Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[joelr]

Why would they?
Many of us do not wish to leave our "comfort zone" .. quite understandable, really.
There is a constant battle going on in our minds, and it is far from easy to be a "saint".

I disagree but the only thing I would comment on is it's actually not hard at all to be a saint. Unless you have unrealistic expectations from some book by an imaginary deity that forbids too many things it isn't hard at all to live life, get along with people, settle disputes in a mature way and go about life. You work, work out, hang out with friends, be in a relationship do hobbies, learn what you are interested in. How hard is that?

satan will never let up, in his deceit..

Satan, like Sauron is not real except as a character in a book.

I can understand why you would think that, coming from a western environment, as do I.

Ah .. and why not? Jesus was a Jew, and worshiped in the great temple in Jerusalem, no?
The NT canon was finalised decades after his ascension .. no Jewish temple by then.

Non-sequitur as far as I can tell? The NT is a Hellenized Judaism with some Persian theology thrown in. The Quran isn't any more real but much less of a proper mythology with high level writing like MArk was capable of. Layers of fictive themes and devices.

Correct .. disbelievers who persecute, threaten and kill believers
are to be dealt with severely. God, the Most High, decreed this, as He did in the OT .. God establishes truth in His creation through prophets/warners..
If God espoused pacifism, the whole earth would be corrupted and evil would be uppermost .. it would be chaos.

Not God, people wrote those. You haven't entered even one proof of God. I could take a Zeus scripture and start making claims as well. So what?

The whole "plot" from beginning to end .. its wisdom cannot be matched .. although a staunch disbeliever cannot see that .. they judge by the "societal norms of the era" they live in.
Moral values, for example, are in a constant state of flux, each generation assuming that their generation is the most enlightened.

Each generation cannot ALL be right. [/QUOTE]

Please show me one wisdom that wasn't in other religions. It's OT wisdom and philosophy from what was going on in Arab philosophy. Compared to later philosophy it's not even philosophy. The Greek philosophers had far better wisdom. You say it's unmatched, have you read the OT? What Hindu scripture have you read? What Greek wisdom have you read?

Don't give me that crap apologetics "oh you can't see how good it is if you don't believe". That is the dumbest thing ever. You know wisdom can be judged weather you believe it was written by a man or a God. What this shows is that you know it isn't exceptional on it's own. But imagining it's from a divine source makes you feel it's better than it is.

Tell me what the best wisdom is in the Quran. I was just reading Repentence and it's horrifying. Lo fight the non-believers, Christians are perverse, doom, painful doom, Allah this Allah that. I saw the same reading the scripture of Inana written by Edheduanna. Actually I find Edheduanna's Exaultation of Inana to be far more powerful in reverance to a made up deity. So point me to something "unmatched".

No, there is not. How many times do I have to explain to you?
One cannot make conclusions about the existence of a few prophets, by studying ancient history..

What prophets? There are no prophets? That is made up.
Because it's clear that the stories are re-workings of older theology. The walls of text are a small sample of evidence. I mean you are flip flopping so bad here. You have lost track of your argument (because you do not have one) and continue to change it depending on what you are responding to. It's bizarre.
When I demonstrate enough theology from an older religion that was in contact with the Hebrews that you are forced to recognize it's far too much to be a coincidence you come up with "yes, they knew that because it's true and they had prophets that spoke to God".
So you admit that the theology is way too similar to be coincidence. You cannot show the Persians had prophets? You cannot show any Gods are real. Now you try to say the Persians had actual prophets that spoke to God but got all the names wrong, in some cases the savior is a woman, the name of God is different. Even worse is Yahweh never told his people about this theology for 600 years. But then when the Persians move in then Yahweh tells them right at that exact moment.
But they never gave credit to any prophets? It's an absolute mess. But you admit to syncretism because your alternative has no evidence and is ad-hoc nonsense.
100% of Christianity was not in Judaism. It all came from Greek/Persian religions right when they came into contact with them, one at a time.
It's also known that Genesis used older legends. There are no recorded prophets. They just wrote stories. You have zero proof of any of this. Yet you deny what all scholarship, even Christian scholarship is completely comfortable admitting.

You are living a complete lie. Which is your right. As a debater, you have nothing. Fantasy worlds created in ones mind are not arguments.

..rather than providing "walls of text" written by others, why don't you explain in your own words, how such conclusions are valid?

Supernatural anything - doesn't exist. No evidence. The Noah story is the Gilamesh story except with different names and some small details changed. Some lines are verbatim. Gilamesh is 1000 years older. Noah is a copied myth.
You accepting the conclusion or not has no bearing on it being valid.

No, I don't. I use my intelligence, just like you..

To posit things that have no evidence, never shown to exist, as of now are not known to be possible. You don't use it to study any actual history or evidence or to see if your beliefs actually stand up to logic. So no, you do not use it just like me.
Even that is cognitive bias.

 

[joelr]

Well, what is time?
It can be defined as a physical quantity, in relation to motion .. or it ca be defined philosophically.
Philosophy of space and time - Wikipedia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time

Most of that is older philosophy. I don't need dated philosophy on time. General relativity shows us that time is not intrinsic to reality. It is a structure that requires certain things, a finite speed of light (which defines causality), spacial dimensions to exist in a form and a time dimension to be able to have a flow of time. So time exists in this local universe but it's not intrinsic anywhere else. A first cause makes no sense in many ways. One is before that there is no reality? Nonsense. But you need time to have causality and consciousness. Any thoughts need time. A static instant does not support consciousness.

We cannot precisely define God.
The knowledge any man possesses is like a drop in the ocean.

Mankind cannot even create a fly .. naturally, I mean from scratch.

So? Nature created flys. You cannot define God just like you cannot define Sauron. It's made up so you can make up any attributes. Like Aquinas and other theologians did when developing Yahweh in later centuries and used Greek theology.

We have no good reason to believe that an agent who exists outside of
the space-time continuum, cannot "act" within it.

We have no good reason to believe that anything "acts" outside space and time or that it's possible for anything to "act".
Never mind inside it.
My original point was outside of time nothing "acts". Acting takes causality and time. Things happen, that's what it means. Without time there is no acting. We already have proof of this. Photons at light speed eexperience zero time. They have no experience in their reference frame.
Something completely outside space and time cannot take up space or experience time. Every single thing you have mentioned here is complete speculation and as of now completely impossible.
Because a book says so isn't a reason to think that isn't the case.

