Can we change our mind about what we believe?

[joelr]

Yes .. AND the Qur'an.

So what?

It is PART of the evidence..

Yes part of it. And ALL of the evidence shows it's a myth.

I'm not particularly interested in "modern ideas", unless it can be shown within reasonable doubt
they are correct.

You haven't even shown the Quran is correct?

That's it.
..but that does NOT mean that we will all reach the same conclusion.

No but you don't look at evidence, you say they are atheist scholars or some other incorrect reason why you don't read them or why they are wrong. As I explained, you are always incorrect. Because you don't care about what is actually true.

All this chatter is not helping us in our debate. Stick to the point.

What debate? You say things, I explain why they don't make sense. When I call out confirmation bias you call it "chatter" and ask to move on.

History cannot show anything about whether G-d exists or not.
You can only make assumptions.
..and YOU make the assumption that G-d does not exist, because people of old
worshipped many gods.

Perfect example, thank you.

"History cannot show anything about whether G-d exists or not."

How many times (many) have I been screaming at you that that isn't the goal of any scholar. At this point I can only imagine you would still say this because you are trolling me.

"You can only make assumptions."
We all do. You make them on fantasy and anecdotal evidence. I make them using scholarship and consensus in an entire field as well as physical evidence from archaeology. As well as comparative religion.


"..and YOU make the assumption that G-d does not exist, because people of old
worshipped many gods."

Perfect example. Total nonsense which you have been told about over and over.
The evidence points to Yahweh being a man-made deity, in many many ways. Early Judaism was polytheistic but that plays very little role in the assumption. I've mentioned many many things and you still make blanket statements.

See, this is not a debate. You are just throwing out troll statements at this point.

You are the one making the claim.
i.e. that Yahweh is just one of many idols/gods

You cannot prove that Yahweh does not exist, just because the people of old were ignorant,
and worshiped many gods.

and again, it isn't about proof of Yahweh not existing. I cannot prove Zeus did not exist, does that mean he probably did? Nope.

We can show ALL of the evidence shows Yahweh was just another Zeus.
The first people worshipped multiple gods, Yahweh was the same old deity from 1000 years prior.
Yahweh changed only when the Persian theology became known aand suddenly the Jewish religion also had similar theology to the Persians.

Then Yahweh was all about Hellenism. Later Aquinas and others added Platonic concepts. The evidence shows Yahweh is a mythical god with theology from all of the nations who Israel encountered.

"does not appear" .. in other words, you make assumptions about historical events,
and deduce that Yahweh is one of many gods, and so is not real .. not good enough!

Yes, there is nothing new from older gods, same everything, same stories, same fights, same actions. Same rules, wisdom, its' just a re-working of older deities from the region. Yahweh even was under EL for a time. Because the beliefs were made up.

"not good enough", ok? Why would I care? Archaeology and critical history, as well as reality, demonstrate this is likely a myth, same as all other god stories every nation had.
Why would I care if a religious fundamentalist refuses to accept reality and insists on using confirmation bias to never accept actual evidence and wants to live in a fantasy world?
I already told you, knock yourself out, belief in whatever fiction you like.

I care about what is actually true. You do not. So you go believe in things not supported by evidence or rationality. You do you.

Mmm .. you are far superior to the billions of believers, so don't fall for "silly things"

Fallacy #1, argument to popularity

Fallacy #2 , strawman, making up an argument I didn't make

Guess what else evidence supports, even by your standards?
So you don't believe in Mormonism, the literal reading of the NT or Hinduism. That is about 66% of all religious believers. More than half.
Maybe 5 billion people. They all believe in a truth that you think is WRONG.

So even by your own beliefs, most people believe "silly things". Which shows it's not only possible but probable.


So your argument is a fallacy, but even the concept is wrong. You are all likely believing "silly things".

You sound like a "spoilt child" ..
Did you ever listen to your parents, or did you think the same about what they told you?

My parents never threatened me with Jahannam. Even they have more morality than to make such an evil threat.

"Hell" is of our own making .. the consequences of bad deeds.

Except for the literalist Muslims it's a place. You can go argue with them because it's all man made stories.


As if a god couldn't speak without metaphors that he knew would divide people? More reasons to know this is mythology.

 

[joelr]

..sweeping generalisation..
How can you know what they had been taught?

We have found early versions of scripture, El was the supreme, Yahweh was just a national deity of Israel.

Temple finds have shown thousands of Ashera figurines at ever temple site. They were in every home.

So not sweeping when you actually know what you are talking about instead of pretending the world is exactly what you want it to be.

People were illiterate .. their underlying culture was polytheism, and they reverted
to it.


Who cares about the Persians or the Israelites, or "put your nation here" ???

Monotheism was taught by prophets since the beginning of mankind .. but .. but
they REVERTED to polytheism, as they were mainly illeterate.

Cool, present your evidence.

The historical evidence has no record or evidence of Abraham. He is probably a literary character. Early Israel were polytheists, no one was there teaching monotheism because it didn't exist yet in Israel.
The Bible is a late invention.

This is what the evidence shows.

I don't believe in "one god" per se .. gods are idols.
I believe that there IS only that which is responsible for the existence of the universe.
It is not a person .. I call it G-d.

Wow, I don't care if you believe in the universe creating unicorn. Show me evidence or it's just an ancient fantasy belief.

It's all relative .. for how long have they been preserved?
It is not possible to date when the scripts/scrolls were even written!

Yes it is. Many of them prophecize historical events. Get them all correct until a date then they are all wrong. So you can tell when it is written.
There are other methods as well.

No .. that is an assumption, by studying what the majority of illiterate people of old
believed.

Just like you study scripture, there is early scripture that says El gave Yahweh Israel. There are many many instances of El being the original supreme and Yahweh was under him as a warrior deity.
IsraEL

All the names like Elijah, El is written into the culture.


You also study what illiterate old people believed. The text is not from illiterate people, they wrote the text?

See when you don't like the belief it's "illiterate people of old".

But when it's your 7th century text it isn't. Yet, they also had no printing press. Did they preserve it through oral tradition? Well, so did the Hebrew. They still had to have people copy it. Such special pleading.

Your scripture also was worked on for centuries. It's no different.


And the multiple gods are also seen in temples finds.

Sorry, you've got the wrong person.
I believe that G-d sent 1000's of prophets to mankind from the start.

Show evidence then. Looks like people made up stories from the start, based on what was popular. That is what we see.

I care about what is actually true. You are trying to fit a belief into reality. Not interested unless you can back it up.

..more assumptions based on scepticism..

You buy into the modern idea of god. That was created over time. Part of it is from Aquinas using Platonic ideas. That isn't disputed.

Please watch the lecture I provided and show me where they make a mistake.

If you cannot, you are guessing, have no idea about history, and I do not care about some fundamentalist making random stuff up.

They were wrong, and that is why G-d sent John the Baptist, and Jesus.

Jesus uses 100% Hellenism. He is also a character based on Greek savior deities and has no relation to early Judaism.

Also, you don't believe in Jesus as written as a son of god.
So provide evidence he was a human messenger or again I do not care about the fantasies of an uneducated fundamentalist who imagines history to be whatever suits you.

 

[joelr]

It is only your opinion that there is no evidence. Your opinion about 'no evidence' doesn't make it valid.
Do you understand that what constitutes evidence for a God existing is not the SAME for everyone?

Yes, there is no good evidence. Otherwise everyone would be in the religion with the evidence.


There is only confirmation bias. We have seen Bahai has no reasonable evidence. If you say "his pen" I will ask what about the pen of the Mormon, or Hindu, or Jesus in AU. You don't buy that.
Because "a pen" isn't evidence.

His writings are not great, so it's not that.

IF you say "his person", I will ask why not the person of Joe Smith? Or the person of Krishna? Or the person of Jesus in AU?

You don't buy that either.

So your points about evidence fall flat.

You just repeat that same non-evidence over and over.

do you think it's going to get better?

I have nothing new to offer 'that you would accept' as evidence for the supernatural.
Do you understand that what warrants a belief in the supernatural is not the SAME for everyone?

Not true. There is no sufficient evidence for any supernatural.

Almost everyone believes in air, germs, conservation of energy, math, electricity, gravity. Because there is real evidence.

There is no evidence for Bahai. There are just people looking to buy into some wu supernatural group and use confirmation bias to play games with definitions, like you are doing.

The belief in the supernatural happens to be THE SAME for YOU as well.

Because you don't buy Mormonism.
You don't buy Hinduism.
You don't buy the 2nd coming of Jesus in AU.


YET, they all have about the same evidence as Bahai.
And you reject them. Because you actually do know crap evidence when you see it.

No, what Mormons and Christians have for evidence would not be sufficient for me

An angel showed up, gave golden plates, 12 witnesses, an entire Bible, plus much more.

No it isn't the evidence, I don't buy that for 1 second. You were not convinced by evidence. You were probably just looking to believe some wu.

