Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[It Aint Necessarily So]

That's selfish! You are not thinking of the bigger picture. i.e. there MUST be losers in such a system .. and also that climate-change is a result of usury.

Your argument seems to be that if I do business with banks, that somehow the earth will warm as a result or that somebody loses. If so, you'll have to connect the dots for me and explain how that works. My office start-up loan was $25,000. I don't recall the interest rate, but let's say 10%. I paid that off in about five years, so maybe I spent about $10,000 in interest. Please explain who the loser was there and how that loan contributed to global warming.

And remember, we're talking about the idea that you mentioned when I asked you for useful answers that religion gave us, so I assume that you consider this one of the better examples of that. You're supporting my point with this. Many people including myself have benefitted from this practice, entered it happily by applying for and accepting loans, and consider the cost of interest well spent.

Nonsense! People are people, regardless of what religion they claim to follow.

I made the argument that humanism generates better people. You commented on how the majority of the religious. Your words were, "the majority do not practice their faith, and know little." That's not true with humanism. The majority DO follow its precepts and are better people and better neighbors for it.

And the general populations of Western social democracies are coming to see that the claims of religions for themselves are inaccurate and that these religions really aren't a good thing. More and more reject them for their bigotries and their irrelevance in their lives. That's in part because of modern telecommunications, which makes these religions more transparent, and the rise of people like me who now have a platform for making the kinds of arguments I've made in this thread and for which religious apologists can mount no adequate defense as has been the case with you here.

I pointed out the lack of valuable cultural contribution resulting from Christianity or Islam, and you have no better counterexample better than to bring up "usury." Humanism, through its promotion of reason, empiricism, and rational ethics intended to maximize the quality of life possible in those societies has replaced creationism and other mythology with science, and theocratic monarchies ruling subjects with free societies of free citizens with guaranteed personal rights. Unlike whatever contributions you think these religions have made, both of those things have improved the quality of like for untold millions.

We are ALL sinners, but the pious endeavour to commit less sin...and the pious are only few.

No, you're a sinner because you believe you are, and piety is not a virtue. Worshiping gods is not virtuous. Observing religious rituals is not. Praying is not. But being a good citizen and neighbor are virtues.

Well so much for your critical thinking!

I wrote, "To the outsider, the majority define what the religion is and does, not its doctrine." Why do you think a non-Christian like me cares or should care what the believer's theology is? I don't care if they believe in one god or three, or if they commune on Fridays, Saturdays, or Sundays, or if their crosses have bodies nailed to them, or they worship saints, or they don't eat pork, or they eschew extramarital sex. I care about their characters. I care how they treat women and LGBTQ+, not what they believe about such people. I care how they vote. I care when they cover up pedophilia. These are the things that define Christianity and Islam to me, not doctrine.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Your argument seems to be that if I do business with banks, that somehow the earth will warm as a result or that somebody loses. If so, you'll have to connect the dots for me and explain how that works..

You are looking at it from your own perspective..
The point is, that the system itself is corrupt.

Looking at it on a global scale, we see that the lenders get richer, and the borrowers get poorer.
They MUST do. There is a set amount of wealth(resources) in the world.

Money represents wealth .. it is worthless in itself (tokens).
Therefore, those that have are amassing wealth at the expense of those that haven't.
eg. North America --> median wealth per adult $109,000
. . . Africa --------------> median wealth per adult $1,200

If the wealth was spread more evenly between people (if the financial system was not usurious),
the rich could not afford the lifestyle that is actually CAUSING global warming.
..and we see problems with migration for the same reason, exacerbating said issue.

Your words were, "the majority do not practice their faith, and know little." That's not true with humanism..

Oh boy!
..so you do not recognise sin, and consider yourself as one of the "goodies" ..hmmph.
It's all in the mind, my friend.

..And the general populations of Western social democracies are coming to see that the claims of religions for themselves are inaccurate and that these religions really aren't a good thing..

Are they? More fool them.
World War III will happen .. the world is "out of control".
People don't only sin, but now they cannot SEE what is sin and what is not.
An increase in madness and enmity due to the increase in major sins of mankind.

I pointed out the lack of valuable cultural contribution resulting from Christianity or Islam, and you have no better counterexample better than to bring up "usury."

It is a very important issue, but you do not perceive.
Another issue is adultery and fornication.
..also leading to increased enmity and destruction of the society through family breakdown.

No, you're a sinner because you believe you are, and piety is not a virtue. Worshiping gods is not virtuous. Observing religious rituals is not. Praying is not. But being a good citizen and neighbor are virtues..

No comment..

Why do you think a non-Christian like me cares or should care what the believer's theology is? I don't care..

I believe in a broad education.

 

[joelr]

Err, no.
You merely cherry-pick your "educated scholars", and anybody who doesn't agree with them
you therefore consider "uneducated".
That is a HUGE fallacy!

You are telling lies.
In order to even make an argument you have to completely LIE about other people. Your position is hopeless. Maybe someone can defend it, you cannot.

I NEVER said any historian in the field is "uneducated". NEVER. It is dishonorable and disgraceful to attempt to claim someone is making those claims about scholars.



As Carrier pointed out, "

All mainstream scholars agree Jesus as demigod is a mythical savior deity. "

ALL OF THEM. What about that do you not get?

So I heard good things about the work of Dale Allison, over and over, as the best NT scholar. NOT a historian, but general NT scholar, and a believer.
So I studied him as well. He is a good scholar. But guess what, when it came to explaining why he believes, he didn't have a compelling reason. It was basically an argument to personal INCREDULITY . Meaning "well there must be something". HE used nothing about history or the book and claimed it is true or any such thing. Because those arguments don't work.

It's also a known thing that theologians start with the assumption the book is true.

Theologians do not study the history or historical aspects of the religion. Please use you mind here.
You don't just assume the Hindu books, the Mormon Bible, the NT, Bahai scripture are dictated by God? You would want to know the evidence, the history, the circumstances. You would not just say "oh, a Bahai theologian says it's gods words so it must be true"????????


NO? Those are people who already bought into the religion and are working on figuring out what God meant by each phrase. YOU would not accept that from a Mormon theologian and assume they are correct? You would want to know the details about Joe SMith and are there early drafts of the work, what were people saying about him, what is the evidence, does it actually match up with Hebrew traditions he wouldn't know about? You would want to learn those things first to see if you found holes in his story.

If you care about what is true. OR maybe you would just be all "wow, really, must be true, an angel, really? Great sign me up....."


So please get real. I'm going on the consensus opinions here. What you have a problem with, is truth. Or is Dr Baden wrong? Great, write up a paper, get it published, show me his mistakes, I'll read it. Get your PhD in Hebrew Bible first.