 

[joelr]

syncretism: the amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought.

You reach this conclusion, along with other disbelievers.
No amount of historical evidence can show us why people believed in different creeds thousands of years ago.
I say that prophets came and went .. you say they didn't.

..and please do not keep posting "walls of texts" from disbelievers .. it does not mean a thing.
Explain in your own words why I am wrong.

First, no. How dare you demand something when you have given literally nothing. Claims and beliefs. I ask for evidence over and over and you ignore it.
I give evidence of syncretism. In the OT and NT. Vast amounts. The most obvious conclusion.
Not only that but every religion that you don't believe, native Americal, Eastern, all show syncretism. It's standard in all religions.
Then I show exactly what is used. By cultures who literally move into Israel and then and only then does Judaism start to change.
The NT was even written in Greek, not just used Greek theology but written in Greek,. This issue isn't in question. Again, I do not care how bad you want to ignore it. I have shown it's a distince possibility.
The other option needs proof. of a God, proof of prophets in all those cultures. Explanations why Yahweh didn't tell his people before the other cultures moved in.

I can explain why you are wrong. You don't care about what is actually true. Just about what you want to be true.

After all that I still haven't even had to stoop to your low. Which of course would be "prove to me it wasn't syncretism, with evidence".


Religion, Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel

K.L. Sparks, Baptist Pastor, Professor Eastern U.

As a rule, modern scholars do not believe that the Bible's account of early Israel's history provides a wholly accurate portrait of Israel's origins. One reason for this is that the earliest part of Israel's history in Genesis is now regarded as something other than a work of modern history. Its primary author was at best an ancient historian (if a historian at all), who lived long after the events he narrated, and who drew freely from sources that were not historical (legends and theological stories); he was more concerned with theology than with the modern quest to learn 'what actually happened' (Van Seters 1992; Sparks 2002, pp. 37-71; Maidman 2003). As a result, the stories about Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, and Joseph are

You will have to be more specific .. which 600 years? Where?

All of the theology about resurrection, a coming savior, Satan and God are at war for humanity, God gives us freewill to choose to be good, God is uncaused and eternal, a final battle with Satan where everyone gets resurrected into a new body and lives in paradise on Earth forever.. This is Persian theology and began entering Judaism after the Persian invasion and rule by Cyrus who was well liked and is even mentioned in scripture as having approval from Yahweh.

This is also when they dropped Ashera as Yahwehs consort (they had one single supreme God) and downngraded her to Ashera poles in scripture.
For 600 years no mention of any of this until right when the Persians move in.

Then in 328 BCE the Greeks invade and we get all the Greek Hellenism in Christianity, never mentioned before.

Syncretism.

Absolutely not. No.

Except he does if it isn't syncretism because all scholars in Biblical history know it is. David Litwa has a new book demonstrating Jesus is completely a Greek deity and his divinity was exactly in that light.

I can assure you, that no "fact" in history can show that prophets did not exist. It is impossible.

No but evidence can show it's unlikely. The scripture in these religions are just like the BAhai scripture. Nothing new, no new knowledge that humans didn't know. Just fictive stories. Not one mention of anything that would confirm divinity. Like the Islamic apologetics love to claim.

What are you on about?
Do you really think that God could send a prophet in times of old, and "hey presto", all live happily ever-after?
That is not what happened .. some people listen and some don't .. and civilisations rise and fall.

Gee that's funny because they managed to get all the Mesopotamian theology no problem but NOTHING ELSE (except Egyptian). Then, during the Persian invasion they managed to get ALL the Persian theology and same with the Greek occupation.
So you are again failing to make a point that works.

The OT is comprised of texts of various author, age and origin.
Why are you quoting the OT as if it represents the full history of mankind?
It clearly cannot and does not do that.

No the OT represents common myths from Mesopotamian and Egypt. Later it represents myths from Persia.

If it pleases you to think so.

pointless

I am not changing anything .. I believe that the Qur'an is the literal word of God.
Christianity evolved to be what it is through a series of ecumenical councils. Political.

Yup and THEY claim it's what it is because Yahweh made sure the exact books were used to represent the real truth. They claim their stuff is the literal word of God.
So, again, you are changing a religion, disrespecting its beliefs in a highly disrespectful way.
You believe in the same God, you believe in prophets and divine intervention.
But you cannot believe that Yahweh cannot get the right prophets and scripture into the correct books exactly as he wanted it? The church even made a creed saying this is the exact truth how it's written. This came about around 385 CE and was around for 4 centuries and Yahweh couldn't get it right? And he couldn't tell any Christians if it was wrong?
But ssome Arabs did get it correct?
And then the Roman Catholic Church forms, becomes all powerful, God NEVER tells any Catholics, EVER. He has an angel tell Muhammad and figures, "yeah, that will surely be good, everyone will agree"....????

You believe in prophets. So Yahweh can't send a prophet who is actually IN THE CHURCH???? Like, the POPE???? No, nothing like that.

Wow, that's awful suspicious? It's almost like a different nation took the OT and rewrote the theology, coming up with "prophets" to justify his work and make it legit and discrediting the entire Christian churches. Didn't tell them. He figured they would surely get the message from known enemies?
What? Absurd. Out of control absurd.

And there you go again with pure speculation and belief with no evidence, AGAIN??????
I believe.........vblah blah blah........don't care. Prove it? You are making a supernatural claim. You have to show evidence. It's your claim.
Were you expecting to just show up on a debate forum and say "I believe..." when you would never accept that from a Christian or anyone else?

 

[joelr]

Believers do not have to prove to you that God exists.

Nope. JW do not have to prove that the world is ending soon and ALL non-JW are going straight to HELL. Except they are probably wrong. So are you.

You can believe what you like, as can I.

No YOU believe what you like. That is exactly what you are doing. You like the mythology and use ridiculous apologetics and deny simple truths.

I do not believe what I like. I believe what the evidence, common sense, rational thought and avoiding many fallacies suggests is the actual truth.
I don't have to like it, the universe doesn't care about that.

I find the Bible and Qur'an to be coherent.
No historical fact can disprove the existence of prophets.

Well the Quran used the Bible so of course there is some consistancy?

The actual Bible is the most inconsistant myth ever.
It starts out Mesopotamian/Egyptian/Babylonian and later moves to Persian and the NT is totally Greek Hellenism. They are so incompatible that many many Jews were like "no way" and refused to accept the NT.