I don't care. It just doesn't have evidence and isn't supported by any reasonable evidence or belief. It's fantasy.

Evidence was provided. You just don't like the evidence.

his pen
scripture
his life



The same evidence exists for every religion and cult. You rejected all of them. You are just making false claims here. The evidence is terrible. You bought it for some other reason.

You gave the examples and if there is no such evidence I cannot provide it.
No, you do not need to keep repeating yourself, but you do.

I repeat myself because everything about Bahai has been debunked. For some reason you think if you repeat the assertions over and over something different will happen? I have no idea?

Stop saying the same nonsense then?

Why are you asking the same questions that got you nowhere?
I do not ask the same questions over and over again, like you do.

This entire post is the same statement, already debunked, over and over.
INCLUDING the worst evidence in the history of religion, which i see is coming below.
You are even repeating THAT?!?!?!?!?!?!

GET READY>>>>>I can't wait, here it is....



The evidence is as follows:

1. His own Self, who He was, His character (His qualities)

2. His Revelation, what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)

3. His Writings are additional evidence because they show who He was as a person, what He taught about God and other things, and what accomplished on His mission.

THE WORSE EVIDENCE EVER. GIVE IT UP PLEASE?


1) you didn't buy "his own self" from Joe Smith or any other religious figure who started a religion. Krishna showed up, Jesus is in AU? NOT EVIDENCE.

2) He didn't accomplish anything. HE wrote a bunch of very bad scripture, 90% praise god language. No philosopy, science, advice, nothing.

3) His writings are terrible. HE takes paragraphs to praise the most splendid high god, says nothing of value.

I ask AGAIN. Print a story that includes a metaphor and teaches important life lessons that is a new myth for the modern people.

I did not know that since I do not study the older religions.

Yes he copied Islam and other religions. Added nothing of value.

As I said, I do not make any claims because I have nothing to claim. Baha'u'llah made claims and I believe His claims.
I 'believe' He is telling the truth. Evidence supports this and no evidence exist to suggest it's false.

LOL, "nothing to claim", then makes a claim. LOL.

NO EVIDENCE SUPPORTS THIS. ALL OF HIS PROPHECIES WERE WRONG.

Please print a scripture that demonstrates he can only be writing from a divine origin.

His political predictions were terrible. He repeated claims that everyone was making about current events.

This IS EVIDENCE he is a fraud.

It is a bold claim and there is evidence that supports His claim.

The evidence is as follows:

1. His own Self, who He was, His character (His qualities)

2. His Revelation, what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)

3. His Writings are additional evidence because they show who He was as a person, what He taught about God and other things, and what accomplished on His mission.

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

Poor Jesus and Moses. They healed sick, fought demons and rid people of them, created food for starving people, spoke with god and had physical evidence with God-laws on stone.
Led people through parted waters with an army chasing them.

Was killed DEAD, and came back in a spirit body, no injuries.

And all they had to do was, write revelations.


Yeah, that isn't evidence. You clearly do not care about truth.


BTW, you have made this post maybe 5 times, I responded every time and you are the one saying I repeat myself. That is a lie. Boldface lie.

Baha'u'llah never attempted to make prophecies. What happened is that Gary Matthews took some things that he thought Baha'u'llah said and claimed they were Baha'u'llah's prophecies.

No, he took things HE DID SAY and they WERE PREDICTIONS



Funny how bad you have changed the tune though.

That is laughable. Baha'u'llah NEVER offered any prophecies as evidence for the truth of His claims, NEVER.

He made future predictions. Period. They were wrong. There are more in his scripture, shall I find them and evaluate them?

I do not care about the history of ages past, whether the Bible is true or not. Nothing could be more boring than studying older religions.
In my opinion it is irrelevant whether or not these religions were true, since they are not the religions for this new age.

A guy making a claim with scripture that is useless is not a new religion either.

You have no evidence, let alone massive evidence, that shows that the Baha'i Faith is not true, so there is nothing to answer.
All evidence to the contrary is ignored. And there is massive evidence. So you do not care about what is true.

Yes we saw what you mean by "massive evidence", it's truly a joke

1. His own Self, who He was, His character (His qualities)

2. His Revelation, what He accomplished (His Mission on earth/ the history of His Cause)

3. His Writings are additional evidence because they show who He was as a person, what He taught about God and other things, and what accomplished on His mission.


HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA MASSIVE!!

 

[joelr]

How many times do I have to repeat myself? Those prophecies you cited from the Matthews book were never offered by Baha'u'llah as evidence.

No but he meant them as prophecy, and he was wrong. Evidence he's a fraud.

All you have is evidence about older religions being false, but who care? Certainly not me, since I know what is true.

When someone says "I know what is true" and they have literally no evidence they are almost 100% wrong.






Every cult member also "knows what is true".

Who cares? Certainly not me. I am not interested in mythology and stories, I only care about the truth from God.

Which you do not have and cannot demonstrate.

The OT is a joke, riddled with lies about God. It is not literature in any sense of the word.

It's good literature. I'm glad you said that, it shows you truly don't understand literature and explains why you think that Bahai scripture is not trash.

The evidence that God exists is as clear as the noonday sun in Arizona, especially the Baha'i version, but the Qur'an is also evidence.

coming from someone who things a pen is evidence.






There is no evidence for any god. There is only evidence for your delusional beliefs.

Miracles are not the evidence that God exists, they are just WHAT YOU WANT in order to believe that God exists.

miracles are better than "his life" "his pen" his writing".


that describes every person who writes and claims they talk to god.

nice work with being rational?

"Bahá’u’lláh forbade His followers to attribute miracles to Him because this would have amounted to the degradation of His exalted station. Nevertheless, there are many accounts left to posterity by His disciples, describing the circumstances in which He either healed incurables or raised the dead.

I'm sure he forbade it because he had no ability to do miracles. There are millions, literally stories of Sai-Baba doing miracles. Yet he was just a man. People make stuff up when they think someone is supernatural.

None of these supernatural acts were considered by His followers to be a proof of the truth of His Cause, since they are only convincing to a limited number of people and they are not decisive proofs even for those who see them.

Because people who do them are tricksters and only do them in private and controlled settings. Were one real they could do it anywhere and truly be impressive.


The fakes either only do it under control or make up excuses.

With this caveat in mind, it’s fun to look back on our history, and see how the Central Figures handled miracles."

From: Famous Miracles in the Baha’i Faith

I already debunked this and here we are, like it never happened, right, it's me posting the same over and over.



You have nothing.



But real quick,



the first "miracle" ends with:



"“This man is an enchanter; perhaps he will perform an enchantment, and then we shall have nothing more to say.” Acting on this belief, they did not dare to push the matter further."


in other words nothing happened, that is the first miracle. In another the man died 1 year later. It's a bunch of anecdotal stories. We also don't know the cases he tried to help the sick and nothing happened. Complete fraud, not even trying to hide it.. No controls, list of all attempts to heal with stats. Such a fraud, I cannot believe people buy this stuff.



But since you are reposting the same stuff over and over, I'll repost my response, which you ignored and just posted the same thing again. Insane.

 

[joelr]

With this caveat in mind, it’s fun to look back on our history, and see how the Central Figures handled miracles."

From: Famous Miracles in the Baha’i Faith

Famous Miracles in the Bahá'í Faith

Bahá'í Library Online

Baha'i articles, books, translations, and historical materials

bahai-library.com

The Báb cured Munírih Khánum’s parents of infertility; and their daughter later became ‘Abdu’l-Bahá’s wife:


No, someone told him they had no children and he blessed them. “In due time” they had children. That’s it.
The Bab beseeched God that travels over the oceans of the world might become easier and safer:


Yes, sea travel became safer. In the age of a technological revolution. I now predict A.I. will become better. Am I a messenger?



One time, the religious leaders in Persia asked Baha’u’llah to perform a miracle to prove the reality of His mission. Here’s what happened:


Actually nothing happened. They asked him for a miracle, before he did anything the people who asked said ““This man is an enchanter; perhaps he will perform an enchantment, and then we shall have nothing more to say.” Acting on this belief, they did not dare to push the matter further. “

And that’s it, again. Nothing. This made the list.


Baha’u’llah bore his ordeals, calamities and suffering so that heavenly miracles, among other things, would be wrought among men:


And no miracle is listed, he just bore his ideals and had a lot of energy. You would not believe this so I’ll post the “miracle” that followed this introduction-



“During His lifetime He [Baha’u’llah] was intensely active. His energy was unlimited. Scarcely one night was passed in restful sleep. He bore these ordeals, suffered these calamities and difficulties in order that a manifestation of selflessness and service might become apparent in the world of humanity; that the Most Great Peace should become a reality; that human souls might appear as the angels of heaven; that heavenly miracles would be wrought among men; that human faith should be strengthened and perfected; that the precious, priceless bestowal of God, the human mind, might be developed to its fullest capacity in the temple of the body; and man become the reflection and likeness of God, even as it hath been revealed in the Bible: “We shall create man in Our own image. (Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith, p. 223)”


Wow. Notice, NO actual miracles, but he bore these ordeals so that - "hat heavenly miracles would be wrought among men;" well, that didn't happen?, UH........"the Most Great Peace should become a reality; " nope, WW1, WW2, Vietman, Korea, Middle East, 2 wars right now, total fail here. This is made up nonsense.