I don't cherry pick, I hear about a scholar and check them out. There are currently NO historians who claim all of the stories are real because it would be like saying all of the Greek stories about Zeus are real. ABSURD.

..in your opinion..
..but you are blinkered into believing only people with PhD's in ancient history, who happen to be atheists, are the only educated people in the world.

I'm really close to putting you on ignore, really close. I'm so sick of you telling lies about me. The saving grace is it shows you have no argument without making up complete lies. Why would you just lie like this about someone over and over?

I never said historians in the field are the only educated people in the world? In fact, #$@$* &^$. Why do you lie like this? Do you even try to represent religious ethics? Or is that your religious ethics?

It just so happens that every historian I hear has good work and has books out, has a story about how they were fundamentalist and then saw the full scope of evidence and realized it was definitely mythology. Without question. I have stated this several times.

Theologians don't want to know about that evidence and Bart Ehrman even has a chapter about a preacher friend who took some historical classes with him and when he became a church leader he never mentioned the historical evidence again. Bart taught a seminar at his church and people were like "why hasn't anyone ever told me these things".

But you know all this. You probably also know you have no argument so now you are just saying ridiculous things.

PS. Not all people who have studied ancient history are atheists, but the majority
of American graduates might be

Oh is that right:


HANS-JOSEF KLAUCK
Professor of New Testament Exegesis, University of Munich, Germany


Zoroastrians-Their-Religious-Beliefs-and-Practices-MaryBoyce, U.K.


Francesca Stavrakopoulou U.K.



INTERPRETING EARLY HELLENISTIC RELIGION
Petra Pakkanen
MONOGRAPHS OF THE FINNISH INSTITUTE AT ATHENS

John J. Collins is an Irish-born biblical scholar,


John Dominic Crossan , Irish scholar


The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts, a book by Israel
Finkelstein, Professor of Archaeology at Tel Aviv University,

 

[joelr]

It is a very important issue, but you do not perceive.
Another issue is adultery and fornication.
..also leading to increased enmity and destruction of the society through family breakdown.

Not even close to the main reasons for divorce. Expectations/emotional issues is first, lack of family support is second. Often this is from someone marrying one in another religion

"About one-third of all evangelical marriages end up in a divorce. When an evangelical marries an non-evangelical, the divorce rate climbs to 50% ..."

religious intolerance also leads to family breakdown.

3 of the hosts of Atheist Experience were shut out from their evangelical family when they chose a secular life. So much for freedom of religion and respecting others beliefs.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Looking at it on a global scale, we see that the lenders get richer, and the borrowers get poorer.

Almost everybody who has made more than a little money did business with banks. There is a legitimate concern with central banks and with the risky banking practices that lead to a recession in the late aughts with multiple large bank failures and bailouts, but that's a different matter. Making and taking loans as I described it in my own experience helped me to live a more full life.

If the wealth was spread more evenly between people (if the financial system was not usurious), the rich could not afford the lifestyle that is actually CAUSING global warming.

The reason for income inequality is not banks making loans and collecting interest. Nor is it the cause of global warming.

so you do not recognise sin

No. That's a religious concept.

consider yourself as one of the "goodies"

I'm a decent person who has been a good neighbor and citizen.

World War III will happen .. the world is "out of control".

I think we've drifted pretty far afield here. This discussion began with your claim that religion has answers and my disagreeing. Religion has no answers for income inequality or global warming or the world being out of control or a possible WW III.

Another issue is adultery and fornication...also leading to increased enmity and destruction of the society through family breakdown.

Disagree. Society doesn't break down because some families do. Just keep peace in the streets, maintain public safety, keep people housed and fed, and keep the supply chain working.

And adultery and fornication aren't problems for society, either. Go ahead and have as much legal, consensual sex as you like with whomever you like.

I believe in a broad education.

So do I, but I don't consider theology knowledge or an academic pursuit, and as I explained, I have no reason for learning it. It's as meaningless to me as studying alchemy. One might like to learn ABOUT astrology - it's history, the importance it might have played in various places at various times, how it was supplanted by astronomy, etc.. - but there is zero value in studying how to derive a horoscope from a star chart or learning whether Leos and Virgos are considered compatible. It's analogous with religion. There may be value in approaching the history and cultural impact of religions over the ages, which ARE academic pursuits, but not in studying what only believers study and care about - theology.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..I NEVER said any historian in the field is "uneducated". NEVER. It is dishonorable and disgraceful to attempt to claim someone is making those claims about scholars.

As Carrier pointed out, "
All mainstream scholars agree Jesus as demigod is a mythical savior deity. "

What is a "mainstream scholar"?
Are scholars that don't study in the English language excluded, for example?

It's also a known thing that theologians start with the assumption the book is true..

..and atheists will presume that it is NOT true .. that is the main reason why I dismiss
these types of books .. that make conclusions about G-d from ancient history.
It simply can't be done, in any case. Claiming something is "likely" or
"unlikely" is not conclusive. It is based on assumption.

Theologians do not study the history or historical aspects of the religion..

What utter nonsense. We are not all dumbos.

I'm going on the consensus opinions here..

..in "English speaking" academia, in the specialised field of ancient history, you mean?
The same could be said about those in the field of paleontology.

..but are these people theologians? No, not many of them.
You take a specialised field, and then think you know it all.

It just so happens that every historian I hear has good work and has books out, has a story about how they were fundamentalist and then saw the full scope of evidence and realized it was definitely mythology. Without question. I have stated this several times..

Great! They have a book out. They are earning their living.
That is NOT the way that I would want to earn my living .. by stating that G-d probably doesn't exist.
..but they sell so much better than books that state that G-d probably DOES exist.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The reason for income inequality is not banks making loans and collecting interest. Nor is it the cause of global warming..

..in your opinion..
Are you an economist? I doubt it very much, with such an opinion.
What is "a bank"? Where do they get their money? etc. etc.

Religion has no answers for income inequality or global warming..

..and there we have it .. you prefer to ignore it .. you would rather support
the "status quo", and keep your privileged status.
Of course, you are in the majority .. it is not hard to see why..

Disagree. Society doesn't break down because some families do. Just keep peace in the streets, maintain public safety, keep people housed and fed, and keep the supply chain working.

..now you sound like a communist.

..I don't consider theology knowledge or an academic pursuit..

It's much better than reading "toilet walls" !

I'm not surprised. If you believed in an afterlife, you might think differently.
Personally, I respect those with a Doctor of Divinity degree.
It is all about the human condition..

 

[Trailblazer]

It means there is no evidence. Which means I have more than personal opinion.