So congrats, yet another apologetic that is completely wrong you have fallen for.w

You are getting yourself all mixed up here .. due to your preconceived ideas.

..showing your "true colours" here.
You suggest that loyalty to "the Roman tribe" is more important than your fellow believer in God.

And you are showing a profound lack of rational and logical thought here. It isn't a "Roman tribe", that is YOUR VERSION. Go to any Christian church and ask if they are a Roman tribe or if they are the actual true words of God and the true story of his son who died for sins.
You cannot even grant another religion thinks they are the true version just like you do. They are not a "fellow believer in God" that is nonsense. They believe that God is Jesus and he died and rose for a reason. You can't even grant another religion their own beliefs.
It would be like if I said I got revelations and was told Muhammad didn't get revelations from Gabrielle but really it was Satan.
And anytime anyone explained Islam and Muslim theology I had to jump in and say "you mean Muhammads revelations from satan" as if I would not even grant that other people have their own beliefs?

Jesus said there would be false prophets after him and that he will not come again until the final end of the world revelation thing. So Christains are not fellow God believers, they believe you are reading false messages, made up or from something worse, and you will be going to hell (fundamentalists will say that).
That is their religion. They believe that. They do not care what the Quran says. Why this is so hard for you to grasp is unknown.

So my "true colors" are I understand what is true. They hold beliefs that they believe are true. They also happen to be unfounded mythology, just like your version.

If you think Christianity is a Roman tribe of politics you are not a Christian. That isn't Christianity. That is what Muslims believe.

You cannot prove to me that the decision of a series of ecumenical councils represents Christianity .. unless you insist that one is not "part of the club" and is a heretic for not believing political decisions of men.

Oh this is rich. I almost don't want to respond this is so perfect. Just let it lie and appreciate the irony and lack of awareness.

But you won't follow if I don't.

You cannot prove to me that the decisions of the councils did not represent what Yahweh wanted.
You cannot prove to me that Muhammad spoke to an angel named Gabrielle.
You cannot prove to me that God exists
You cannot prove to me that angels exist
You cannot prove to me that Jesus wasn't real and actually said he and his like will not return (only false prophets) until the last coming
You cannot prove to me one single supernatural thing is real
You cannot prove to me that prophets actually speak to a divinity
You cannot prove to me anything you say


I may not be about to "prove" things but I can show evidence in favor of things. I can show what is likely. Things based on past happenings, real phenomena like syncretism, people making up stories and claiming to be a prophet (Bahai) and producing vast material, even some good wisdom and ethics. Showing it's very possible all revelations are made up by the person making the claim.

 

[joelr]

I find the Bible and Qur'an to be coherent.

.

There are also narration problems that demonstrate lack of coherent narrative.


NARRATIVE PROBLEMS

During the Reformation, when the challenging of authoritative claims, re- ligious and otherwise, was the order of the day, scholars began to insist on a close reading of the pentateuchal narrative on its own terms, as a history of Israel from the creation of the world until the death of Moses. Under these circumstances, it was not long before the literary problems of the text became undeniable.9 The hallmark of a unified composition, one created by a single author, is internal consistency: consistency of language and style, consistency of theme and thought, and, above all, consistency of story. Every narrative makes certain claims about the way events transpired—who, what, when, where, how, and why. When these elements are uniform throughout a text, there is no press- ing need to inquire as to its unity. In the Pentateuch, however, historical claims made in one passage are undermined or contradicted outright in another. The problems identified by the Reformation scholars are the same as those we strug- gle with today and can be classified in three major overlapping groups: contra- dictions, doublets, and discontinuities.

Contradictions in the pentateuchal narrative come in a variety of forms, from the smallest of details to the most important of historical claims. On the minor end are ostensibly simple disagreements about the names of people and places. Is Moses’s father-in-law named Reuel (Exod 2:18) or Jethro (Exod 3:1)? Is the mountain in the wilderness where Yahweh appeared to the people called Sinai (Exod 19:11) or Horeb (Exod 3:1; Deut 1:6)? Of somewhat more significance are disagreements about where, when, and even why an event took place. In Numbers 20:23–29, Aaron dies on Mount Hor; according to Deuteronomy 10:6, however, he dies in Moserah. In Numbers 3–4, after Moses has descended from the mountain and is receiving the laws, the Levites are assigned their cultic re- sponsibilities; but according to Deuteronomy 10:8, the Levites were set apart at a site in the wilderness called Jotbath.10 In Numbers 20:2–13, Moses is forbidden from crossing the Jordan because of his actions at the waters of Meribah, when
he brought forth water from the rock; but then according to his own words in Deuteronomy 1:37–38, Moses was prohibited from entering the promised land not because of anything he did, but because of the sins of the people in the epi- sode of the spies. Major contradictions, with important historiographical and theological ramifications, are also present in the text. The premier example of these is the creation story in Genesis 1 and 2: in what order was the world cre- ated? was it originally watery or dry? were male and female created together, or was woman made from man’s rib? is man the culmination of creation, or the beginning? Other examples are equally problematic. For the cult: was the Tent of Meeting in the center of the Israelite camp (Num 2–3) and did Yahweh dwell there constantly (Exod 40:34–38), or was it situated well outside the camp (Exod 33:7), and does Yahweh descend to it only to speak with Moses (Exod 33:8–11)? For prophecy: could there be other prophets like Moses after his death (Deut 18:15), or not (Deut 34:10–12)? These contradictions, from minor to major, are difficult, and frequently impossible, to reconcile.



The second category of narrative inconsistency is doublets: stories that are told twice. In order to qualify as a literarily problematic repetition, two passages must not only tell a similar story, but do so in a way that renders them mutually exclusive: they must be events that could not possibly happen more than once. Thus one of the most often cited doublets in the Pentateuch, the patriarch pass- ing off his wife as his sister in a foreign land (Gen 12:10–20; 20; 26:6–11)—which is actually a triplet—does not count. As hard as it is to believe that Abraham would pull the same trick twice, and that Isaac would do the same a generation later, there is nothing in these stories that prohibits such a reading. The two stories about Abraham and Sarah are set in different regions (Egypt and Gerar), with different characters (Pharaoh and Abimelech), while the story about Isaac and Rebekah, although set in Gerar with Abimelech, obviously features differ- ent protagonists at a different time. On the grounds of narrative alone, all three stories could well belong to a single author.

