the devil(s) and those that follow him/them.

No, as I said Allah hates other religions.

And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not.

-But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein.-

-
Yet ye it is who slay each other and drive out a party of your people from their homes, supporting one another against them by sin and transgression? - and if they came to you as captives ye would ransom them, whereas their expulsion was itself unlawful for you - Believe ye in part of the Scripture and disbelieve ye in part thereof? And what is the reward of those who do so save ignominy in the life of the world, and on the Day of Resurrection they will be consigned to the most grievous doom. For Allah is not unaware of what ye do.

86 Such are those who buy the life of the world at the price of the Hereafter. Their punishment will not be lightened, neither will they have support.

-Evil is that for which they sell their souls: that they should disbelieve in that which Allah hath revealed, grudging that Allah should reveal of His bounty unto whom He will of His slaves. They have incurred anger upon anger. For disbelievers is a shameful doom.
-And who doth greater wrong than he who forbiddeth the approach to the sanctuaries of Allah lest His name should be mentioned therein, and striveth for their ruin. As for such, it was never meant that they should enter them except in fear. Theirs in the world is ignominy and theirs in the Hereafter is an awful doom.
-
That is because they say: The Fire will not touch us save for a certain number of days. That which they used to invent hath deceived them regarding their religion.

25 How (will it be with them) when We have brought them all together to a Day of which there is no doubt, when every soul will be paid in full what it hath earned, and they will not be wronged.
-As for such, their guerdon is that on them rests the curse of Allah and of angels and of men combined.


Definitely hates on other beliefs

How come I became a Muslim, if I don't listen to others?
What 'historical scholars'?
Can you point me to an article in Wikipedia, outlining their names?

ps. not individual people, but a wiki-page on these 'historical scholars'

Biblical criticism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

You rejected every scholars work in the field I posted, with ridiculous made-up criticisms.

That is the conclusions of many authors .. but that opinion is
based mainly on apparent inaccuracies found in the OT ..HOW MANY MORE TIMES??

How many more times can you say something so illogical and conspiracy theory like? Probably many.

The text have been orally transmitted, when the Dead Sea scrolls were found this also CONFIRMED the OT scriptures were accurate.
You are now making some bizarre conspiracy theory that Genesis looks like a reworking of Mesopotamian myths but really was something different, which was never found, even though all Jewish people say these are the stories, they have been confirmed many times over, talked about by historians of the time?
These are not opinions? It's facts about actual evidence. again, you do this bizarre tap dance that you don't even understand to try to fix issues.


Also, YOU DON'T KNOW THOSE ARE INACCURACIES????? You have no evidence, you have nothing. Those are the myths of the Israelite people. They seem to be fine with them. Yet you join some religion from 7AD and think you can just go tell them their religion is all wrong because an angel came down and told an Arab in 7AD.

You want to talk about "absurd". WOW!

That is absurd .. you take one person out of billions from 1000's of years ago,
and tell me there is no evidence that he existed .. ridiculous!

Correct, there is no evidence he existed. So what? He also sounds like a myth, is names like a myth, existed before the Israelites were known to have started writing myths or were a people. So likely, he was created when the story was written. Like the thousands of other myths.

 

[joelr]

How come I became a Muslim, if I don't listen to others?
What 'historical scholars'?
Can you point me to an article in Wikipedia, outlining their names?

ps. not individual people, but a wiki-page on these 'historical scholars'

From NT historian Bart Ehrman's Jesus Interrupted:




“historical- critical” method.


The approach taken to the Bible in almost all Protestant (and


now Catholic) mainline seminaries is what is called the “historical-


critical” method. It is completely different from the “devotional”


approach to the Bible one learns in church. The devotional approach


to the Bible is concerned about what the Bible has to say—especially


what it has to say to me personally or to my society. What does the


Bible tell me about God? Christ? The church? My relation to the


world? What does it tell me about what to believe? About how to act?


About social responsibilities? How can the Bible help make me closer


to God? How does it help me to live?








The historical-critical approach has a different set of concerns and


therefore poses a different set of questions. At the heart of this ap¬


proach is the historical question (hence its name) of what the biblical


writings meant in their original historical context. Who were the


actual authors of the Bible? Is it possible (yes!) that some of the au¬


thors of some of the biblical books were not in fact who they claimed,


or were claimed, to be—say, that 1 Timothy was not actually writ¬


ten by Paul, or that Genesis was not written by Moses? When did


these authors live? What were the circumstances under which they


wrote? What issues were they trying to address in their own day?