No, it doesn't mean there is no evidence, it means there is no proof. Evidence is not proof.
It is only your personal opinion that there is no evidence of anything supernatural. I have a different opinion.

First revelations are not even demonstrated to be a real thing.
Second the Quran borrows stories from the OT. Noah, Moses and many more are mentioned.
If you want to say the stories are from a god and not from reading the OT than demonstrate a god who gives revelation. Show sufficient evidence as good as the evidence we have that people copy from older books.

No, revelations cannot be demonstrated to have come from God. That is why revelation is a belief, not a fact.

Quran refers to stories from the OT, Noah, Moses and many more are mentioned, but that doesn't mean they were 'copied' from those older books. I do not believe they were copied, but I cannot prove that.

My point exactly, all you have are claims.

I do not make any claims because I have nothing to claim. Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.

Again, nope, the opinions and conclusions on th ehistorical evidence are not my own but opinions and conclusions from the top scholars in the field. They are our best attempt at what is true.

If you want to take that stance then there are also Baha'i scholars who have studied the Bible.

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]

A Baháí View of the Bible

The Bahai scriptures are also written by a man who made up stories about having revelations.

Unless you can prove that it is a bald assertion, a logical fallacy.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up. Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

And the evidence is horrible and basically non-existent.

A personal opinion.

Now this is funny. A minute ago, right above you just said this - "I have beliefs and I do not pretend that they are facts."

Yet here you are stating knowledge about the OT god as if they are hard FACTS.
You do not say "if you believe that is the OT God that is your belief"

You DO say " If you believe the OT is God actions that is laughable."

What sounds to you as me stating knowledge about the OT god as if they are hard facts does not mean I consider them hard facts.
Nothing in the Bible is a hard fact.

When I said: "If you believe the OT is God actions that is laughable" I meant that I consider that funny. I also consider it absurd.

Is probably not at all what you mean. What you mean is what the Bahai book says is true you believe and what the Bahai books says is metaphor you think is metaphor.

I said: The Bible is full of mythology but there are also many spiritual truths embedded in the Bible. The key is knowing which is which.
That is my own opinion, it did not come from a Baha'i book.

Because you believe if the book says it it must be true.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You believe that just because some scholars said something it must be true.
That is what you said above:
the opinions and conclusions on the historical evidence are not my own but opinions and conclusions from the top scholars in the field. They are our best attempt at what is true.

And here we have exact confirmation of what I just said. You believe everything is either true or not true based on another book. Written by a man who makes a claim and cannot back it up. He does write nothing new, rehashed wisdom, incorrect prophecies.

It's true because the book says so. Great, so you don't care about what is true at all.

I care only about what is true.
I believe it is true because Baha'u'llah wrote it, and I believe that everything He wrote was true.

Nobody can demonstrate god right, except it's "laughable" if you buy into some OT stories. Because you can demonstrate that isn't god. Oh you actually cannot? But it's totally cool to buy into Bahai claims?
This is the most inconsistent logic that ever existed.

There is nothing inconsistent about my logic.

The OT is an ancient book written by unnamed men and there is no reason to believe they were inspired by God.
The Writings of Baha'u'llah were written by Baha'u'llah who 'I believe' was a Messenger of God who got a revelation from God.

There is no comparison.

yes because there is a lack of evidence

Yes, there certainly no evidence that the God of the OT exists, that it was not made up by men.

 

[Trailblazer]

a religion with even less evidence.

Less evidence than WHAT, Christianity?
The Bible is not evidence for anything, except that some men can write stories.
Excuse me while I laugh.
Now I need to go for a second cup of coffee.

All this time I have talked to you there has been ZERO evidence.

Zero evidence in your personal opinion.

Here is what I actually said. "A god who would create Bahai but not offer enough proof (not just for me but billions of Muslims are not convinced), is a monster. Crteating conflict, wars, separation. Either he's a total monster or it's all made up by people.

Hmmm, wonder which one it is?"

So what if millions of people are not convinced that the Baha'i Faith is true? That in no way means that it is not true since how many people believe it is no indication of whether it is true or false. That was my point of posting the fallacy of ad populum.

God is not a monster since God is in no way responsible for whether people believe a religion is true or not.

It is not the Baha'i Faith that has created conflict, wars, and separation. It is Christianity and Islam!

Yes, only a few find it, the rest use confirmation bias to believe fake stuff.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The few who find it are the ones who have eternal life.

There are reasons why only a few people find it. Few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...

It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.

Yes we know hell is a myth, revelations are fake

No, we do not know those things since there is no proof.

Like I just said, you believe any scripture if it matches your book. Also you just said an entire religion is wrong -

No, I never said that. I said:
I do not believe that all the other scriptures are wrong and I do not believe that all the other religions are wrong.

" If you believe the OT is God actions that is laughable. " The OT is Judaism, and they believe it.

They are free to believe anything they want to believe, as am I.
I have NO REASON to believe it so I don't believe it.
Imb, God is not a man who performs certain actions. That is why I consider the OT ludicrous and laughable.

 

[Trailblazer]

Forest for the trees does not apply. What you are calling "details" are commonly called "facts" and "evidence".
Your lack of understanding that they are crucial to understanding truth explains everything that needs to be said.

All those details are not crucial for EVERYONE who wants to understand truth.
Those details are only necessary for you (or so you believe they are) and for some other people, but those details have certainly not helped you or them to find the truth. They have only led you away from the truth, partly because you misinterpret them.

because you thought it was evidence, it was given when asked for evidence.

So what? I thought a lot of things three years ago that I no longer think.
Maybe you cannot move on but I can.

For the record, I no longer consider the book entitled The Challenge of Baha'u'llah to be evidence for the Baha'i Faith.

The book is simply about how 'one man' came to believe in the Baha'i Faith.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The reason for income inequality is not banks making loans and collecting interest. Nor is it the cause of global warming..

Interesting, isn't it?
We can slow down when we are forced to .. such as in the covid pandemic.
If we had not been in so much of a hurry to "get back to normal", we might
have been able to have averted climate catastrophe.

But no! We want economic activity/growth, and make that our religion.

 

[Trailblazer]

If it's just an opinion than it's debunked as a fact.
If you have facts that one is not seeing true evidence then present it. If not, then that line of argument has been debunked.

That is not a fact. It is my personal opinion, so there is nothing to present.

You have not explained what you mean by forest vs trees so it's fair to assume the prophecies are still in play. If they are not you now need to explain the fact there is a large amount of incorrect prophecies by someone who is supposedly speaking to a god.