The following story by Haji Mirza Haydar-‘Ali confirms the power of the revealed Word. Haji was introduced to a person who was opposed to the Faith and found it very difficult to be convinced of its truth. This is a summary of his account:


He read a Persian tablet and the man dropped to his knees and prayed. Do you think he may have been primed for a conversion?


Funny, I see this on evangelical TV all the time. Still nothing about atoms.


During the new Governor’s short tenure of office he did a great deal to further the cause of education in ‘Akká, and also to secure for the city a good supply of fresh water. Towards the exiles he displayed a very friendly manner. And now another miracle was witnessed by all in ‘Akká, when, from deep wells that had carried only brackish water, fresh water suitable for human consumption gushed out. Describing this period, the Guardian of the Bahá’í Faith has written:


Though Bahá’u’lláh Himself practically never granted personal interviews, as He had been used to do in Baghdad, yet such was the influence He now wielded that the inhabitants openly asserted that the noticeable improvement in the climate and water of their city was directly attributable to His continued presence in their midst. (H.M. Balyuzi, Baha’u’llah – The King of Glory, p. 354)


Wow, did the water often clear up, was that something that did happen? We just don’t know because no other information is given. I’m sure there were many children with cancer in the hospital, but he gets credit for clear water. Could the story also be embellished? Is there a source? Why, NO, there is not.


‘Abdu’l-Bahá calms the weather so people can enjoy their feast:

A story follows from a man named Earl Redman, who bought into the Bahai story and followed Bad around so he could document all the miraculous things.


Here a storm goes away. Storms do go away quickly in this region, but it’s also anecdotal from a man who wants him to be a savior figure. This is basically Joseph Smith version 2.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá healed Corrine True’s daughter:


No documentation she had anything serious, she had a cough and was worried about TB. She didn’t have TB, no test confirmed she had TB. We will never hear about the people he may have given a healing touch and didn’t heal. He definitely did not go to a children’s ward and heal children, which is one could heal and they don’t do this they should be run out of town. Fraud.

‘Abdu’l-Bahá cured Ruth Randall of tuberculosis in both lungs:

At this time about 15% of people died from TB with treatment.


Still not at a children’s hospital curing TB?


‘Abdu’l-Bahá cured the grand-daughter of Henry Birks, the founder of a chain of high-end Canadian jewellery stores:


Only rich people get his help? The girl was 12 and her parents were crazy and kept her inside fearing all germs. He told her to spend time outside and it helped. Miracles

Shoghi Effendi cured Rúhiyyih Khánum’s father of dementia:

When my father fell desperately ill in the winter of 1949-50 his condition was despaired of by his doctors…..


This was William Sutherland Maxwell, died 25 March 1952

He wasn’t healed by miracle, he was awarded a title because he was a rich donor:


“For this work and for his long devotion to the Baháʼí Faith he was recognized as a Hand of the Cause of God by Shoghi Effendi in December 1951.”


He was “recognized”. No healing, he died in 1952?


I’m seeing a pattern of “healing” on rich Bahai members. Hmmm, could this be bias at all??????


The Biggest Miracle of All!


HERE WE GO!!!
Of course, it’s a tale of his execution. Bab was shot while hanging from a rope, in the smoke of gunfire he was missing. Added to the tale is a great storm that night, all the gunmen were killed at some point later. All the normal mythos, unverified.


It was said he was later found back at his cell having a conversation he wanted to finish. An English bystander who saw the event also wrote what he saw. Everyone else writing was a member of the religion and adding elements to this grand story. The English writer saw a more realistic version.





These events were witnessed by western journalists. Provided below is one source that is attributed to Sir Justin Sheil, Queen Victoria's Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary in Tehran and written to Lord Palmerston, the British Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, July 22, 1850.[8][9]


The founder of the sect has been executed at Tabreez. He was killed by a volley of musketry, and his death was on the point of giving his religion a lustre which would have largely increased his proselytes. When the smoke and dust cleared away after the volley, Báb was not to be seen, and the populace proclaimed that he had ascended to the skies. The balls had broken the ropes by which he was bound, but he was dragged from the recess where after some search he was discovered and shot. His death, according to the belief of his disciples, will make no difference as Báb must always exist.


— Sir Justin Sheil, [8][1

So This is likely what actually happened. There are no miracles here. It’s too bad he was shot, again, if this was god you would think he would give him some powers or tell the Muslims so that wouldn’t happen. But it probably was not any god involved, just people and claims. These are some seriously bad attempts at creating a miracle worker.


This is all hyperbole and exaggeration. No confirmed miracles for sure. ?FRAUD ALERT.


He also wasn't resurrected. Guess god didn't feel like a resurrection would be good evidence, even though it happens all the time in the Bible.
But here we have records and witnesses so it's harder to make false claims. Hmmm, could this be why? Probably.

 

[joelr]

Let's see what?

I said:
Less evidence than WHAT, Christianity?
The Bible is not evidence for anything, except that some men can write stories.

BAhai is not evidence of anything except the guy wrote stories.

I am not claiming that what you cited above from the Baha'i Writings is evidence.

They are.

What is ridiculous are the NT fictitious stories pretending to be true stories, such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus. At best these were fabricated, at worst they were outright lies intended to deceive millions of people.

Bahai claims of revelations are at best fabricated, at worst they were outright lies intended to deceive millions of people.

No, His Life and His Revelation in its entirety.

Bahá'u'lláh -- Glory of God

His life is not evidence. Is Ghandis life evidence of Krishna? No. A youtube video is evidence of revelations?

If in his life he told us about a cure for aging, gravity unified with QM, and many other impossible things I might take a look. He's a fraud.

https://youtu.be/jU_PEh1SQ5E?t=3

God has no interest in convincing anyone that the Baha'i Faith is true. That is not God's job, it is a job that God has entrusted to humans, so if they fail it is their own failure.

Right, all this division, it's humans fault. God knew it woulkd happen, looked like a myth, even you think the Bible is just stories. Clearly god failed.
OR, is it all just humans making claims. Why yes, that is exactly what it is.

Baha'u'llah had the same supernatural powers that all the Messengers of God had, and He used them to perform miracles, but He also said that He did not want to be believed based upon these miracles.

his miracle stories are one big fail.

Massive proof does them no good since they are completely attached to their own beliefs.

you are attached to your beliefs despite no evidence to support them.

God is in no way responsible for whether people believe a religion is true or not. The evidence has been provided and the ball is now win the human court.

Is the apologetic every religion uses when they cannot explain why god just didn't do a proper job. Everyone is supposed to be delusional and believe nonsense stories? Doubt it.

Baha'u'llah performed healings and miracles but He did not want to "create a stir" by doing so since He did not want people to believe who He was based on those.

not according to the miracle stories you posted

You see, what God wants, through Baha'u'llah, is not what you want, and that is why you do not believe in God.

I don't believe any god exists because there is zero evidence. The pretend evidence you manifest from confirmation bias isn't real.

It does not look like that to me or the other Bahais, so it is not God's 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.

There are reasons why 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...

not just repeat stuff, a repeat post.

Narrow gate is old mythology.

You didn't find anything, you use confirmation bias to accept a story full of holes.

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 and when you give up preconceived ideas you see you are being handed a fraud. When you want it to be god your mind finds ways to bias you into accepting it.
This is a bunch of fraud. When you are ready for truth you will see.

It is not a myth. It is the actual truth.

It isn't a myth because the writing isn't even at that level. It's just a hoax.

Baha'u'llah did not claim to talk to God, He claimed that He received a Revelation from God., the same as Jesus claimed.

So do many people.

I put no restrictions on God, God simply does what He chooses.
What is ludicrous and laughable is you thinking you can tell God what He 'should do.'

Right, like when you tell god he cannot walk as a human and other OT stories you say are laughable. Yet then you make a hypocrit of yourself and say this.

So you get to say god can do anything, except what you find laughable, then other people get laughed at by you. It's laughable to tell god what he can do. When god walks as a man you say its' laughable.

Turns out, it's you who is laughable and your entitlement.

God manifested Himself as a man. Baha'is refer to that man as a Manifestation of God.
Yes, that is in the Baha'i scriptures.

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 49

And, more of "its' true because my book says so".


There is no end to how easy it is to fool you.

 

[joelr]

So the religion would not be fake if Baha'u'llah understood mythology? You are so ensconced in the mythology of the older religions that you have convinced yourself that it is real. You have that backwards. The mythology is what would make it fake, if it was fake. Praising God over and over and over again is what makes it real.