How were they affected by the cultural and historical assumptions


of their time? What sources did these authors use? When were these


sources produced? Is it possible that the perspectives of these sources


differed from one another? Is it possible that the authors who used


these sources had different perspectives, both from their sources and


from one another? Is it possible that the books of the Bible, based on


a variety of sources, have internal contradictions? That there are ir¬


reconcilable differences among them? And is it possible that what the


books originally meant in their original context is not what they are


taken to mean today? That our interpretations of Scripture involve


taking its words out of context and thereby distorting its message?





And what if we don’t even have the original words? What if,


during the centuries in which the Bible—both the Old Testament,


in Hebrew, and the New Testament, in Greek—was copied by hand,


the words were changed by well-meaning but careless scribes, or by


fully alert scribes who wanted to alter the texts in order to make


them say what they wanted them to say?


These are among the many, many questions raised by the historical-


critical method. No wonder entering seminarians have to prepare for


“baby Bible” exams even before they could begin a serious study of


the Bible. This kind of study presupposes that you know what you’re


talking about before you start talking about it.





A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided


by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expecta¬


tion of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass


them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for


them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their sur¬


prise they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of


what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of


research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them ir¬


reconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the


first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke,


and lohn did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did


not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were consid¬


ered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by


Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did


not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the


Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds


on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard


to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the histori¬


cal Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are


filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New


Testament contains historically unreliable information about the


life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament


are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers


claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.





Some students accept these new views from day one. Others—


especially among the more conservative students—resist for a long


time, secure in their knowledge that God would not allow any false¬


hoods into his sacred book. But before long, as students see more


and more of the evidence, many of them find that their faith in the


inerrancy and absolute historical truthfulness of the Bible begins to


waver. There simply is too much evidence, and to reconcile all of the


hundreds of differences among the biblical sources requires so much


speculation and fancy interpretive footwork that eventually it gets to


be too much for them.

 

[joelr]

How come I became a Muslim, if I don't listen to others?
What 'historical scholars'?
Can you point me to an article in Wikipedia, outlining their names?

ps. not individual people, but a wiki-page on these 'historical scholars'

Not much critical history has been done on the Quran. In Islamic countries it would be considered heretical. But some scholars are now doing it.
You will see why it would not go over well in some places.

Can the Qur'an and Early Islam Be Studied Critically (Like the NT and Early Christianity?) Guest Post by Stephen Shoemaker | The Bart Ehrman Blog

Why don’t scholars engage in a historical-critical study of the Qur’an the way they do with the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible? I get asked this kind of thing all the time – with variations: “Where can I find a scholarly discussion the critical problems with the Qur’an like…

ehrmanblog.org

Why don’t scholars engage in a historical-critical study of the Qur’an the way they do with the New Testament and the Hebrew Bible? I get asked this kind of thing all the time – with variations: “Where can I find a scholarly discussion the critical problems with the Qur’an like scholars publish about the Bible all the time?” or “I know Muslims claim the Qur’an is perfect, but what to critical scholars say about it?” or “Why don’t scholars take a historical to early Islam like they do with early Christianity?”
For most of my career there really hasn’t been much out there to suggest, but in recent years that has begun to change. In large part that’s because of a former student of mine who is now a prominent scholar of early Christianity, Stephen Shoemaker, Professor of Religious Studies at the University of Oregon. Stephen is an unusually productive scholar with a wide range of expertise (and a deep knowledge of a crazy number of ancient languages and obscure texts!). Check him out here: Stephen J. Shoemaker | Professor of Religious Studies, University of Oregon


I am a former student of Bart – much longer ago than either of us would care to admit. My training (at Duke actually) was originally in early Christian studies, and I continue to be active in that field, but I’ve also done a lot of work studying the beginnings of Islam. In my publications on the origins of Islam, I borrow the historical-critical approach that we routinely use in the study of early Christianity – which is undoubtedly well known to members of this blog – and apply it to similar problems and questions that arise from the early Islamic tradition.

As many of you may be aware, such approaches to the beginnings of Islam are very rare, almost to the point of being non-existent. Bart tells me that he regularly hears from subscribers to this blog that they want to read something on the origins of the Qur’an and Islam like his books on the New Testament and early Christianity. But the truth is, there is really nothing comparable out there, and in this blog post I’d like to talk a little bit about why.
The simplest explanation is that the study of Islamic origins remains stalled at the point where early Christian studies stood more or less at the middle of the nineteenth century. Why it remains stalled there is a more complicated matter that we can’t get into here. But the result is that scholars of the Qur’an have been extremely reluctant to adopt the critical approaches, and particularly the methodological skepticism, that have characterized the study of earliest Christianity since the middle of the nineteenth century. Instead, they still rely very heavily on the historical framework of the Islamic tradition itself to guide their studies. It is as if, in early Christian studies, one still allowed Eusebius to set the terms of our investigation of Christian origins.