I made a post I over 3 years ago and you picked out one book I had linked to in that post.
That was one man's opinion of what he thought Baha'ullah predicted. It is not the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

I already admitted I do not consider that man's opinion to be evidence, so why are you still talking about those prophecies?

You just said there is a massive amount of evidence, there is not actually any evidence,

There is evidence, but it is not the prophecies. Baha'ullah never offered the Bible prophecies that were fulfilled by His coming or the the predictions that He made as evidence.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

 

[Trailblazer]

They have evidence. Now please explain why scholars are "biased" but someone who buys into a belief without evidence because they resonate with writings isn't the real bias person?

Why are historians biased? Why are archaeologists biased? What do they do, go to a temple dig and secretly write stuff on the walls when no one is looking? Please tell us how experts are biased, how you know and give some examples.

I believe that the Bible is full of mythology so I concur with the historians and the archeologists.

yes you did - post 1,037"If you believe the OT is God actions that is laughable. The OT is a book written by men who made up stories about what God did."

I said: I never said that the Bible is mostly wrong and corrupted. Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible has not been corrupted.

In that passage I cited Baha'u'llah was referring to "the heavenly Gospel that exist amongst the Christians." He was not referring to the OT scriptures.

The OT is not a book written by men who made up stories about what God did.

Yes, all historians of the NT and OT know it is mythology, based on evidence. So you say they are bias, don't know and then they do know? What?

Forget what I said about bias if you can.

Dr Carrier-

All mainstream scholars agree Jesus as demigod is a mythical savior deity. They all agree the Gospels are myths about him. They simply conclude that those myths contain some kernels of fact, and that Jesus was originally not a flying, magic-wielding supergod. But they agree the super-Jesus, the only Jesus about whom we have any accounts at all, didn’t exist. They think some mundane Jesus did, who was dressed up with those legends and beliefs later. But that still admits he belongs to a reference class that the Hannibals of the world do not: that of mythically-attested savior gods who speak to their followers in dreams and visions. So we actually need more evidence for Jesus than we have for Hannibal, to be sure Jesus isn’t just like all other mythical savior gods, who also had amazing stories about them set on earth history, and who also appeared to people in dreams and visions—yet never plausibly existed.

You are preaching to the choir. As a Baha'i, I do not believe in the mythical super-Jesus or the savior-Jesus who was a product of Pauline Christianity.

Below is an excerpt from the section of a book entitled The Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ by Udo Schaefer which explains how Paul changed the course of Christianity. You can read the entire section of the book which includes the references on the link to my thread below.

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

"That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Paul, however, did not pass on the revealed doctrine reflected in the glass of the intellectual categories of his time, as is often asserted; he transformed the ‘Faith of Jesus’ into ‘Faith in Jesus.’ He it was who gave baptism a mysterious significance, ‘so as to connect his mission with the experience of initiates in Hellenic mystery cults’, (232) he turned the last supper into a sacramental union with the Lord of those celebrating it; (233) he was responsible for the sacramentalization of the Christian religion, and took the phrase ‘Son of God’--- in the Jewish religion merely a title for the Messiah --- to be an ontological reality. The idea of the Son of God, come down from heaven to earth, hitherto inconceivable to Jewish thought, (234) was taken from Paul from the ancient religious syncretism of Asia Minor, to fit in with the need at the time for a general savior. It is generally accepted by critical scholarship that the godparents were the triad from the cult of Isia (Isis, Osiris and Horus) and also Attis, Adonis and Hercules. Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ……..

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as ‘Ebionites.’ As Schoeps puts it, the heresy-hunters ‘accused the Ebionites of a lapse or relapse into Judaism, whereas they were really only the Conservatives who could not go along with the Pauline-cum-Hellenistic elaborations’. (238) Schonfield comes to the same conclusion: ‘This Christianity in its teaching about Jesus continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into deifying him.’ (239) ‘Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. This is even admitted by some Catholics: ‘Christianity today mostly means Paul.’ (245) And Wilhelm Nestle stated—as noted also by Sabet—‘Christianity is the religion founded by Paul who replaces the Gospel of Jesus by a gospel about Jesus.’ (246) So also Schonfield: ‘Paul produced an amalgamation of ideas which, however unintentionally, did give rise to a new religion.’ (247)……

Measured by the standard of Baha’u’llah revelation, the Pauline doctrine of Justification, the doctrine of Original Sin, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the sacramentalisation of the Christian religion, the whole Church plan of salvation — which not only contradicts the Jewish understanding of God (255) but was also strongly repudiated by the revelation of God which succeeded Christianity (256) — these are a deformation of Jesus’s teaching. Some critical theological scholars have confirmed that these deformations in Christianity started very early, in fact with Paul, and that the arch-apostle, without whom Marcion would not have been possible, was the arch-heretic in Christianity—as Tertullian very rightly saw. (257) Years ago, when I became acquainted with the founder of the Christian religion in the faith of the original community through H. J. Schoep’s Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, (258) the standard work on the subject, I was deeply impressed. Here Jesus was not the only-begotten Son of God come down from Heaven, crucified and resurrected, nor the unique Saviour, but the messenger of God to whom the Quran testifies and who is glorified by Baha’u’llah. (259)"

The idea that the Israelite religion was extraordinary and different from religions of surrounding religions and cultures and this deity is somehow different and extraordinary and so this deity is wholly unlike all other deities in Southeast Asia. Historically this is not the case. Nothing unusual or extraordinary about Yahweh.

I agree.

The Genesis creation narrative is the creation myth[a] of both Judaism and Christianity.[1]
It expounds themes parallel to those in Mesopotamian mythology, emphasizing the Israelite people's belief in one God.
Comparative mythology provides historical and cross-cultural perspectives for Jewish mythology. Both sources behind the Genesis creation narrative borrowed themes from Mesopotamian mythology,[18][19] but adapted them to their belief in one God,
Genesis 1–11 as a whole is imbued with Mesopotamian myths.[
Genesis 2 has close parallels with a second Mesopotamian myth, the Atra-Hasis epic – parallels that in fact extend throughout Genesis 2–11, from the Creation to the Flood and its aftermath.

I agree.

 

[Trailblazer]

That is NOT the way that I would want to earn my living .. by stating that G-d probably doesn't exist.
..but they sell so much better than books that state that G-d probably DOES exist.

Maybe that is because everyone who believes that God does exist already has a Book.

 

[joelr]

What is a "mainstream scholar"?
Are scholars that don't study in the English language excluded, for example?

A mainstream scholar has a PhD in the particular field being discussed and then applies that degree to papers and books, research projects that take many years, which then has to pass peer-review.

If it's OT history then you need to have mastered Hebrew and understand Mesopotamian languages. NT requires Greek but most read several languages as well because many monographs are in other languages. Any other languages that were used in that time and area are also needed to some degree. English would be needed as well for reading modern translations for comparisons.