No if he had some writing skill it would be a start. HE is terrible and cannot even write a proper myth.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Good luck with that. God is not subject to human logic since God is above and beyond anything that can ever be understood or perceived.

Doesn't make pens, one's life evidence, doesn't make gods real.

No religion is based upon empirical methodology since God can never be observed, except in His Messengers.

Last post it was laughable to tel god what he can do. Now you tell god. Even your fiction is fiction.

That is not how I came to be a Baha'i, by reading scripture. I came to be a Baha'i because it was the only religion that ever made any sense and the only religion that has the teachings and laws that humanity needs in this age.

making sense doesn't equa;l god. Humans can make sense without god.

All of your attempts are not going to change reality and make this into something that is not true.

My attempts don't have to, it's already a fraud and will never be revelations.

I will just expose some reasons.

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

says the person who thinks evidence is a pen, a life and words, cannot demonstrate god, makes unsupported claims about god and the ot and believes things based on feelings.

Just compare the Baha'i Faith with Mormonism and you will see how ridiculous this is.

right, Mormonism has better evidence. But it does have a pen, JS life and his writings as well.

But also an angel, gold p[lates, a Bible and more. So Mormonism is still better than this nonsense.

The Mormon religion has its basis in Christianity, so whatever it has comes from Jesus.

who is a literary myth.

Mormonism is merely another sect of Christianity with Joseph Smith as its leader.

And Bahai is a sect of Islam and most Muslims reject it.

The prophecies listed in the book entitled The Challenge of Baha'u'llah are not a big piece of evidence because they are not evidence at all.
The book is simply about how 'one man' came to believe in the Baha'i Faith.
How many times do I have to repeat myself, 100, 1000?

As many as you like because he was still incredibly WRONG.

The book entitled The Challenge of Baha'u'llah is simply about how 'one man' came to believe in the Baha'i Faith.
It is not evidence that led me to my belief since I never even read it for decades after I became a Baha'i.

it's also wrong. That "god connection" didn't help him much there.

I never attributed that book to something it is not, or convinced myself it must be divine, since it was just a book written by a man.

all Bahai is written only by a man.

I did not have to convince myself that the Writings of Baha'u'llah are divine because I knew they were.

Personal opinion isn't evidence. Thinking something is divine isn't evidence and it doesn't mean it's divine.

You are one of trillions of humans who "knew the words were from my god".
Don't care, you were all wrong. Show me the evidence that supports it or enjoy your delusional beliefs

Based solely upon logic and reason, no man would glorify God that way if he was seeking to glorify Himself.

what god?

Based solely upon logic and reason, no man would know what Baha'u'llah knew about God unless He got a revelation from God.

Ah, now we get to it. Perfect. We can start here:

“Know thou of a certainty that the Unseen can in no wise incarnate His Essence and reveal it unto men. He is, and hath ever been, immensely exalted beyond all that can either be recounted or perceived. From His retreat of glory His voice is ever proclaiming: “Verily, I am God; there is none other God besides Me, the All-Knowing, the All-Wise. I have manifested Myself unto men, and have sent down Him Who is the Day Spring of the signs of My Revelation. Through Him I have caused all creation to testify that there is none other God except Him, the Incomparable, the All-Informed, the All-Wise.” He Who is everlastingly hidden from the eyes of men can never be known except through His Manifestation, and His Manifestation can adduce no greater proof of the truth of His Mission than the proof of His own Person.”

Besides that he copies the Quran, here he copies Luke speaking about how scripture will make god known:

For there is nothing hidden that will not be disclosed, and nothing concealed that will not be known or brought out into the open.Luke 8:17


just re-wording with pointless flowery language.

Now please show me words about god that only a revelation can produce.

 

[joelr]

That was one man's opinion of what he thought Baha'ullah predicted. It is not the Writings of Baha'u'llah.

he didn't "think" he predicted it, he did. He was wrong.

I already told you that I do not consider that man's opinion to be evidence, so why are you still talking about those prophecies?
Maybe that is because that is all you have, but it is a false representation of evidence for Baha'u'llah, so if you keep offering it as evidence I will keep saying it is not evidence, nor did Baha'u'llah ever claim it was was evidence in support of His claims.

The fact that he was completely wrong. Shows he was not speaking to any god.

It is not because any book says so, it is because what is written in the book is true. That is what makes it true.

The book is full of random praise god and be good nonsense. We already know to be good and praise god doesn't prove anything.

Apparently, you do not understand what "His own self" means.
His own self is His character as evidenced by how he led His life. That is part of the evidence that supports His claim to be a Messenger of God.
The character of Baha'u'llah and the character of Jesus, as evidenced by their lives, are part of the evidence that support their claims.

Not even a little. Monks like monastic lives by the thousands. As do all types of spiritual people. Doesn't prove god it proves they live a certain way.
False equivalent fallacy.

Apparently, you do not understand what "His Revelation" means.
His Revelation means the history of the religion, what Baha'u'llah did during His 40 year mission.

Nothing that happened during the 40 year period cannot be done without a god. His story is not unique to humanity and because you were convinced by bad apologetics doesn't make them true.

The words He hath revealed are His writings. There is nothing incorrect about science. Scriptures are not intended to be literature.
Whether or not you or I think the words are from God is only a subjective personal opinion.

HE was completely wrong about science. He claimed the ether existed. He claimed the missing link would never be found. He claimed humans are not animals or didn't evolve from animals. He is all wrong, always.

You would think by chance he would get one thing correct?

Also it was written he went through these ordeals for peace and miracles.

“During His lifetime He [Baha’u’llah] was intensely active. His energy was unlimited. Scarcely one night was passed in restful sleep. He bore these ordeals, suffered these calamities and difficulties in order that a manifestation of selflessness and service might become apparent in the world of humanity; that the Most Great Peace should become a reality; that human souls might appear as the angels of heaven; that heavenly miracles would be wrought among men; that human faith should be strengthened and perfected; that the precious, priceless bestowal of God, the human mind, might be developed to its fullest capacity in the temple of the body; and man become the reflection and likeness of God, even as it hath been revealed in the Bible: “We shall create man in Our own image. (Abdu’l-Baha, Baha’i World Faith, p. 223)”"


No miracles, especially no peace. There were many wars in the late 1800s. Then 2 world wars, and much more including 2 current horrible wars. This stuff is the same as all cults.

Here is the rub. This is what Christianity was based on
Christianity is based upon the same evidence for Jesus as the Baha'i Faith has for Baha'u'llah:
-- His own self (what we can know about Jesus' character from the NT).
-- His Revelation (the history of Jesus' earthly mission, what we can know of Jesus' mission from the NT).
-- His words (what men wrote that Jesus allegedly said in the NT, which are not the actual words of Jesus).

Ain't got nothing else. The 100 dollar difference is that NOTHING about Jesus is verifiable whereas EVERYTHING about Baha'u'llah is verifiable, since it is well-documented contemporary history.

Yes, it's verifiable that he was a man, he wrote, he had a pen.

EVERYTHING else does not show evidence for god and neither does that.

His life was a life, not evidence he spoke to god. He may have been delusional and believed it.
His writings are not interesting or impressive. HE failed at all science.


Please show words he wrote that could not be written without a god.

 

[joelr]

No, the Baha'i Faith is not mythology, it is all true stories, what actually happened.

But his writing is terrible, he cannot write like the authors of classic scripture can. Yes, he lived a life, wrote, made claims. So did Jesus in AU, right now.
He's a fraud. All of them

Unless you can prove that it is only a personal opinion that God is made up by people.
Have fun with that belief but it will never get you anywhere.

I never set out to prove god isn't real, I'm showing there is no reasonable evidence to hold such a belief.

It already got me exactly where I want to be. Speaking out for a rational , skeptical methodology. That is all I can do.

What it will not get me is a fantasy belief in a fake made up god and fake made up afterlife where I waste my time believing false ideas.

Why you are worried about where I get, I don't know?

Do you think all your book learning is going to get you somewhere? It is not going to get you anything except thinking you are smart.

I'm already there. Knowledge for the sake of knowledge is it's own reward.
But congrats on promoting illiteracy and substituting unevidenced, unsupported claims as knowledge. No different than every generation since 100BC who thought the world will end in their lifetime.
Why you care about where I am going is weird.

And yes, telling someone they are "not getting anywhere" is a form of gaslighting, which is not new here but it shows you are resorting to manipulation.

And congrats on keeping the anti-science 1st century superstition belief alive.

"don't rely on that learning and science crap, just listen to the revelations guy, god will tell you everything you need to know"

I don't need to ask where you are going, it's the Bronze age wu.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The evidence points to Yahweh being a man-made deity, in many many ways. Early Judaism was polytheistic but that plays very little role in the assumption..

No it doesn't. You think it points to that, but that is because you assume that "names of gods"
are meaningful in the sense of people worshipping gods.