There are truly problematic doublets, however. The city of Luz is renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 28:19, as he is on his way from his father’s house to stay with his uncle Laban. The city of Luz is again renamed Bethel by Jacob in Genesis 35:15, on his way from his uncle Laban’s house to rejoin his father in Canaan. (Not to mention that Abraham had already built an altar at Bethel, already not called Luz, in Gen 12:8.) Similarly, the site of Beersheba is given its name on the basis of the oath sworn (nišba ̄ ‘) between Abraham and Abimelech in Genesis 21:31. It is named again by Isaac in Genesis 26:33, on the basis of the oath sworn between him and Abimelech. Jacob’s own name is changed to Israel when he wrestles with the divine being in Genesis 32:29. Jacob’s name is
changed to Israel again by God at Bethel in Genesis 35:10. These doublets are mutually exclusive: in each case, the naming or renaming is recounted as if it is happening for the first and only time.

More striking are the narratives relating the thirst of the Israelites in the wil- derness. In Exodus 17:1–7, just after they have crossed the sea and before they arrive at the mountain in the wilderness, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to strike a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named Massah and Meribah. In Numbers 20:2–13, well after the Isra- elites have left the mountain, in the midst of their wilderness wandering, the people complain that they have no water to drink; Yahweh responds by telling Moses to speak to a rock, from which water will come forth. Moses strikes the rock, the water comes forth, and the place is named “the waters of Meribah.” In these stories not only is the same name given to two different places, and for the same reason, but the stories themselves are remarkably similar.

In fact, all of these doublets, and others not discussed here, overlap with the previous group, that is, narrative contradictions. For the double telling of a single event entails two competing historical claims about, at the very least, when that event happened. As we have seen, not only when, but also the char- acteristics of where, who, how, and why may vary from passage to passage, even when the central “what” remains the same.


.....The third category of narrative problems may be called discontinuities. In these cases, the natural course of events of a story is interrupted by what appears to be an unrelated narrative......

These types of discontinuities can also have significant and troublesome chronological components. The story of Isaac’s blessing of Jacob instead of Esau in Genesis 27 takes place as Isaac is dying (v. 1), as Esau explicitly recog- nizes (v. 41). Yet Isaac does not die until Genesis 35:28–29—at least twenty-one years later (the time that Jacob served Laban).11 Although perhaps not always technically contradictions, these discontinuities prevent the natural reading of the narrative as a continuous whole.

Alone, the evidence of the narrative problems that plague the pentateuchal text speaks only to the discontinuity of the whole and results in the isolation of one passage from the next, or the compositional distinctiveness of one pericope in relation to another.

, Composition of the Pentateuch, Joel Baden

 

[muhammad_isa]

..the only thing I would comment on is it's actually not hard at all to be a saint..

Ha ha

Satan, like Sauron is not real except as a character in a book..

...

Not God, people wrote those..

...

The Greek philosophers had far better wisdom..

Right .. you follow men , and I follow nothing?

Don't give me that crap apologetics "oh you can't see how good it is if you don't believe". That is the dumbest thing ever..

...

Tell me what the best wisdom is in the Quran. I was just reading Repentence and it's horrifying. Lo fight the non-believers, Christians are perverse, doom, painful doom, Allah this Allah that..

Almighty God does not like those who start aggression or who plot inequities.

What prophets? There are no prophets? That is made up..

...

Because it's clear that the stories are re-workings of older theology..

It is clear to me, that they confirm what previous prophets had taught.

When I demonstrate enough theology from an older religion that was in contact with the Hebrews that you are forced to recognize it's far too much to be a coincidence you come up with "yes, they knew that because it's true and they had prophets that spoke to God"./

Correct.

So you admit that the theology is way too similar to be coincidence..

Of course !

You cannot show the Persians had prophets?

That's the thing about history .. it gets more hazy, the further one goes back in time.
God would not have had to send Jesus and Muhammad if there wasn't something wrong at the times they were sent .. and you want to claim that you know all about those times 1000's of years ago?

100% of Christianity was not in Judaism. It all came from Greek/Persian religions right when they came into contact with them, one at a time..

Jesus was a Jew who attended the temple in Jeruselam.
He taught about YHWH, God, and the NT was canonised many, many years later.

You are living a complete lie..

...

 

[muhammad_isa]

Most of that is older philosophy. I don't need dated philosophy on time.
...
..you need time to have causality and consciousness. Any thoughts need time. A static instant does not support consciousness.

That's right, you stick to your materialist philosophy..

So? Nature created flys.

Who's that? You mean "nothing" created them don't you?

My original point was outside of time nothing "acts". Acting takes causality and time..

Time is just a perception .. you try to claim that you are "the master of knowledge".
Nay ! Allah, the Most High is the OWNER of time.
Yeah, I know .. you don't believe in "time Lord's"

Something completely outside space and time cannot take up space or experience time..

What you mean is that because you can't understand the topic in its entirety, being human, you say "cannot", and presume that time is a property of the universe.
i.e. the universe is all that exists

..it gets boring after a while .. materialism, I mean.

What existed before the space-time continuum?
Yes, it makes little sense does it?
You will tell me that is when "time began"

If time has a beginning then there is no such thing as eternity..
Would you agree?

 

[muhammad_isa]

I can explain why you are wrong. You don't care about what is actually true..

...

All of the theology about resurrection, a coming savior, Satan and God are at war for humanity, God gives us freewill to choose to be good, God is uncaused and eternal, a final battle with Satan where everyone gets resurrected into a new body and lives in paradise on Earth forever.. This is Persian theology and began entering Judaism after the Persian invasion and rule by Cyrus who was well liked and is even mentioned in scripture as having approval from Yahweh..

"Persian theology" ?
..and you claim that they made it all up, and then "children of Israel" absorbed their culture into theirs.
You would not think that, if you believed that prophets actually exist.
It is a conclusion based on disbelief.

This is also when they dropped Ashera as Yahwehs consort (they had one single supreme God) and downngraded her to Ashera poles in scripture..

Same again .. you assume that all gods are the same, and its all "chance" and superstition.
Not much different than your idea of how the universe came into being .. "fluke"

For 600 years no mention of any of this until right when the Persians move in..

..and you've got your spies planted back in time to detect all these things, I suppose.

Then in 328 BCE the Greeks invade and we get all the Greek Hellenism in Christianity, never mentioned before.

You well know that Christianity evolved in the Roman empire during political turmoil.
..at least you should, if you are a bona-fide historian.