..and atheists will presume that it is NOT true .. that is the main reason why I dismiss
these types of books ..

Good because those are not the type of books I EVER spoke about. I'm talking about historians, their views do not matter as I illustrated in recent posts. Your beliefs don't change what you find at a temple and it doesn't change evidence. It just so happens all of the historical scholars I encountered no longer believe because the overwhelming evidence is that it is mythology.


HOWEVER, I mentioned Dale Allison who is widely considered the top NT scholar and is a believing Christian. It DID NOT CHANGE HIS HISTORICAL VIEWS, but that isn't his specialty. But he also agrees with the basic ideas I talk about. The expert on the Synoptic problem Mark Goodacre who has definitively shown Mark is the most likely source for M, L, J, is a Christian.

You do not "dismiss" these books for any other reason than you don't care about investigation of your beliefs. Why make stuff up?

that make conclusions about G-d from ancient history.

IF you were zapped into an alternate timeline where everyone believed in Zeus still and you became a Greek historian and correctly concluded Zeus was a god from myth but everyone was like, "you can't draw conclusions from history about Zeus......." "I don't read your work because you don't know"........it would be stupid.

Of course knowing the roots of a religion helps understand where it comes from. It claims direct revelation and history shows the stories are not true, taken from older religions, the books were written in parts with multiple authors, prophecies were usually written after they already happened, and so on, yes that effects your understanding of the religion.

Knowing the palimpsest of the Quran and seeing it existed 5th century gives evidence that it was a work in progress. That is just one line of evidence, with the Bible there are many many lines. None point to it being real. None. Not the gods, the stories, the beliefs,,.....why wouldn't you make conclusions from history?

Do you read Roman or Greek history and go "no, I don't buy it, they were nothing like what historians say, they were WAY different because historians are so wrong". Do you think WW2 was completely different? Is all history just a big bunch of BS?

It simply can't be done, in any case. Claiming something is "likely" or
"unlikely" is not conclusive. It is based on assumption.

So what? The Greeks had dying/rising savior demigods, went through a passion, got salvation for followers, people were baptized, salvation meant your soul went right to heaven, the savior was the Logos, you had a communal meal, the eucharist, and many other exact things.


You don't think that gives a reasonable insight into where they got the ideas for the NT? ALL history is seeing what is most likely without a time machine. What you are saying makes no sense.

What utter nonsense. We are not all dumbos.

Theologians do not study the historical aspects of the religion. I don't know what you are but you DEFINITELY don't study the historical aspects of religion. Besides you don't know ay of it , you SAID IN THIS POST WHY YOU DON'T STUDY RELIGIOUS HISTORY???????????


NOW, it's utter nonsense? Do you even think about what you are going to write first? It's all a contradictory mess?

..in "English speaking" academia, in the specialised field of ancient history, you mean?
The same could be said about those in the field of paleontology.

Oh MY GOD.

No, I f$%$%%$ said the entire field. That means the entire world. Did I not just give you authors in biblical historicity from Germany, Israel, U.K., Ireland???

What is this obsession with "english"?

..but are these people theologians? No, not many of them.

Yes I read theologians, it doesn't pertain to the discussion because theology is interpreting the words. In this discussion it doesn't matter what Matthew meant by

“He made his grave with the wicked and with a rich man in his death”

What matters is historical information, who did M copy from, if he did. Did another nation have this theology before the Jewish people, does this fit with OT Judaism, who wrote M, what year, what does the Dead Sea scroll version say...........and so on.........

You take a specialised field, and then think you know it all.

It's like you can't stop making nonsense statements. You have to do it.


What you might have meant to say was, "you take historical information and then think you know some historical information".

Great! They have a book out. They are earning their living.

No they have many monographs, books, papers, lectures, debates

That is NOT the way that I would want to earn my living .. by stating that G-d probably doesn't exist.

Cool because they don't do that, they talk about history.


Again, if you were getting a PhD and your professor said to write a history paper on Mormonism, you would write that Joseph Smith was a fraud man before he started the religion. You would write that he made claims about golden plates and angels and never produced evidence.
You would write his history that was given to him by the angel does not fit Jewish history of the time he was talking about. You would write there is no information in his Bible that is something humans didn't already know.

And it would appear you were debunking Mormonism. But you are NOT. You are simply writing the best version of what is known to be true.

Nothing about God, no words about "there is no God". Just history. But Mormons would come at you hard. They would say your book is trash because you don't believe, it's a bad way to earn a living, and all the silly things you said to me about historians.
Just for doing your job in your field. Relaying the information as we understand it.

Beyond that, your statement "That is NOT the way that I would want to earn my living .. by stating that G-d probably doesn't exist.". is wrong because historians don't make that claim, but it's also gaslighting.

Your historical paper on Mormonism does not say anything about God. It does give good evidence that Mormonism isn't true.
OT historians can show that YAhweh
was not a new revolution in gods. Merely another of the many Near Eastern deities, who looked, spoke and acted very similar and was a subordinate of EL, the supreme at that time.

That is evidence that YAhweh is also another made up being. Doesn't speak about all gods, it just does it's job in this one aspect.

Religious apologetics are always trying to lump things together, move goalposts, put words in others mouth and even gaslight today.

..but they sell so much better than books that state that G-d probably DOES exist.

Could you hold off on the emoji until you know you are at least correct (tip, you almost never are)?


Apologetics like

The Case for Christ:​

has,
11,526 ratings, NY bestseller



Meanwhile,

Jesus, Interrupted:​

by historian Bart Ehrman, had -

1,844 and sold far far less copies.

research you could do but not caring about what is actually true seems to be your favorite things, so...

 

[joelr]

No, it doesn't mean there is no evidence, it means there is no proof. Evidence is not proof.
It is only your personal opinion that there is no evidence of anything supernatural. I have a different opinion.

Proof is a concept in mathematics, not religion.

Your opinion isn't evidence. Your opinion about evidence doesn't make it valid.

You already had chances to present evidence, you didn't.

You can still give evidence, this time, please provide sufficient evidence to warrant belief in the supernatural.


If it's something already claimed by Mormonism or Christians then it isn't sufficient because you would have converted to Mormonism or Christianity.

No, revelations cannot be demonstrated to have come from God. That is why revelation is a belief, not a fact.

They can suggest they were from a God. Evidence can be provided. Which I gave examples of. Did you already forget? DO I need to keep repeating myself?

Why are you asking the same questions that got you nowhere?

Quran refers to stories from the OT, Noah, Moses and many more are mentioned, but that doesn't mean they were 'copied' from those older books. I do not believe they were copied, but I cannot prove that.