You don't seem to understand, that these "names of gods" and what people associated with them in the past, is not the point here.
i.e. you say that Yahweh had a wife, and evolved into something different etc.

What polytheistic people might have believed in the past, is neither here nor there.
You agree with me, that the majority of people were illiterate back then, so it proves nothing.

We can show ALL of the evidence shows Yahweh was just another Zeus.

What did I just say??
It does not, and CAN not show that .. all it shows is illiterate people worshipping many gods.

The first people worshipped multiple gods, Yahweh was the same old deity from 1000 years prior..

No.
Example
------------
The word "God" was used as the name of a pagan deity before Christianity spread to Northern Europe.
It does NOT mean that "God" (as in Christianity) has evolved from being one thing to another.

It simply means that people still use the word "God", but it has nothing to DO with pagan deities!

I care about what is actually true. You do not..

How absurd.. try discussing points raised, instead of talking nonsense.

 

[muhammad_isa]

We have found early versions of scripture, El was the supreme, Yahweh was just a national deity of Israel.

Temple finds have shown thousands of Ashera figurines at ever temple site. They were in every home..

Yes .. most people back then were ignorant polytheists .. they had little formal education.

The historical evidence has no record or evidence of Abraham..

Why should it?
Do you know everything about your ancestors of 1000's of years ago?
..obviously not!

The Bible is a late invention..

Yes .. most of us know that it was compiled after a few centuries AD.

Show me evidence or it's just an ancient fantasy belief..

What .. that something is responsible for the existence of the universe?
No .. you just ignore it, and say "we can't know what/how it came in to being"

It is NOT fantasy .. it's just not science, that's all.

Jesus uses 100% Hellenism. He is also a character based on Greek savior deities and has no relation to early Judaism..

..not in Islam..

Also, you don't believe in Jesus as written as a son of god..

Yes Jesus is the Messiah .. a son of G-d.
..but not in the context of meaning G-d gave birth.

In the OT, 'son of G-d' means one who is close to God eg. prophet or saint

 

[vulcanlogician]

It is an enigma. My wife was the same way until she contacted a demon using a Ouija board. I don't recommend contacting a demon and the Ouija board never worked for me because I didn't believe in it but there ae other ways to make spiritual contact that aren't as dangerous. A Pentacostal Church perhaps.

Don't worry about me man. The last thing I'll ever want to do is use a Ouija Board to contact anyone.

In fact, I think that you probably can't even contact other beings through an inert piece of wood, even though letters are painted onto it. Crazy, I know...

 

[CG Didymus]

So you don't believe in Mormonism, the literal reading of the NT or Hinduism. That is about 66% of all religious believers. More than half.
Maybe 5 billion people. They all believe in a truth that you think is WRONG.

So even by your own beliefs, most people believe "silly things". Which shows it's not only possible but probable.

Do Baha'is believe the "Book of Mormon"? I doubt it. Do Baha'is believe that the Bible stories are literal? I doubt it. So, what do they call it if not fictional religious myth?

Not even a little. Monks like monastic lives by the thousands. As do all types of spiritual people. Doesn't prove god it proves they live a certain way.
False equivalent fallacy.

How "perfect" were some of these manifestations that Baha'is believe in? Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses? All had human flaws. Adam disobeyed God and Moses killed a guy. And what about Muhammad? His character? His mission?

The military career of Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632), the Islamic prophet, encompasses several expeditions and battles throughout the Hejaz region in the western Arabian Peninsula which took place in the final ten years of his life, from 622 to 632. His primary campaign was against his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraysh. Muhammad proclaimed prophethood around 610 and later migrated to Medina after being persecuted by the Quraysh in 622. After several battles against the Quraysh, Muhammad conquered Mecca in 629, ending his campaign against the tribe.​

Yes, it's verifiable that he was a man, he wrote, he had a pen.

If the stories are to be believed, which is why some people come to believe in Jesus, then he gave the people proof that he was something special. He walked on water... Cast out demons... And rose from the dead. Except Baha'is don't necessarily believe those stories. So, there goes the proof. The stories can't be verified, and they sound like myth. So, I don't blame them. I agree with them.

But for those that believe in those stories, Jesus becomes real. He is with them. And the Holy Spirit is with them. They perform many of the same miracles that Jesus performed. They have healed the sick. Cast out demons in Jesus' name. Or... for some people, it is just a bunch of baloney. And that probably includes some Baha'is.

But one thing for sure, the Baha'i Faith is a great religion... for those that believe it. Just like Mormonism is great for those Mormons that believe it. And any religion is great for those that believe it. But to others? Not so much. Even religious people look at the beliefs of other people and wonder how they could believe such things.

 

[joelr]

No it doesn't. You think it points to that, but that is because you assume that "names of gods"
are meaningful in the sense of people worshipping gods.

You don't seem to understand, that these "names of gods" and what people associated with them in the past, is not the point here.
i.e. you say that Yahweh had a wife, and evolved into something different etc.

That is an interesting apologetic you have come up with, pretend like the people meant something different than what it looks like.
Once again, you take an entire field of knowledge and tell them what's true. Do you consult archaeologists? Do you find out how accurate the names are and the evidence for it? Nope. You just make stuff up. You live in a make believe world.

It does enlighten me as to how people can fool themself for so long with all the information around.


"I don't seem to understand"....LOL, I'll write to William Dever right away and tell him he's got archaeology all wrong.


BTW, on figurines the
Inscription says “…be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera”. Ashera was his wife. The Ashera figurine is female shaped and Ashera was a goddess in many other nations around Israel.
She was a fertility goddess and fertility artifacts are found along with her figurines.

What polytheistic people might have believed in the past, is neither here nor there.

Actually no, it gives us a look into the past and is evidence. This shows you are desperately trying to write the past from the future. Doesn't work that way in any field of historical knowledge yet you want to do it here to bend the truth to match your beliefs. You are almost certainly wrong in those beliefs.

You agree with me, that the majority of people were illiterate back then, so it proves nothing.

The majority of people were illiterate during the times of the OT, NT, Quran.

However the educated elites are the people who created the scriptures. So that means nothing. The average person just believed what was popular.

What did I just say??

What you said was wrong and you have no education, knowledge or anything beyond assumptions you come up with after hearing about the real world.

It does not, and CAN not show that .. all it shows is illiterate people worshipping many gods.

Yes illiterate people worshipped what they were told was true. The same is true with the Quran. But that doesn't matter, the education of the people has no impact. Critical thinking was not part of education at this point, and it still isn't.

What it does show evidence for is that the first concepts of Yahweh, from Moses, Jacob and others who were written to have interacted with him, show he was a typical Near Eastern deity, no different in any way than other gods for over 1000 years. Even the stories were the sae old myths. Sea monsters, world floods, celestial gardens with godly fruit that gives powers that humans get kicked out of, laws on stone, enjoys the scent of sacrifice....

It wasn't "people" who paired him with a goddess, religious information came from the religious leaders. Ashera is still in the Bible but she has mostly been erased. The only remaining evidence is the Ashera pole. But like the early variant of Deuteronomy where El gives Yahweh his portion, there were probably scripture about Yahweh and Ashera. Otherwise people would not have had figurines and worshipped her.

what it is, is you don't like the fact that god wasn't "God" right from the go. Because no god actually showed up and told people what was what. They just started making stories about their national deity and the reference they were using was typical Mesopotamian gods.

That is most likely, that is what evidence shows. If this was Krishna you would be like "of course he had a wife at first, he was made up from older stories and evolved as theology came and went".

No.
Example

This is going to be funny.

------------
The word "God" was used as the name of a pagan deity before Christianity spread to Northern Europe.

This is ......odd? So we are talking about the early OT, not Christianity in Europe for one.
The word "God" is European/English. It has nothing to do with early Yahweh who was called by name. If they wanted to say "God" in the OT it is the Hebrew word Elohim.

Notice the word for the original supreme deity - EL is in that word also. Yahweh was a storm, warrior deity for a while, many centuries. Under EL.
That is what he was created as. Later he took on Graeco-Roman Platonism and became beyond space and time and tri-omni. That is Greek. Watch the lecture.


Exodus 15:3:


Yahweh is a man of war;


Yahweh is his name.


Isaiah 42:13:


Yahweh goes forth like a mighty man;


like a man of war(s) he stirs up his fury.


Zephaniah 3:17: Yahweh, your God, is in your midst,


a warrior who gives victory.


Psalm 24:8:


Who is the King of Glory?


Yahweh, strong and mighty;


Yahweh, mighty in battle.


In these passages Yahweh is explicitly called a warrior or directly compared to a warrior. If one


moves out from simple designations to actual functioning, the metaphor or image is even more


extensively present. Yahweh is the subject of many verbs that belong to the sphere of warfare

It does NOT mean that "God" (as in Christianity) has evolved from being one thing to another.

The Bible passages above disagree with you. And the OT is known to be the same version that was used in BCE because the Dead sea Scrolls shed some light on that. The OT finds were the same. That was what Yahweh was, a warrior storm deity.