..I think you mean "Greek Hellenism in JUDAISM", because there was no Christianity in 300 BCE

Gee that's funny because they managed to get all the Mesopotamian theology no problem but NOTHING ELSE (except Egyptian). Then, during the Persian invasion they managed to get ALL the Persian theology and same with the Greek occupation..

Who's this "they" .. believers in God, you mean?
You have no idea .. you just rely on the conclusions of disbelieving historians.
It is very easy to claim that a prophet didn't exist, because "we have no evidence in history"

..and that is what it all boils down to.
You: religions evolved .. no prophets
Me: Yes, religions evolve .. prophets are real.

So, again, you are changing a religion, disrespecting its beliefs in a highly disrespectful way..

That's almost laughable.
Isn't that what you are claiming .. that religion is nothing more than fiction and evolves through tribal association?

But you cannot believe that Yahweh cannot get the right prophets and scripture into the correct books exactly as he wanted it?

Books?
We have only had the printing press for relatively short time.
If there was not a "book" in this era that contained truth, I believe that God would send a messenger, to make sure that the truth WAS available.

The church even made a creed saying this is the exact truth how it's written. This came about around 385 CE and was around for 4 centuries and Yahweh couldn't get it right? And he couldn't tell any Christians if it was wrong?

Yes, I find it all very interesting.
Trinitarians v Arians [labels denoting creed]
Christian v Christian politcally declared war on each other ..heresy bla bla

There was much enmity between the Roman Empire and other Christians [Arians] for a couple of hundred years.
..eventually Muhammad, peace be with him, was born in 570,
with the Qur'an that confirmed the belief of Arians .
i.e, Jesus is not God

 

[muhammad_isa]

I do not believe what I like. I believe what the evidence, common sense, rational thought and avoiding many fallacies suggests is the actual truth..

You are being pedantic..
You are inferring that I believe what I believe as I do not have common-sense?

Well the Quran used the Bible..

Yeah sure .. they all sat there reading the Bible, and wrote down a load of bull.

Jesus said there would be false prophets after him and that he will not come again until the final end of the world revelation..

He did .. and I believe it.
I am aware of many false prophets .. and yes, Jesus will return before armageddon.

They do not care what the Quran says..

..and the Jews don't care what the NT says..
..and you don't care what ANY of them say.

If you think Christianity is a Roman tribe of politics you are not a Christian..

Well, I prefer to let Jesus decide, who is "what".

Oh this is rich. I almost don't want to respond this is so perfect. Just let it lie and appreciate the irony and lack of awareness.

But you won't follow if I don't.

You cannot prove to me that the decisions of the councils did not represent what Yahweh wanted..

I cannot categorically prove it, no .. but I have good reason to believe it.

Shall I start a thread on the Early History of Christianity?
Do you want a debate about it?

..you can let me know..

 

[joelr]

Ha ha

Again, not hard. I enjoy getting along with people, I have no care at all to steal, hurt people, I want to train, read, study, learn, work, why would living a normal life be so hard to you. If you have compulsions to do crimes it's not the norm.

Right .. you follow men , and I follow nothing?

You follow men. Men wrote the Quran.

If you cannot answer something how bout not including it in the response? Why format a post to write three dots?

Almighty God does not like those who start aggression or who plot inequities.

Wait, you said the Quran was inconcievable that it was written by humans, the wisdom was one of the points and reasons. Now you are saying the BEST gem of wisdom is don't start aggression or plot inequities?
Basically the golden rule?????

Maybe try that one again?
That's like a God coming down and saying "hold...I have an all important message......last person to finish the toilet paper.. REPLACES IT!!"

It is clear to me, that they confirm what previous prophets had taught.

Uh, you haven't given evidence for prophets.
You haven't shown where any other religion claims to have prophets.
YOu haven't shown there is a theistic God who has messages that sound suspiciously like a human king.

If it's all true you haven't explained why the names and much theology is different.
You haven't explained how those prophets don't have the exact truth instead of you.
You haven't even demonstrated that the actual theology of Christianity isn't correct if a God is real?

Correct.

correct, you haven't explained why the Israelites wouldn't get their theology from their God and instead learned it from Mesopotamians. Then 600 years later from Persians, then 500 years later from Greek religion. Almost nothing from Yahweh.

Your prophet idea doesn't even work if all this is real.

Of course !

Well then until you can show that prophets are actually real it's syncretism.

That's the thing about history .. it gets more hazy, the further one goes back in time.
God would not have had to send Jesus and Muhammad if there wasn't something wrong at the times they were sent .. and you want to claim that you know all about those times 1000's of years ago?

That explanation doesn't work at all. Jesus is a complete copy of other religious theology. He isn't needed at all.
Your idea about "something was wrong" is also not supported by anything. What it looks like is Muhammad did exactly what the Bahai writer did. Nothing is wrong because Christian theology is made up and the Quran theology is made up.

Now if prophets are real than the Bahai prophet is the latest version, like he said, God gives progressive revelations to prophets so it's now time to have Bahai be the latest word from God.

Jesus was a Jew who attended the temple in Jeruselam.
He taught about YHWH, God, and the NT was canonised many, many years later

...

Sorry, not exactly. The tenants of the religion are in the gospels. That is all Persian and Greek theology. Which you just said was from prophets and must be real. SO the Jesus story DOES fit the correct theology and therefore is correct.
If the prophets are real and in those religions like you say.
So it's correct. If Muhammad had a real prophet than it would have been said what the issues were with the beliefs. This prophet idea is really not working in so many ways. It's not real anyways but if it was you have created many inconsistancies.

 

[joelr]

That's right, you stick to your materialist philosophy..

I will. You show me where supernatural philosophy has given us any knowledge or corrected any materialist or scientific knowledge.

Non-materialist philosophy has thousands of concepts, all opposed to each other. Every group has completely different philosophies. Show me one who has shown to be correct.

Who's that? You mean "nothing" created them don't you?

No I don't mean nothing. If you think nature is "nothing" than you have even another thing you are wrong or misled about.
The entire universe you are in is a result of nature. We may not fully understand the natural forces of creation, we understand the current laws, but the are certainly not a "being" or conscious God entity.

Time is just a perception .. you try to claim that you are "the master of knowledge".
Nay ! Allah, the Most High is the OWNER of time.
Yeah, I know .. you don't believe in "time Lord's"

Oh yeah the thing in your book, he's master of time too? wow, funny that he didn't explain what it is?

So first your strawman/lie.