"The similarities of these two religions are uncanny. They are so closely related, and the differences seem so miniscule, at least to the eye of an outsider looking in. When it come to the prayer life of members of the two religions, they are almost identical. They both pray multiple times a day, prayer is obligatory for both, there are movements and gestures to go along with the prayers, the prayers are done facing a certain location, either Mecca or Qiblih, and they are both rooted from the same region in the world. In all reality the only major difference causing these two religions to tear each other apart, is what they believe about the manifestation of Allah. Other than that they are both monotheistic, follow teachings from the prophet Mohammad, and have a regulated form of prayer for members of the religion to follow."

I do not make any claims because I have nothing to claim. Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.

Your claim is he is telling the truth. Evidence doesn't exist to support this and evidence does exist to suggest it's false.

If you want to take that stance then there are also Baha'i scholars who have studied the Bible.

Mírza Abú'l-Fadl was praised and recommended by 'Abdu'l-Bahá and has been justifiably called the most learned and erudite Bahá'í scholar[16]

A Baháí View of the Bible

Colin Dibdin or Mírza Abú'l-Fadl do not appear to be in the critical-history biblical field.​

If they are where are their PhDs from, what have they written and what papers have passed peer-review.




https://bahai-library.com/dibdin_bahai_view_bible

Unless you can prove that it is a bald assertion, a logical fallacy.

What is "bald assertion?" Well the name says it all, doesn't it? It's stating something without backing it up. Logical Fallacy Lesson 4: Bald Assertion | Rational Response Squad

Why is it every time you post a definition (as if no one is educated) you are always using it wrong? You have yet to point out a fallacy and actually have any fallacy exist.

And you are incredibly wrong.

A person who claims to have revelations is making an outrageous claim. A claim that requires excellent evidence equally as outrageous.

He has NO EVIDENCE to support his claim.

He attempted to make prophecies in science and FAILED MISERABLY.
He attempted to make historical predictions and just made predictions everyone at the time was making.

His work is mundane, no indications of science, math, medical, future knowledge, no miracles.

He is 100% a fraud, based on this astounding lack of evidence.



Calling this a bald assertion is a straight lie. Because I've posted these facts over and over. So at this point you are telling lies.
Resorting to fabrications shows you have a faulty position and cannot defend it.
https://www.rationalresponders.com/logical_fallacy_lesson_4_bald_assertion

A personal opinion.

And the evidence is horrible and basically non-existent.
Yes, my opinion. It's also a fact.

Because Mormonism, Jesus ministry in AU and other cults have the same evidence, and you don't buy it one bit.


Everything I say is fact. I will demonstrate any aspect of the lack of evidence anytime. I will critique any scripture, show false prophecies, show no unique future knowledge, show manipulation in the book about his prophecies.

And sho it is not just a personal opinion but a fact he demonstrates no evidence of his claim.

What sounds to you as me stating knowledge about the OT god as if they are hard facts does not mean I consider them hard facts.
Nothing in the Bible is a hard fact.

When I said: "If you believe the OT is God actions that is laughable" I meant that I consider that funny. I also consider it absurd.

Yes you consider it absurd, meaning it's a hard fact that the OT isn't true.

Look at the pot calling the kettle black. You believe that just because some scholars said something it must be true.
That is what you said above:
the opinions and conclusions on the historical evidence are not my own but opinions and conclusions from the top scholars in the field. They are our best attempt at what is true.

Yes, based on the evidence they present. Comparative religions, literary, Temple finds, Dead Sea Scrolls, historians and writers from the time, evidence

I care only about what is true.
I believe it is true because Baha'u'llah wrote it, and I believe that everything He wrote was true.

Exactly, you don't care at all about what is actually true. You only care about the one version where your religion is exactly true. All evidence to the contrary is ignored. And there is massive evidence. So you do not care about what is true. Or you would have to answer to all these issues.
Your answer is to ignore it.

Because you don't care about what is actually true.

There is nothing inconsistent about my logic.

Of course there is.
The OT God is "laughable" because you don't buy the stories.

But a man, who fails at prophecy, no miracles, no superpowers, no future knowledge, poor writing skills, that is 100% believable.

Total nonsense.

The OT is an ancient book written by unnamed men and there is no reason to believe they were inspired by God.
The Writings of Baha'u'llah were written by Baha'u'llah who 'I believe' was a Messenger of God who got a revelation from God.

And he cannot prove it, the writings are average at best. The OT at least is written by men who understood mythology, stories, metaphor, the heroes journey.

There is no comparison.

There isn't. Bahai is redundant, boring and repeats the same thing with different words over and over.

The OT is actual literature. No comparison.

Please post one story from Bahai that serves as a metaphor with literary devices and multiple layers of meaning and so on.

Yes, there certainly no evidence that the God of the OT exists, that it was not made up by men.

There is no evidence any god exists. Especially the Bahai version. At least the Quran made up some miracles.

 

[joelr]

Less evidence than WHAT, Christianity?
The Bible is not evidence for anything, except that some men can write stories.
Excuse me while I laugh.
Now I need to go for a second cup of coffee.

Oh really? Let's see:

"

O ye peoples of the world! Know assuredly that My commandments are the lamps of My loving providence among My servants, and the keys of My mercy for My creatures. Thus hath it been sent down from the heaven of the Will of your Lord, the Lord of Revelation. Were any man to taste the sweetness of the words which the lips of the All-Merciful have willed to utter, he would, though the treasures of the earth be in his possession, renounce them one and all, that he might vindicate the truth of even one of His commandments, shining above the Dayspring of His bountiful care and loving-kindness."


1 paragraph to say, "these are my revelations, God is good."
lets do another:

"Say: From My laws the sweet-smelling savor of My garment can be smelled, and by their aid the standards of Victory will be planted upon the highest peaks. The Tongue of My power hath, from the heaven of My omnipotent glory, addressed to My creation these words: “Observe My commandments, for the love of My beauty.” Happy is the lover that hath inhaled the divine fragrance of his Best-Beloved from these words, laden with the perfume of a grace which no tongue can describe. By My life! He who hath drunk the choice wine of fairness from the hands of My bountiful favor will circle around My commandments that shine above the Dayspring of My creation."


"follow my commandments"


ridiculous. It goes on like this. Forever. The Gospel authors were good writers. This is terrible. Not even a story.

Zero evidence in your personal opinion.

Yes and zero evidence. Where is it?

"His pen" ??? LOLLOLLOL

So what if millions of people are not convinced that the Baha'i Faith is true? That in no way means that it is not true since how many people believe it is no indication of whether it is true or false. That was my point of posting the fallacy of ad populum.