God in Judaism to Christianity to later theology has 100% gone from one thing to another. Now you are in denial of basic common knowledge.
You being unaware doesn't make something false, it simply means you bought into a story without the entire truth. If you want to know what is actually true, learn. If you don't care about what is true, stay uninformed. But you are blatantly making up nonsense.


Here is some detail of the changes:

Francesca Stavrakopoulou Discusses Her Latest Book,


3:15 Yahweh is the same as older gods. Anthropormorphic, dynamic, colorful, emotional, vivid, changeable, masculine, real body parts. In "God: An Anatomy" Francesca explains the Hebrew text is very explicit in this.


Genesis 1:26 God said let US make humankind in our image


Job 1:6 One day the heavenly beings came to present themselves before the Lord and Satan also came among themLeviticus 3:5 Aarons sons sacrificed, pleasing aroma to the Lord.


15:35
Ain Dara temple - footprints of Yahweh walking in to the holy of holies. Gods lived in temples.

Not unique to Jerusalem.

18:15

Jacob wrestled with God, forced him to bless him and God renamed him Israel.

Genesis 32:24-30

Similar to Mesopotamian deities.

By John 1:18 the theology has changed and “no one has seen God”.

Genesis 18:16-17, 20-22 God appears to Abraham as a normal man with 2 other men who are also divine beings. God is also mulling over if he should tell Abraham what he is about to do.


Exodus 24:9-11 Moses, Arron etc, saw God



This demonstrates the Greek Platonism added to Yahweh:

Plato and Christianity

36:46 Tertullian (who hated Plato) borrowed the idea of hypostases (used by Philo previously) to explain the relationship between the trinity. All are of the same substance.

38:30 Origen a Neo-Platonist uses Plato’s One. A perfect unity, indivisible, incorporeal, transcending all things material. The Logos (Christ) is the creative principle that permeates the created universe

41:10


Agustine 354-430 AD taught scripture should be interpreted symbolically instead of literally after Plotinus explained Christianity was just Platonic ideas.

Thought scripture was silly if taken literally.

45:55 the ability to read Greek/Platonic ideas was lost for most Western scholars during Middle Ages. Boethius was going to translate all of Plato and Aristotle into Latin which would have altered Western history.

Theologians all based on Plato - Jesus, Agustine, Boethius Anslem, Aquinas

59:30

In some sense Christianity is taking Greco-Roman moral philosophy and theology and delivering it to the masses, even though they are unaware

It simply means that people still use the word "God", but it has nothing to DO with pagan deities!

The gods are named.


William Dever, biblical archaeologist lecture

Israelite drawing-


Inscription says “…be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera”.


CEmetary at Khirbet el Qom, inscription reads “blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera”



Figurines from Jerusalem, female, fertility figures

another lecture:

Dr Erin Darby, expert in Hebrew Bible, early Judaism, biblical archaeology, religion and Judean pillar figurines


:50 Temele figurines found at temple sites in Israel


3:29, number one interpretation is it’s a major goddess, Ashera, Astatre



The Cult of Asherah in Ancient Israel and Judah: Evidence for a Hebrew Goddess
Judith M. Hadley


Recent archaeological discoveries have encouraged scholars to reinvestigate the Israelite religion. In this book, Judith Hadley uses these discoveries, alongside biblical material and non-biblical inscriptions, to examine the evidence for the worship of Asherah as the partner of God in the Bible. By investigating the Khirbet el-Qom and Kuntillet Ajrud inscriptions, for example, where the phrase ‘Yahweh (and) his asherah’ is frequently in evidence, the author asks what the ancient Israelites meant by this, how they construed the relationship between Yahweh and Asherah, and whether in fact the term referred to an object of worship rather than to a goddess. The iconography of Asherah is also discussed, alongside female figurines from the Bronze and Iron Ages thought to represent her. As well as exploring the etymology and origins of Asherah, the author evaluates more recent scholarship to substantiate her conclusions. This is a detailed and brilliant study which promises to make a significant contribution to the ongoing debate about the exact nature of Asherah and her significance in pre-exilic Israel and Judah.


is Associate Professor of Hebrew Bible and Archaeology, in the Theology and Religious Studies Department


She determines, like Dever, Ashera was the consort of Yahweh up until the 2nd Temple period at least. Persian myths influenced monotheism because of the invasions, including Persia, who has a single god and was very successful.

How absurd.. try discussing points raised, instead of talking nonsense.

Right, after a post of completely nonsense, made up facts from the wrong time period by you.

Your "example" failed to even provide a source!

 

[joelr]

Yes .. most people back then were ignorant polytheists .. they had little formal education.

Most people from Judaism, Christianity, Islam or any other religion had little formal education in the Iron Age or Middle Ages? What are you talking about?

The early Christians were not allowed to even read scripture? The religious leaders were educated and responsible for creating stories. Yahweh was created in folk tales by uneducated people and those with writing skills made stories based on older stories they had come in contact with.
The masses bought into it. So your point goes nowhere?

I could easily turn it around and say Judaism, Christianity, Islam, not true and it was only believed because most people were ignorant? They had little education. You are using it against just the polytheists, well that can work for any part of any religion? You are just special pleading hard, as if the beliefs held that don't agree with your theology must be because of lack of education. Ok, the same can be said about the monotheists, or anyone anytime?


And please, you tell me what "formal education", during the entire OT creation told people that worshipping just one God in monotheism was true and better than multiple gods? Monotheism had nothing to do with education. The Hebrew were occupied by Persians who had a monotheistic god, uncreated, and CLEARLY influenced the Hebrews to begin to worship just Yahweh. There is nothing "better" about either.

Both are mythologies and reference no actual being except for in peoples imaginations.


The Iranian Impact on Judaism


excerpted from N. F. Gier, Theology Bluebook, Chapter 12





It was not so much monotheism that the exilic Jews learned from the Persians as it was universalism, the belief that one God rules universally and will save not only the Jews but all those who turn to God. This universalism does not appear explicitly until Second Isaiah, which by all scholarly accounts except some fundamentalists, was written during and after the Babylonian exile. The Babylonian captivity was a great blow to many Jews, because they were taken out of Yahweh's divine jurisdiction. Early Hebrews believed that their prayers could not be answered in a foreign land. The sophisticated angelology of late books like Daniel has its source in Zoroastrianism.3 The angels of the early Hebrew books were disguises of Yahweh or one of his subordinate deities. The idea of separate angels appears only after contact with Zoroastrianism.





The central ideas of heaven and a fiery hell appear to come directly from the Israelite contact with Iranian religion. Pre-exilic books are explicit in their notions the afterlife: there is none to speak of. The early Hebrew concept is that all of us are made from the dust and all of us return to the dust. There is a shadowy existence in Sheol, but the beings there are so insignificant that Yahweh does not know them. The evangelical writer John Pelt reminds us that “the inhabitants of Sheol are never called souls (nephesh).”4


Saosyant, a savior born from Zoroaster's seed, will come and the dead shall be resurrected, body and soul. As the final accounting is made, husband is set against wife and brother against brother as the righteous and the damned are pointed out by the divine judge Saosyant. Personal and individual immortality is offered to the righteous; and, as a final fire melts away the world and the damned, a kingdom of God is established for a thousand years.7 The word paradis is Persian in origin and the concept spread to all Near Eastern religions in that form. “Eden” not “Paradise” is mentioned in Genesis, and paradise as an abode of light does not appear in Jewish literature until late books such as Enoch and the Psalm of Solomon......

In Zoroastrianism the supreme God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil. As we have seen, the religion of Zoroaster may have been the first to discover ethical individualism. The first Hebrew prophet to speak unequivocally in terms of individual moral responsibility was Ezekiel, a prophet of the Babylonian exile. Up until that time Hebrew ethics had been guided by the idea of the corporate personality – that, e.g., the sins of the fathers are visited upon the sons (Ex. 20:1-2).


In 1 Cor. 15:42-49 Paul definitely assumes a dual-creation theory which seems to follow the outlines of Philo and the Iranians. There is only one man (Christ) who is created in the image of God, i.e., according to the “intellectual” creation of Gen. 1:26 (à la Philo). All the rest of us are created in the image of the “dust man,” following the material creation of Adam from the dust in Gen. 2:7.

Nick Gier. Emeritus Professor of Philosophy University of Idaho Senior Fellow Martin Institute of


"God, Ahura Mazda, gives all humans free-will so that they may choose between good and evil." - see there is a modern apologetic Christians and Muslims like to use, well so did Zoroastrianists, FIRST. Your beliefs are rehashed Persian myths.

Why should it?
Do you know everything about your ancestors of 1000's of years ago?
..obviously not!

No but there was no Hebrew people back then, they were fully Canaanite.
Abraham is a literary creation. In myth the main characters always are named after their function, guess what Abraham means?