I did not claim I am the master of knowledge. Resorting to lies weakens your already weak position further.
We have a modern understanding of time and it is a result of the way the universe is formed. It is not a universal constant. Outside of this universe may have more time but if it isn't set up correct then there could be literally no time and even no space outside of the universe.
There is no reason to believe something out of time can have any moment by moment experience. Just because a book says so doesn't make it true.

What you mean is that because you can't understand the topic in its entirety, being human, you say "cannot", and presume that time is a property of the universe.
i.e. the universe is all that exists

Nope. Our local universe may not be all that exists.
Outside of time there is no time, causality, experience, we have evidence of this.

..it gets boring after a while .. materialism, I mean.

No there are many mysteries and why would the universe get boring? If you think a book with a ghost king who says things like "I am the master of time....." really helps with your boredom of local reality then good for you. whatever works. I am interested in things that are true.

hat existed before the space-time continuum?
Yes, it makes little sense does it?
You will tell me that is when "time began"

Yes our local time began at the big bang. Beyond that we just don't know. Neither do you of course but people like to write stories about Gods and some people seem to think this fiction is more fascinating than all of reality and completely buy what they are selling. Ok? Good for you. I don't care about Gods, alien abductions, Atlantis, star people from Pleadies who built the pyramids and every show on the Gia channel. But I guess people need this stuff.
What does your myth say about before the big bang?

Hmm, let's see, the heavens and earth were joined together as one unit and cloven asunder. Before that they were like smoke. And that only took 6 days! Ok, all made up. We also have angels, Jinn, Shayatin, and all sorts of supernatural entities. Wow, that sounds exactly like Hinduism?

Oh look, Hellenism is in the Quran as well:

Georges Tamer has spent his career studying philosophy and Arabic and Islamic literature and culture. Recently, he made an important discovery: Many of the images used to describe time in the Koran were also used not just in pre-Islamic Arab society, but also in ancient Greece and late antiquity.

Tamer’s finding is evidence that Islam has its roots in Hellenism, which is also at the root of Judaism and Christianity. As he puts it, the Islamic and Judeo-Christian traditions are different branches of the same tree. This idea allows scholars to think of Islam not as a break from Hellenism, but as a continuation of it.

In the Koran, one way time is described is as God actively intervening to turn night into day and day into night. This means time is completely subjected to God’s will. This idea is a contribution to the development of the doctrine of predestination in Islam, Tamer argues. Muslims also point to the idea of God "turning" time in the Koran as a revelation of the Earth’s rotation to Muhammad centuries before the natural sciences became aware of this fact.

Tamer traces five verbs used in the Koran to describe God's active rotation of night and day: to intrude, to cover, to skin, to turn, and to wrap the turban. These verbs represent concrete actions common in pre-Islamic Arab society, showing not just God’s actions in relation to time, but also the historical context in which the Koran was written.

The Arabic concept of dahr, or endless time, also corresponds to the Greek concept of aion, which was personified and given power over human life. Both represent a cyclical concept of time which proceeds continuously, irreversibly affecting human fates.

In this book project, Tamer plans to explore the perception of past, present and future in the Koran, and to study how worldly time is related to the Hereafter. He will also ask whether the Koranic concept of time corresponds to the idea of Islam as "submission" or "subordination," and how far it allows for freedom of will. Finally, Tamer will discuss how the concept of time influences the political behavior of Muslims.

Tamer’s research is important for another reason: it subjects the Koran to hermeneutical analysis, based on historical-critical studies. Because Muslim scholars see the Koran as a divine revelation, they traditionally do not analyze it in this way. Tamer makes no comment as to the divine nature of the Koran – he sees that as a matter of faith, not scholarship – but does want to understand its text and context.

By understanding the historical context of the Koran, Tamer argues, we can better understand not only Islam, but how it relates to Judeo-Christianity. This can help us in structuring lines of communication between different cultures as well as religious and ethnic groups.


The Concept of Time in the Koran | Mershon Center

If time has a beginning then there is no such thing as eternity..
Would you agree?

Our local universe had a beginning of time. We don't know if there are spacial infinities. If there are areas outside our universe they may not experience time wich is a type of eternity. But it is not infinite because there is no time. Nothing ever happens ever, for eternity. There is no time to measure as infinite.
A being existing outside time is just a concept first introduced by Aquinas/Agustine/Origen, Christian theologians using Greek philosophy. Obviously Yahweh was upgraded to be beyond time and later so was Allah.
It's a nonsense idea and has no meaning because it's pure speculation that believers often just repeat without any understanding of the concepts.
Currently we don't know what lies beyond the local universe? Infinite cycles? Multiverse? Don't know.

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm about to burst a blood vessel.....a "tenant" is
one who leases real estate. A "tenet" is a belief.
Do not trigger me again!!!!!

 

[joelr]

...
"Persian theology" ?
..and you claim that they made it all up, and then "children of Israel" absorbed their culture into theirs.
You would not think that, if you believed that prophets actually exist.
It is a conclusion based on disbelief.

Even if the Persians had prophets I would still believe Israel absorbed the Persian theology into their culture. Right when the Persians moved in is when the Hebrews started emulating their theology.

I would believe in prophets when there is evidence for prophets and evidence for a theistic God. Those things are fiction. I don't just "believe" something because I want it to be true.

I'm just hitting reply and putting html next to your answers. The (...) means nothing. I'm not looking at the questions you didn't answer. They don't show up on the reply format. Just 3 dots.

.
Same again .. you assume that all gods are the same, and its all "chance" and superstition.
Not much different than your idea of how the universe came into being .. "fluke"

All wrong and yet also incorrect in other ways as well.

All Gods are fiction. It isn't "chance" at all? ALL of the theology used by Israel is from nations who literally MOVED IN AND INVADED Israel? Mesopotamia, Babylon and Egypt are neighbors. So that isn't chance, it's using theology from more established nations. It's a pattern.

Also you say it like it is unlikely. News flash.....ALL of the tens of thousands of myths re-use stories from older nations who are close by or nations they moved out of. Or were invaded and their religion was blended with the invaders. This happens with every religion ever.
American Indian, Asian, wherever?

It just happened with the Bahai religion which is syncretic with the religions he was reading. So no, not chance.

And THEY ALL CLAIM GODS TOLD THEM.