To be fair, scholars of early Islam have not been entirely unwilling to subject certain aspects of the traditional narratives of Islamic origins to historical criticism. But when it comes to the most important points regarding the historical Muhammad and the formation of the Qur’an, fundamental deference to the tradition remains paramount. For instance, the Islamic tradition maintains that the Qur’an was established – in exactly the same format and wording that we have it today – by the middle of the seventh century. And so when the overwhelming majority of scholars set out to study the Qur’an, they do so with confidence that its contents were fixed within twenty years of Muhammad’s death. The result is that most western scholarship on the Qur’an serves to reinscribe, rather than challenge, the traditional Islamic narrative of the Qur’an’s formation. Acceptance of this viewpoint limits both the questions that may be asked and how they will be answered, resulting in a scholarly cocoon that protects – whether intentionally or not – the views of the Islamic tradition.
Collective confidence in this received account of the Qur’an’s formation obviously leaves off the table many basic questions that scholars routinely ask about the New Testament writings, not to mention other sacred texts. In effect, one is not allowed to probe the history of the Qur’anic traditions and their development. These traditions were recorded soon after Muhammad’s death, by those who had followed him and under careful state supervision, thereby ensuring their accuracy. Accordingly, there is no possibility for form critical analysis of individual traditions or investigations of redactional development within the Qur’anic text. What we find in the Qur’an, scholars regularly assume and assert, is in fact what Muhammad actually taught, thereby obviating the complicated questions that constantly vex (and delight) biblical scholars.

This conviction that the Qur’an indeed preserves the very words of Muhammad himself is perhaps the strangest presumption of Qur’anic studies as practiced in the modern west, particularly when compared with biblical studies. Qur’anic scholars regularly insist that the words found in the Qur’an today are the exact words spoken by Muhammad to his followers in Mecca and Medina during the early seventh century. It is truly astonishing, I think, that so many ostensibly critical, non-Muslim scholars would stalwartly profess the authenticity of the Qur’an as more or less a simple transcript of what Muhammad taught. As readers of Bart’s many works, you will all know that this is of course an impossibility, absent dictation or a miracle, both of which are highly unlikely........................

rest of article on link

 

[joelr]

The point of view of islam, is that every one, in his deep interior, believe in God. Its part of its inner nature. So the word disbeliever in the quran is Kafir, wich have a meaning of hiding. The disbiliever have a veil that hide its reconciliation with his inner nature, wuch forbid him to recognise god. Some Parents, society, sins, addictions, ...all are factors that get you away from listening to your inner voice and thinking of the real purpose of your life and after death. The solution is very simple: take a moment where you are calm and alone, like at night, and ask the creator of this universe (witch is not a person, and are not like anithing you might think of), and ask him sincerly, SINCERLY, for guidance. And repreat this with the heart and mindset of someone who is sinking and asking for help. If you are sincere, he will manifest to you and guide you, as he is close to its creation and knows whats in the hearts.

The oldest apologetic ever, used by every religion, including Mormonism here in Moroni 10:


And when ye shall receive these things, I would exhort you that ye would ask God, the Eternal Father, in the name of Christ, if these things are not true; and if ye shall ask with a sincere heart, with real intent, having faith in Christ, he will manifest the truth of it unto you, by the power of the Holy Ghost.

5 And by the power of the Holy Ghost ye may know the truth of all things.
And whatsoever thing is good is just and true; wherefore, nothing that is good denieth the Christ, but acknowledgeth that he is.



This worked on me as a teenager with Christianity. It also works in Islam, Mormonism and Hinduism, as I found out when I had a GF who was a Muslim and later a Hindu.
They both bought it 100%, as did I.

But when I became secular I realized I could do this same trick with self help gurus or anything that inspired me. Your subconscious mind will respond and that is the psychological trick that religions use, to trick you into thinking it's a deity.
Now, like your subconscious mind, this will NEVER tell you information you couldn't know, lottery numbers, the location of a hidden will or kidnapped family member, a number in pi you haven't calculated. It's a form of meditation, clearing your mind, it releases dopamine and gets you thinking clearly. It works in religions, cults, new-age groups, self-help seminars and is 100% psychology.

Society, sins, addictions, do not prevent you from buying into a story with no evidence. It's realizing it's just a made-up tale with bad apologetics, and it's abusing psychology and peoples needs for guidance is what helps people see it isn't real. The apologetic tell you this false information.

Go ahead, ask your connection to provide you with a 14 digit number. I have one written out. Ask SINCERLY for this information and it will manifest to you the correct number.

Also people do not believe in god naturally, it's burned into your mind as a child and then you claim it's natural. The Romans had a common saying on gravestones:

Non Fui, Fui, Non Sum, Non Curo

N.F.F.N.S.N.C.