Meaning:Father of multitudes; Father of nations.

What .. that something is responsible for the existence of the universe?

Something is responsible.

No .. you just ignore it, and say "we can't know what/how it came in to being"

That isn't ignoring anything? That is stating a fact. We don't yet know what caused the big bang.

Ignoring that it was Krishna or Vishnu? Brahman? Allah? Yahweh? Universe creating Unicorns? Yes, I'm ignoring fiction with no evidence, of course. I don't care about mythology for informing cosmology and more than "humans are made from clay" informs me of biology.

It is NOT fantasy .. it's just not science, that's all.

"the faculty or activity of imagining things, especially things that are impossible or improbable."

yup, it's definitely that. And that is fantasy.

..not in Islam..

I don't care what a later myth says about Jesus. The creators of Jesus would know more about actual Jesus and what he was supposed to be in the fiction.
Whatever some writers of fiction came up with centuries later, uninformed of the actual sources (Romulus, Hellenism, Homer, Greek historical fiction), I super do not care. There are no revelations, no prophets, no angels and a theistic god does not look to exist. So more fiction about fiction many centuries later is of no interest.
Present evidence if you have any. Stories are not evidence.
That story was assembled over a long period of time as the palimpsest reveals. Makes sense actually.


"Both Qur'anic texts are fragmented and present aspects of work in progress. In its lower layer, the manuscript offers the oldest witness of a reading instruction in a Qur'an text and perhaps even in any Arabic text. Such peculiarities offer rare evidence as to how the Qur'an was transmitted, taught and written down in the first centuries of Islam."

The Sanaa Palimpsest: The Transmission of the Qur'an in the First Centuries Ah (Qur'anic Studies)

This volume provides a new annotated edition of the two layers of the 'Sanaa palimpsest', one of the oldest Qur'an manuscripts yet discovered, together with a critical introduction that offers new hypotheses concerning the transmission of the Qur'an during the first centuries of Islam. The...

www.wildrumpusbooks.com

"The Sanaa Palimpsest reflects a different Quran, separate from the Uthmanic text. Reports of companion codices likewise reflecting a different Quran. From a secular perspective, there is nothing to suggest Uthman's text is more correct in every single case."

"Puin noticed minor textual variations, unconventional ordering of the chapters (surahs), as well as rare styles of orthography. Then he noticed that the sheets were palimpsests – manuscripts with versions written even earlier that had been washed off or erased. These findings led Dr Puin to assert that the Koran had undergone a textual evolution. In other words, the copy of the Koran that we have is not the one believed to have been revealed to the prophet. – [1]"

Yes Jesus is the Messiah .. a son of G-d.

No in their story he is the son of god. He resurrects in a spirit body (that is from Greek myth) and goes right up to heaven (more Greek).
You don't believe that story. You probably should not because it's not true.

..but not in the context of meaning G-d gave birth.

Jesus was created from the seed of David in the story.

In the OT, 'son of G-d' means one who is close to God eg. prophet or saint

Yahweh had many "sons of God", not the same theology as in the NT, that is Greek, the OT is not.
Satan is one of the sons of God. In Job.

 

[joelr]

Do Baha'is believe the "Book of Mormon"? I doubt it. Do Baha'is believe that the Bible stories are literal? I doubt it. So, what do they call it if not fictional religious myth?

They are like Islam, they consider Jesus a prophet.

How "perfect" were some of these manifestations that Baha'is believe in? Adam, Noah, Abraham, Moses? All had human flaws. Adam disobeyed God and Moses killed a guy. And what about Muhammad? His character? His mission?

The military career of Muhammad (c. 570 – 8 June 632), the Islamic prophet, encompasses several expeditions and battles throughout the Hejaz region in the western Arabian Peninsula which took place in the final ten years of his life, from 622 to 632. His primary campaign was against his own tribe in Mecca, the Quraysh. Muhammad proclaimed prophethood around 610 and later migrated to Medina after being persecuted by the Quraysh in 622. After several battles against the Quraysh, Muhammad conquered Mecca in 629, ending his campaign against the tribe.​

Most of those characters are made up for the story. Muhammad was real and they consider him perfect but that is just religious bias. The Quran was not revealed but was a work over time. The palimpset found gives good evidence of that, dating some parts to even the 5th century.

"Both Qur'anic texts are fragmented and present aspects of work in progress. In its lower layer, the manuscript offers the oldest witness of a reading instruction in a Qur'an text and perhaps even in any Arabic text. Such peculiarities offer rare evidence as to how the Qur'an was transmitted, taught and written down in the first centuries of Islam. "

The Sanaa Palimpsest: The Transmission of the Qur'an in the First Centuries Ah (Qur'anic Studies)

This volume provides a new annotated edition of the two layers of the 'Sanaa palimpsest', one of the oldest Qur'an manuscripts yet discovered, together with a critical introduction that offers new hypotheses concerning the transmission of the Qur'an during the first centuries of Islam. The...

www.wildrumpusbooks.com

If the stories are to be believed, which is why some people come to believe in Jesus, then he gave the people proof that he was something special. He walked on water... Cast out demons... And rose from the dead. Except Baha'is don't necessarily believe those stories. So, there goes the proof. The stories can't be verified, and they sound like myth. So, I don't blame them. I agree with them.

But for those that believe in those stories, Jesus becomes real. He is with them. And the Holy Spirit is with them. They perform many of the same miracles that Jesus performed. They have healed the sick. Cast out demons in Jesus' name. Or... for some people, it is just a bunch of baloney. And that probably includes some Baha'is.

But one thing for sure, the Baha'i Faith is a great religion... for those that believe it. Just like Mormonism is great for those Mormons that believe it. And any religion is great for those that believe it. But to others? Not so much. Even religious people look at the beliefs of other people and wonder how they could believe such things.

To each his own I guess. I held world views where I ignored taking a skeptical and honest look at my beliefs. But I consider it to have been a waste of time because I was fooled and I don't want to go around believing false things. I thought it was true and when I applied critical thinking from all angles I saw I was deceiving myself. If I did that my entire life I would feel I wasted it on nonsense. When you hold a belief like that you tend to stop searching for other truths. Everyone has different priorities I guess.

It also holds an importance to some, they don't want it to be false so that may influence how they look at evidence.

 

[muhammad_isa]

..BTW, on figurines the
Inscription says “…be blessed by Yahweh and his Ashera”. Ashera was his wife. The Ashera figurine is female shaped and Ashera was a goddess in many other nations around Israel.
She was a fertility goddess and fertility artifacts are found along with her figurines.

There you go again, making assumptions..
You ASSUME that "Ashera was a fertility goddess" .. but what you really mean is that people
BELIEVED that she was a fertility goddess .. two different things, in my book.

I'm not being pedantic here .. what people BELIEVE and what is true are not the same thing at all !
That, and the fact that another nation could have the same name as another deity/idol in another tribe/nation.
..much like saying that "Mary" is Jesus' mother .. WHICH Mary??

What you said was wrong and you have no education..

Yes illiterate people worshipped what they were told was true..

Mmm .. it becomes part of a person's culture

The word "God" is European/English. It has nothing to do with early Yahweh who was called by name..

What about the word "example" do you not understand??
..and you have entirely ignored what I'm explaining to you..
i.e. NAMES mean NOTHING .. they can refer to any arbitrary thing!

You've got "stuck in your mind", that the name "Yawheh" is somehow sacred .. just like many
Muslims consider the word "Allah" to be sacred.

IT IS NOT THE WORD! It is what we associate with it, that is sacred..

If they wanted to say "God" in the OT it is the Hebrew word Elohim..

Yes, I know .. it is all about language, and that's my point.
The Arabic word for heaven/paradise is "jannah", but in times of old, it literally meant "garden"..
..any garden .. but Arabs do not use that word today for garden.

Notice the word for the original supreme deity - EL is in that word also. Yahweh was a storm, warrior deity for a while, many centuries. Under EL.

You are stuck in your way of thinking .. you say "Yahweh was a storm deity", but what you mean,
is that people believed that Yahweh was a storm deity, OR .. that was the name they gave to their deity .. whatever..

That is what he was created as..

What???
You mean that people invented such stories .. it is polytheistic .. idols are an invention of people.

Later he took on Graeco-Roman Platonism and became beyond space and time and tri-omni. That is Greek. Watch the lecture.

No .. just like the word "God" changed from a pagan context to a Christian one, the same
happened with the word YAHWEH i.e. it became associated with a different concept

The Bible passages above disagree with you..

No they don't! The original Bible scrolls were NOT written in English, so the word "God" is not
relevant to them.

God in Judaism to Christianity to later theology has 100% gone from one thing to another. Now you are in denial of basic common knowledge.

We are talking about the word "God" .. you are so confused!

Your "example" failed to even provide a source!

Do I need to provide a source? OK, here..