But it has nothing to do with the origin of the big bang. Now you are using the God in the Gaps fallacy. An area we don't yet know about, you insert God. Yet every time God was the reason it turned out to be wrong.
God caused all illness, all weather, moved the planets, moved the sun, healed all sickness, caused all natural disasters. Eve late in astronomy some issues with planetary motion were solved by saying God fixed up that small bit they couldn't figure out.
But then they realized it was gravity.

No one says the big bang was "fluke", that is your apologists using fallacies. We don't know what began the big bang yet. There are theories but it's a hard subject to run tests on.

.
..and you've got your spies planted back in time to detect all these things, I suppose.

At this point I'm like your instructor correcting your paper.


No, it's in scripture. The Persain emissary Cyrus was hailed by Yahweh as a friend and the Israelites decided to be more like them - became focused on Monotheism, predicted a world savior, Satan became an enemy of God, humans now have freewill from God to choose......this all came during the occupation. They talk about it in scripture.

The Hellenism didn't show up until after th eGreek invasion.

.
You well know that Christianity evolved in the Roman empire during political turmoil.
..at least you should, if you are a bona-fide historian.

..I think you mean "Greek Hellenism in JUDAISM", because there was no Christianity in 300 BCE

300 BCE was when the Greeks moved in. The myths took a while to develop in Judaism and around 30 CE were formed to some degree.

Yes, Rome had taken over when the gospels were written. In Mark we see some elements of Roman myth as well.

.
Who's this "they" .. believers in God, you mean?
You have no idea .. you just rely on the conclusions of disbelieving historians.
It is very easy to claim that a prophet didn't exist, because "we have no evidence in history"

I mean THE ACTUAL BIBLE??????? The first 3 books? Genesis is ALL MESOPOTAMIAN MYTHOLOGY?????

The Persain myth doesn't show up in the OT until the 2nd Temple Period canonization. Genesis was already done.

I don't just claim a prophet doesn't exist because none are in history???????????
Why do I have to explain every single detail? Have you ever examined your beliefs AT ALL????????????????

There is no eveidence of prophets EVER??????

No evidence of God, supernatural ANYTHING EVER???????????

Except in stories where Atlantis, alien abductions, superheroes, Freddy vs Jason, Wizards, Mt Doom, Minoutaurs and invasions from Mars also happen.

.
..and that is what it all boils down to.
You: religions evolved .. no prophets
Me: Yes, religions evolve .. prophets are real.

except I have evidence and you don't.
Not of God, not of prophets, not of a talking God who is angry at non-believers and says painful doom over and over.

But we do have evidence of stories and religions using similar stories only from close cultures. Never is it from a theology around the world. Never. As if God can't send the same messages to people in other continents?

No, it's definitely syncretism.

Were some God sending prophets the messages would be similar all around the world. The far east asian religions are radically different. Many are non-theism.

 

[joelr]

.
That's almost laughable.
Isn't that what you are claiming .. that religion is nothing more than fiction and evolves through tribal association?

Yes, that is what religion Is. Except I'm looking at it from your view where prophets exist and pointing out if you believe these religions are real you have no way to say one is wrong and the claims are true except they are "messed up" and need fixing by your religion?

Now, since you do not seem to be buying the Bahai prophet. GUESS WHAT! You now also think some religion is fiction and evolves through tribal association?

And you cannot prove that the Bahai prophet isn't real if prophets are real. He is just as legit as Muhammad. So if it's all true looks like there has been a later prophet who also corrected your religion as well.
Now when it's your religion that is the one being updated it's not so fun right?

.
Books?
We have only had the printing press for relatively short time.
If there was not a "book" in this era that contained truth, I believe that God would send a messenger, to make sure that the truth WAS available.

HE did. Mormonism, JW, Bahai all have prophets.
If you believe prophets th eBahai religion has updated Islam.

But there is no evidence for anything supernatural so your beliefs are not supported.

.
Yes, I find it all very interesting.
Trinitarians v Arians [labels denoting creed]
Christian v Christian politcally declared war on each other ..heresy bla bla

1. Sunni Hanafi
2. Sunni Maliki
3. Sunni Shafi'i
4. Sunni Hanbali
5. Shi'i Imāmī (followers of the Ja'fari jurisprudence)
6. Shi'i Zaydi
7. Khariji Ibadi
8. Sunni Ẓāhirī

Sunnis are separated into five maddhabs; Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i, Hanbali and Ẓāhirī. The Shia, on the other hand, first developed Kaysanism, which in turn divided into three major groupings known as Fivers, Seveners and Twelvers. The Zaydis separated first. The non-Zaydis were initially called "Rafida". The Rafidis later divided into two sub-groups known as Imamiyyah and Batiniyyah.[16]

• The "Imami-Shi'a" later brought into existence Ja'fari jurisprudence. Akhbarism, Usulism, and Shaykhism were all ensued as variations of "Ja'fari fiqh," while Alawites and Alevis who are not the strict followers of "Ja'farism" are developed separately from the teachings of Ithna'ashari Imāms.
  
  M'zab valley in Sahara has been home of the Ibadi branch of Kharijte sect.
  
  
  
• Batiniyya groups, on the other hand, were divided into two sub-groups known as Seveners and Ismā'īlīs. Qarmatians who did not follow the Fatimid Caliphate were branched from the Seveners. Those groups of Batiniyya who followed the Fatimids are the ancestors of today's Ismā'īlīs. Druze was emerged as an offshoot of Ismāʿīlism at the beginning of the 11th Century. Isma'ilism at the end of the 11th Century split into two major branches known as Nizārī Ismā'īlī (Assassins of Alamut) and Musta’li Ismaili. As a result of the assassination of Fatimid Caliph Al-Amir bi-Ahkami'l-Lah, Mustaali was once more again divided into Hafizis and Taiyabi Ismailis (Dawoodis, Sulaymanis and Alavis).
• The Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi'i and Hanbali Sunnis, the Twelver groups, the Ismā'īlī groups, the Zaydis, the Ibadis, and the Ẓāhirīs continue to exist. In addition, new sects like Black Muslim movements, Quranists, Salafis, Wahhabis, and Zikris have been emerged independently.

.
There was much enmity between the Roman Empire and other Christians [Arians] for a couple of hundred years.
..eventually Muhammad, peace be with him, was born in 570,
with the Qur'an that confirmed the belief of Arians .
i.e, Jesus is not God

One myth claims another myth is wrong. With wu-wu there is never empirical evidence and everyone is correct. You just need followers.

To Christians Jesus is still God. They are growing and as fast as Islam. Mythology will never come to agreement because it's all unproven make believe, so each group is as correct as the other.