But this God would know his followers were hugely divided already by Islam and now , because he sees the future, would see more pain, torture and separation. When all he had to do was give a messenger the same superpowers he gave others according to the stories?
To convince people?

Instead he get nothing, not even correct prophecies? Whoo would switch from Islam to Bahai based on silly scripture, failed prophecy, no miracles, no medical, scientific, mathematical, future knowledge?

The people already in Christianity and Islam would need massive proof. This is not that, it's a fail and this man is making it up.

God is not a monster since God is in no way responsible for whether people believe a religion is true or not.

Of course he is. You don't buy into cults without evidence?

By your false (you don't believe it) logic it could just as easily be Jesus ministry in AU. But you know it isn't. Why? Because he's not creating a stir with healings, mircles, and other amazing powers that would at least get your attention to take a look.


You know he's a fraud. Bahai has the same conditions.

It is not the Baha'i Faith that has created conflict, wars, and separation. It is Christianity and Islam!

IF Bahai was real and a god let it look like a man making stuff up, it's gods fault.

Matthew 7:13-14 Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

The few who find it are the ones who have eternal life.

There are reasons why only a few people find it. Few people find the narrow gate and even fewer people enter through it because it is narrow, so it is difficult to get through...

It is difficult to get through because one has to be willing to give up all their preconceived ideas, have an open mind, and think for themselves. Most people do not embark upon such a journey. They go through the wide gate, the easy one to get through – their own religious tradition or their own preconceived ideas about God or no god. They follow that broad road that is easiest for them to travel.... and that is why the NEW religion is always rejected by most people for a very long time after it has been revealed.

The narrow gate is from older mythology. It's more man-made myth.

There is no religion here. It's just a guy making claims. There will be more people making claims, some will be somewhat successful. Older religiojs will survive for a while because they make people believe miracles happened. Without them they would fall. Bahai will never become big for this reason.

No, we do not know those things since there is no proof.

We don't know Mormonism is fake either. But common sense will generally prevail.

They are free to believe anything they want to believe, as am I.
I have NO REASON to believe it so I don't believe it.
Imb, God is not a man who performs certain actions. That is why I consider the OT ludicrous and laughable.

A man claiming he talks to god is also ludicrous and laughable.

Claiming you can put restrictions on an infinite deity is ludicrous and laughable.

You continue to make the same nonsense claims. So you have a limited deity who cannot appear as a man if he choose.

Is that made up in your head or written in Bahai scripture?

 

[joelr]

All those details are not crucial for EVERYONE who wants to understand truth.
Those details are only necessary for you (or so you believe they are) and for some other people, but those details have certainly not helped you or them to find the truth.

The details have led me to se what the most probable truth is. It's fake, made up by a prolific writer who doesn't understand mythology at all and thinks he should just praise the sweet glory of his godlyness over and over. Some people bought his story. Good for him.

I believe in logic and evidence and believe beliefs should be based on a rational, empirical methodology. This religion shows itself to be as fake as Mormonism. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.


If you read his scripture and got a fuzzy feeling and decided to buy it then go for it. All of your attempts are not going to change reality and make this into something that is probably true. Mormons try it, still do, it's never going to be reasonable to buy into. Neither is Bahai.

They have only led you away from the truth, partly because you misinterpret them.

Yet, you can't demonstrate any truth, you cannot show how I misinterpret anything. You say a lot but can show nothing.

Just cross out Bahai and replace it with Mormonism and you will see how ridiculous this is.

So what? I thought a lot of things three years ago that I no longer think.
Maybe you cannot move on but I can.

You posted it in this thread as well.

For the record, I no longer consider the book entitled The Challenge of Baha'u'llah to be evidence for the Baha'i Faith.

The book is simply about how 'one man' came to believe in the Baha'i Faith.

Great example of confirmation bias.

A big piece of evidence debunked. What do you do? Reassess? Nope, nothing of the sort, just say "well it's still exactly as true...."

So this means it was not evidence that led you to the belief. It was a feeling you got while reading his words. You attributed it to something it is not. Convinced yourself it must be divine.

It actually doesn;t have to be divine, no matter how it makes you feel.

 

[joelr]

I made a post I over 3 years ago and you picked out one book I had linked to in that post.
That was one man's opinion of what he thought Baha'ullah predicted. It is not the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

I already admitted I do not consider that man's opinion to be evidence, so why are you still talking about those prophecies?

Because they are literally wrong. He got every single prediction wrong. This is evidence he is a normal man, writing from his mind, no god involved.

There is evidence, but it is not the prophecies. Baha'ullah never offered the Bible prophecies that were fulfilled by His coming or the the predictions that He made as evidence.

Below is what Baha’u’llah wrote about the 'evidence' that establishes the truth of His claims. Baha’u’llah enjoined us to look at His own Self (His character), His Revelation (His mission and works, which can be seen in Baha'i history), and His words (His Writings).

“Say: The first and foremost testimony establishing His truth is His own Self. Next to this testimony is His Revelation. For whoso faileth to recognize either the one or the other He hath established the words He hath revealed as proof of His reality and truth. This is, verily, an evidence of His tender mercy unto men. He hath endowed every soul with the capacity to recognize the signs of God. How could He, otherwise, have fulfilled His testimony unto men, if ye be of them that ponder His Cause in their hearts. He will never deal unjustly with any one, neither will He task a soul beyond its power. He, verily, is the Compassionate, the All-Merciful.”

Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, pp. 105-106

Yes this amounts to "it's true because the book says so".


Which you kicked and screamed wasn;t true and now here we are with you saying the same thing once again.


1) His own Self. - Is Joseph Smith evidence of Mormonism? No. Is Jesus in AU evidence that he is Jesus? No. Yet you continue to think this is valid evidence. ABSURD.


2) His Revelation. - it's true because the book says so. His writings are not special. Not predictive of the future, not containing special knowledge any human didn't have. He simply said the word "revelations". The fact that I have to explain that by itself that isn't evidence is ridiculous.
Guess who else got revelations? Joseph Smith. Are you Mormon? NO? Wow, your evidence sucks than.



3) the words He hath revealed - like the incorrect science? Like the lack of good literature? Like how he just praises the most high god over and over? Yeah, no. That isn't evidence. The Mormon Bible is actually pretty good as far as Bibles go. Does that make it real? Why, NO.


Here is the rub.
The only reason these people had to stoop to such a ridiculous low for evidence (these are the worst lines of evidence ever, imagine if this is what Christainity was based on), is because that is all there is, not because it's actually evidence.

sorry, you bought into something not justified. Not my problem. That isn't going to change. You are making the same go-nowhere posts over and over and over and over. I get it, you don't care about evidence. You will just quip about "opinion", "can't prove", blah blah, it's not going to help. This has less evidence than Mormonism.