I was not, I was, I am not, I care not.

Because they grew up secular and had no internal god belief pushed onto them at an age where it becomes attached with things that are real. It doesn't exist without it being taught.

 

[flowerpower]

Can we change our mind about what we believe?​

Yes.

 

[RestlessSoul]

First your two definitions are really the same thing, so again, I have no idea where you are going?
But yes, it's a Jewish version. Again, let's consult a NT PhD historian:

"No. The only plausible reason for why some Jews ever came up with a Jewish dying-and-rising savior god in precisely that region and era, is that everyone else had; it was so popular and influential, so fashionable and effective, it was inevitable the idea would seep into some Jewish consciousness, and erupt onto the scene of “inspired” revolutionizing of a perceived-to-be-corrupted faith. They Judaized it, of course. Jesus is as different from Osiris as Osiris is from Dionysus or Inanna or Romulus or Zalmoxis. The differences are the Jewish tweaks. Just as the Persian Zoroastrian system of messianism, apocalypticism, worldwide resurrection, an evil Satan at war with God, and a future heaven and hell effecting justice as eternal fates for all, was Judaized when they were imported into Judaism. None of those ideas existed in Judaism before that (and you won’t find them in any part of the Old Testament written before the Persian conquest). No one claimed they were “corrupting” Judaism with those pagan ideas (even though in fact they were). They simply claimed these new ideas were all Jewish. Ordained and communicated by God, through inspired scripture and revelation. The Christians, did exactly the same thing.

It’s time to face this fact. And stop denying it. It’s time to get over it already. Resurrected savior gods were a pagan idea. All Christianity did, was invent a Jewish one."

Dying-and-Rising Gods: It's Pagan, Guys. Get Over It. • Richard Carrier Blogs

Easter this year lands most fittingly on April Fool’s Day. Because indeed, the resurrection of Jesus is akin to the greatest prank in history. Not because anyone actually faked it (though the evidence we have left, remains fully consistent with their having done so: see Robert Price’s chapter...

www.richardcarrier.info

We cannot know what Jesus ever said. Paul was claiming what was said to him was from a ghost Jesus, post-resurrection, so that isn't reliable.

The Gospels are anonymous, non-eyewitness and use OT stories, Romulus and other sources to create stories. The wisdom is Rabbi Hillell so parsing out Jesus here is impossible.


Or he thought he could become a high-up in the movement. Or both. I don't believe he had those visions so that is suspect.




That came later, way later and isn't original to Christianity.


The Trimūrti (/trɪˈmʊərti/;[1] Sanskrit: त्रिमूर्ति trimūrti, "three forms" or "trinity") is the trinity of supreme divinity in Hinduism,[


Now I see, the Quran says the trinity isn't real. Well none of it is real so getting into details is pointless here. Revelations are not real, ever, or is any sign of theism or God so there is no need to get into the trinity here?

You've studied so much, and learned so little. How is that possible?

 

[flowerpower]

You've studied so much, and learned so little. How is that possible?

I've found that such a thing is actually an all too common phenomenon.

Especially in the 21st Century.

I used to loathe the concept of "educated idiocy" - not so much anymore. The world has changed fast.

 

[RestlessSoul]

I've found that such a thing is actually an all too common phenomenon.

Especially in the 21st Century.

I used to loathe the concept of "educated idiocy" - not so much anymore. The world has changed fast.

Google is your friend, apparently, and a world if information is only a handset away. Particularly if you wish to confirm your existing prejudices.

 

[muhammad_isa]

It isn't surprising that the Jewish religion added Persian ideas. and later added Greek ideas because they were very popular..

Mankind is capable of all kinds of things .. including being affected by their environment.

Hinduism also has personal deities who offer guidance which for one is the point of the Bhagavad Gita, :

Deflection .. you ask me about Zeus, and now you want to talk about Hinduism..
There is no connection, that I am aware of..

Almost all religions are a person makes claims to have gotten a revelation from a deity.

Sorry .. no! It seems that religion is not your subject.
You should stick to your 'historical scholars', and archeology etc.

No, as I said Allah hates other religions.

And when thy Lord said unto the angels: Lo! I am about to place a viceroy in the earth, they said: Wilt thou place therein one who will do harm therein and will shed blood, while we, we hymn Thy praise and sanctify Thee? He said: Surely I know that which ye know not.

-But they who disbelieve, and deny Our revelations, such are rightful Peoples of the Fire. They will abide therein.-

That has nothing to do with hate .. that is a warning.
Does a parent hate their child, when they chastise them for wrongdoing?

These are not opinions? It's facts about actual evidence.

You cannot prove any of your so-called facts .. nobody can!