God entered English when the language still had a system of grammatical gender. The word and its cognates were initially neuter but underwent transition when their speakers converted to Christianity, "as a means of distinguishing the personal God of the Christians from the impersonal divine powers acknowledged by pagans."
God_(word) - Wikipedia

 

[muhammad_isa]

I don't care what a later myth says about Jesus. The creators of Jesus would know more about actual Jesus and what he was supposed to be in the fiction..

That assumes that it is all *******s .. you weren't learn anything like that.

Yahweh had many "sons of God", not the same theology as in the NT, that is Greek, the OT is not..

Correct..

 

[joelr]

There you go again, making assumptions..
You ASSUME that "Ashera was a fertility goddess" .. but what you really mean is that people
BELIEVED that she was a fertility goddess .. two different things, in my book.

That is really pedantic. You really think I am saying Ashera was real? Are you that desperate to make a good point?

It's all fiction. But Yahweh was a warrior deity and Ashera was a fertility goddess. I don't care about your "book" unless you have evidence.

I'm not being pedantic here .. what people BELIEVE and what is true are not the same thing at all !
That, and the fact that another nation could have the same name as another deity/idol in another tribe/nation.
..much like saying that "Mary" is Jesus' mother .. WHICH Mary??

I'm being honest here, I didn't tread this before I wrote "pedantic".

Why do you think you would need to explain to me what people believe and what is true are not the same? Every religious person who thinks their scripture is a revelation believes something that is not true. From Inanna to Yahweh.

What demonstrates this is evidence.

"What you said was wrong and you have no education, knowledge or anything beyond assumptions you come up with after hearing about the real world."

Please do not clip my words and make them appear out of context. It's even cheaper than the pedantic point above.

What about the word "example" do you not understand??
..and you have entirely ignored what I'm explaining to you..
i.e. NAMES mean NOTHING .. they can refer to any arbitrary thing!

You've got "stuck in your mind", that the name "Yawheh" is somehow sacred .. just like many
Muslims consider the word "Allah" to be sacred.

IT IS NOT THE WORD! It is what we associate with it, that is sacred..

This also is moot. The concept of God also changed over time. The original idea of God/Yahweh was a warrior deity who can take human form.

After contact with the Persians, Greek Hellenism and later Aquinas and the theologians who basically used Graeco-Roman philosophy and added it to what we think of as God, I will also include Islamic theologians like Al-Ghazâlî, we ended up with a different version of God.

I am familiar with the modern concept, it isn't just a god, it's the foundation of reality, an undivisible substance, the only non-emergent property and the basis for real objective truth.

Theologians attack materialism and use "mind" both together with a proof that there must be a mind as well as the need for an objective truth and base reality. Almost all real philosophers are atheist. The vast majority of those who go deep enough to understand the deep theology and still believe in a God are already looking to support a religion they already believe in.

So they overlook all sorts of problems with the argument. Consciousness is not magic, we can see the evolution of the nervous system. Fundamental reality does not need to be a conscious being. That also comes with absurd paradoxes and never supports the idea that this God had divine beings like angels, gives us revelations that somehow only match the knowledge of the time or any theism at all.

Even calling this thing "divine" is a paradox because if just one single mind exists and that is reality, it just is. It would not have properties, divine or not-divine.

The problem is not the name being mistaken for being sacred, it's the idea that the fundament of reality, if one exists AND is even a mind, would be "sacred". That is part of the mythology. Is number "1" sacred or just the number all others are based on?

You are stuck in your way of thinking .. you say "Yahweh was a storm deity", but what you mean,
is that people believed that Yahweh was a storm deity, OR .. that was the name they gave to their deity .. whatever..

No, not whatever. That matters. Religious people are making a claim, specifically about revelations. Yet what they got was information that was the exact same as the gods who came before. The activities of this god, who is supposedly the actual REAL God this time, looks EXACTLY like all others before it. But all others before it in that local region.

This demonstrates there were extremely likely to be no revelations or contact with any god, but rather this is just mythology, just like Inanna.

You don't say the people who worshipped Inanna had any conversations with God.

The same goes for Islam. Critical history is not really done on Islam yet, but it is studied in scholarship. What they say is no different than what is said about the OT among scholars.


Dr Millar on scholarships opinion of Islam.


101:30

Islam has it’s own mythology that looks to be a product of it’s time in Arabia, has a lot of the same poetic patterns, scholars have unpacked that. In the Christian West we are allowed to do critical-history on Christianity but Islam is hard to study because it’s still taboo. In the Islamic world that type of study is modulated quite a bit.


As you would expect it has congruence with what was prior. Zoroastrianism was a big influence and a predecessor. We see the trajectory of Persian and Arabic religion coming into that time period and producing the Quran.

What???
You mean that people invented such stories .. it is polytheistic .. idols are an invention of people.

Yes the people who claimed to be in contact with the actual real God. Yet you are trying to dismiss this now and act like "oh that??? Yeah that was just myth and invention. But they were talking to the real God, yup. But they happened to write down all the old myths and sayings that myth gods did, y'know, because why would they write down the actual revelations? But Muhammad, yes, he wrote them down exactly word for word. Moses, nope, he used idol worship and myth. BUT, it's still all real, because............it has to be or my book is wrong".

My words. But I'm trying to get a point across.
Islam claims the god here is real, the revelations are real, it just happens to have been written down like something completely different. But later in the 7th century it was written down verbatim.


Nice story. It's not likely, at all. And you have zero evidence.

No .. just like the word "God" changed from a pagan context to a Christian one, the same
happened with the word YAHWEH i.e. it became associated with a different concept

Yes because people came up with more sophisticated ideas and revelations are NOT REAL.

For further proof of this, Christians and Islam DID NOT invent the new advanced god ideas. They are GREEK.

This is evidence that these religions are man made, like all others.

Never has one single revelation given knowledge we didn't already know. Many times revelations gave incorrect things that we thought were true and now know is not true. Or we now have different morals. Like with killing in war, taking plunder, taking slaves, hating on gay people.
Ridiculous cosmology, re-used stories. It's all re-worked stuff. No chance of revelations, not even a little.

No they don't! The original Bible scrolls were NOT written in English, so the word "God" is not
relevant to them.

Again, apologetics. Making excuses for the original messenger or prophet. So God spoke to these prophets but wrote in Hebrew that he was a mythical warrior? Just stop.
God is not relevant to them because they didn't actually talk to any god.

God is not relevant to anyone because even modern ideas about god are still made up by people.

We are talking about the word "God" .. you are so confused!

The modern idea of God is a fiction. The ancient idea of God should AT LEAST match up if they were getting revelations..

But we know the modern ideas did not come from revelation. Theologians generally just re-hash Aquinas who is re-hashing Plato. No gods anywhere in this mix. Words, concepts, all bases covered.

This new spin about "words" is not helping anything. Words, concepts, it's all made up.


It's the same with Islam.

101:30
As you would expect it has congruence with what was prior. Zoroastrianism was a big influence and a predecessor. We see the trajectory of Persian and Arabic religion coming into that time period and producing the Quran.

Dr Millar on scholarships opinion of Islam, is a lot smarter than me. It's not proof but it's evidence. Which matters.

Do I need to provide a source? OK, here..

God entered English when the language still had a system of grammatical gender. The word and its cognates were initially neuter but underwent transition when their speakers converted to Christianity, "as a means of distinguishing the personal God of the Christians from the impersonal divine powers acknowledged by pagans."
God_(word) - Wikipedia

Which is a work and snows the reader into thinking the Christian god is any different than Platonic concepts and Hellenistic religious fiction.

This is a great example, yes Christians wanted to separate Yahweh from pagan deities. Except if you bother to educate yourself on the subject you would see that is a ridiculous lie.
An introduction to the topic is the lecture on Plato and God I provided. This is why. Because you think this Wiki source is saying something.

Again, if you care about what is true.......

 

[joelr]

That assumes that it is all *******s .. you weren't learn anything like that.

You have shown zero inclination to learning, have never bothered to educate yourself on anything historical that I can tell or even thought about watching anything I provided. I am fairly sure you just read the Quran and listen to what people say. Yet you are going to tell me about learning?

I did not say I have not studied Islam, I said there is no indication they have ANY knowledge about Jesus that trumps what was written in the first century. NOTHING. I know what they say, I DO NOT CARE. I find it to be a myth, like all religious works. This is backed up by reality and scholars who study historical knowledge.

Speaking of, what have you read from Al-Ghazâlî?

Correct..

Right, the NT is Greek theology, the OT is not. Because there were never any revelations or communications with any god. There were folk tales, stories, myth, made up theology, as they went. Always borrowed from other theology.

No way around it. Unless you use Justin Martyr and say the devil made history look that way to fool Christians or the Greeks, Persians and Mesopotamians all got a piece of the correct picture before the Israelites had it and then god gave it to them with the name corrections and story corrections. Which is a ridiculous work-around to try to explain why all religion looks like a syncretic work.
The reason is, because it is. Most likely I mean.