 

[joelr]

I believe that the Bible is full of mythology so I concur with the historians and the archeologists.

I said: I never said that the Bible is mostly wrong and corrupted. Baha'u'llah wrote that the Bible has not been corrupted.

In that passage I cited Baha'u'llah was referring to "the heavenly Gospel that exist amongst the Christians." He was not referring to the OT scriptures.

The OT is not a book written by men who made up stories about what God did.

Forget what I said about bias if you can.

You are preaching to the choir. As a Baha'i, I do not believe in the mythical super-Jesus or the savior-Jesus who was a product of Pauline Christianity.

Below is an excerpt from the section of a book entitled The Light Shineth in Darkness, Studies in revelation after Christ by Udo Schaefer which explains how Paul changed the course of Christianity. You can read the entire section of the book which includes the references on the link to my thread below.

How Paul changed the course of Christianity

"That the figure of the Nazarene, as delivered to us in Mark’s Gospel, is decisively different from the pre-existent risen Christ proclaimed by Paul, is something long recognized by thinkers like Kant, Fichte, Schelling, Herder and Goethe, to mention only a few. The distinction between ‘the religion of Christ’ and ‘the Christian religion’ goes back to Lessing. Critical theological research has now disputed the idea of an uninterrupted chain of historical succession: Luther’s belief that at all times a small handful of true Christians preserved the true apostolic faith. Walter Bauer (226) and Martin Werner (227) have brought evidence that there was conflict from the outset about the central questions of dogma. It has become clear that the beliefs of those who had seen and heard Jesus in the flesh --- the disciples and the original community--- were at odds to an extraordinary degree with the teaching of Paul, who claimed to have been not only called by a vision but instructed by the heavenly Christ. The conflict at Antioch between the apostles Peter and Paul, far more embittered as research has shown (228) than the Bible allows us to see, was the most fateful split in Christianity, which in the Acts of the Apostles was ‘theologically camouflaged’. (229)

Paul, who had never seen Jesus, showed great reserve towards the Palestinian traditions regarding Jesus’ life. (230) The historical Jesus and his earthly life are without significance for Paul. In all his epistles the name ‘Jesus’ occurs only 15 times, the title ‘Christ’ 378 times. In Jesus’s actual teaching he shows extraordinarily little interest. It is disputed whether in all his epistles he makes two, three or four references to sayings by Jesus. (231) It is not Jesus’ teaching, which he cannot himself have heard at all (short of hearing it in a vision), that is central to his own mission, but the person of the Redeemer and His death on the Cross.

Paul, however, did not pass on the revealed doctrine reflected in the glass of the intellectual categories of his time, as is often asserted; he transformed the ‘Faith of Jesus’ into ‘Faith in Jesus.’ He it was who gave baptism a mysterious significance, ‘so as to connect his mission with the experience of initiates in Hellenic mystery cults’, (232) he turned the last supper into a sacramental union with the Lord of those celebrating it; (233) he was responsible for the sacramentalization of the Christian religion, and took the phrase ‘Son of God’--- in the Jewish religion merely a title for the Messiah --- to be an ontological reality. The idea of the Son of God, come down from heaven to earth, hitherto inconceivable to Jewish thought, (234) was taken from Paul from the ancient religious syncretism of Asia Minor, to fit in with the need at the time for a general savior. It is generally accepted by critical scholarship that the godparents were the triad from the cult of Isia (Isis, Osiris and Horus) and also Attis, Adonis and Hercules. Jesus, who never claimed religious worship for himself was not worshipped in the original community, is for Paul the pre-existent risen Christ……..

This was the ‘Fall’ of Christianity: that Paul with his ‘Gospel’, which became the core of Christian dogma formation, conquered the world, (237) while the historic basis of Christianity was declared a heresy, the preservers of the original branded as ‘Ebionites.’ As Schoeps puts it, the heresy-hunters ‘accused the Ebionites of a lapse or relapse into Judaism, whereas they were really only the Conservatives who could not go along with the Pauline-cum-Hellenistic elaborations’. (238) Schonfield comes to the same conclusion: ‘This Christianity in its teaching about Jesus continued in the tradition it had directly inherited, and could justifiably regard Pauline and catholic Christianity as heretical. It was not, as its opponents alleged, Jewish Christianity which debased the person of Jesus, but the Church in general which was misled into deifying him.’ (239) ‘Pauline heresy served as the basis for Christian orthodoxy, and the legitimate Church was outlawed as heretical’. (240) The ‘small handful of true Christians’ was Nazarene Christianity, which was already extinct in the fourth century……

The centerpiece then, of Christian creedal doctrine, that of Redemption, is something of which—in the judgment of the theologian E. Grimm (244) --- Jesus himself knew nothing; and it goes back to Paul. This is even admitted by some Catholics: ‘Christianity today mostly means Paul.’ (245) And Wilhelm Nestle stated—as noted also by Sabet—‘Christianity is the religion founded by Paul who replaces the Gospel of Jesus by a gospel about Jesus.’ (246) So also Schonfield: ‘Paul produced an amalgamation of ideas which, however unintentionally, did give rise to a new religion.’ (247)……

Measured by the standard of Baha’u’llah revelation, the Pauline doctrine of Justification, the doctrine of Original Sin, the doctrine of the Holy Trinity, the sacramentalisation of the Christian religion, the whole Church plan of salvation — which not only contradicts the Jewish understanding of God (255) but was also strongly repudiated by the revelation of God which succeeded Christianity (256) — these are a deformation of Jesus’s teaching. Some critical theological scholars have confirmed that these deformations in Christianity started very early, in fact with Paul, and that the arch-apostle, without whom Marcion would not have been possible, was the arch-heretic in Christianity—as Tertullian very rightly saw. (257) Years ago, when I became acquainted with the founder of the Christian religion in the faith of the original community through H. J. Schoep’s Theologie und Geschichte des Judenchristentums, (258) the standard work on the subject, I was deeply impressed. Here Jesus was not the only-begotten Son of God come down from Heaven, crucified and resurrected, nor the unique Saviour, but the messenger of God to whom the Quran testifies and who is glorified by Baha’u’llah. (259)"

I agree.

I agree.

And Bahai fits into this group as well.
Except it's not mythology, there is a standard to meet to be myth.

I already know about Paul, the entire religion, from the OT is made up. There is no god there to even start a new thing with Islam and Bahai. Yahweh is no different than Zeus or El. So everything is made up by people.