But rational, science minded people are also increasing. Like parts of Europe eventually most people will demand proper evidence and stop using fallacies and things like faith as sources of correct knowledge.

Again, all you do is state beliefs without any basis of truth or evidence.

 

[joelr]

You are being pedantic..
You are inferring that I believe what I believe as I do not have common-sense?.

That is the problem (one). You think it's a small detail.
You have convinced yourself there is common sense here. Yet is I mention the Bahai revelations or the JW beliefs you would find them unbelievable. They are literally exactly the same. A person claimed God contacted him and other people bought into it. A group formed, an institution formed, people were brought into churches, the ceremony and beliefs of people sold the experience and they emotionally accepted that this was reality.
Now thinking that it isn't true releases all sorts of negative emotions, anger, denial, and it's become fact.

Believing in the Bahai prophet who updated Islam and Christianity (and others) seems to lack common sense to you?

You are doing exactly the same thing. And no there is no common sense in believing things that have no evidence.

If your has common sense than so does Bahai. And you should equally consider joining the new revelations. If not there is some other manipulation here. Common sense is not part of it.
If so, explain it. Show the chain of evidentary reasoning that follows deductive common sense thinking.


How can you possible ask this question now, after I asked for evidence of God, theism, prophets, supernatural, every time and you have provided nothing. You expect you just get a common sense pass by magic?

Yeah sure .. they all sat there reading the Bible, and wrote down a load of bull. .

Bible passages are clearly used in the Quran.

He did .. and I believe it.
I am aware of many false prophets .. and yes, Jesus will return before armageddon..

A prophet that says Jesus is not God is a false prophet in Christianity - "“Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are ravenous wolves. You will recognize them by their fruits. "

Armageddon already was supposed to happen. They are not future predictions. A Pastor gives this information, who's also a historian. It's also a Persian myth they borrowed.

Apocalypses and Apocalypticism

33:50

Comes into Judaism from Persian religion. Messianic savior myths also come from Persia. Prior to this there also is no cosmic devil. This comes from Zoroastrianism. Physical resurrection of people and a new world at the end of times battle comes into Judaism from Zoroastrianism.


37:00 during the 2nd Temple Period God becomes more cosmic in scope, not walking around wrestling with people. Visions are attributed to angels and ancient authorities - Daniel, Enoch, Adam…

Apocalyptic authors suffered from lack of perspective, falsely believing themselves to have been living at the end times.

Their readers share the same lack of perspective, falsely imagining that the text refer to the readers time (when they actually referred to the authors time)1:03:40

For centuries people have been reading Revelation as future history. Often convinced the signs point to their own time. This is called temporal narcissism.

1:03:40

..and the Jews don't care what the NT says..
..and you don't care what ANY of them say. .

Well it's not true. It's made up. But the NT is good writing.

Well, I prefer to let Jesus decide, who is "what". .

Yes, Jesus from the gospels is God. If you don't think so you are not Christian.

I cannot categorically prove it, no .. but I have good reason to believe it..

No, you have anecdotal stories.

Shall I start a thread on the Early History of Christianity?
Do you want a debate about it?.

I'm sure I am more familiar with the early history of Christianity than you.

The 2nd century was half Gnostic but the modern canon was beginning to be put together around 180 CE, we know from the letters of Ignatius he was using Matthew, Mark and Luke but they hadn't yet been named.

The councils in 313/385 CE put the offical canon together. But the church argued that those books are what God wanted exactly to say. Now this is terrible reasoning and full on wu. However your beliefs also ride on full on wu.
So you have no basis to deny them their magical thinking. You do the same. So your group thinks you are correct and Christians say they are correct and the Bahai say all has been updated in progressive revelation when you are all ready.
It's all mythology and when you have evidence you can show me.

Until then, no I don't care what you think because you don't rely on empirical evidence. In fact by your reasoning I can listen to your stance and then say Allah came to me and said I was right with whatever I want to claim. Then you can say the same and we will all sit in our delusions while reality goes right on without us. I am interested in what is true and what can be shown to be true.

And this isn't a debate. I'm telling you historical facts as they stand and you are saying your beliefs which are based on a book supposedly given by an angel.

 

[muhammad_isa]

If it's all true you haven't explained why the names and much theology is different..

It's exceedingly obvious to me .. religions evolve and merge..
Haven't you been saying that all along?

The difference between you and I, is that you think that the source of all of it, is man-made .. I do not.

..pointing to a tribe or nation and saying there is evidence of polytheism, is not evidence of the lack of a prophet teaching monotheism .. it is evidence of ignorance amongst the general population.

correct, you haven't explained why the Israelites wouldn't get their theology from their God and instead learned it from Mesopotamians..

That is your unproved assumption.

Well then until you can show that prophets are actually real it's syncretism.

You might as well have just said that in the first place.
i.e. I will believe it is syncretism, until you can prove that God and his prophets exist.

Sorry, not exactly..

Yes .. exactly !

"Jesus was a Jew who attended the temple in Jerusalem.
He taught about YHWH / God, and the NT was canonised many, many years later"

 

[muhammad_isa]

Outside of time there is no time, causality, experience, we have evidence of this..

Oh? You have been "outside" the space-time continuum, have you?

Nothing ever happens ever, for eternity..

If there is "no such thing", then how come you can even understand the concept?

There is no time to measure as infinite..

Philosophical time is not a thing "to measure".
Only physical quantity can be measured.
..as in time relative to motion etc.

Currently we don't know what lies beyond the local universe? Infinite cycles? Multiverse? Don't know.

Whose "we"? The science gods?

 

[muhammad_isa]

except I have evidence and you don't..

You have nothing of the sort.
You think that you have conclusive evidence, that there was not a prophet amongst thousands of people?
Nonsense.

But we do have evidence of stories and religions using similar stories only from close cultures..

Wow .. more than one prophet .. the plot thickens.

Never is it from a theology around the world. Never. As if God can't send the same messages to people in other continents?

Who said that? There is evidence that they were.
I think you'll find that in the times of old, global population was centred around certain areas. Palestine being one of them, and is where major continents join.

Were some God sending prophets the messages would be similar all around the world..

Would they?
Most people without education believe their local customs.
There might be signs from ancient prophets in any continent ..
..but the message becomes garbled over time.

The present era has good communications .. I speak to people from all over the world, while in my living room.

 

[muhammad_isa]

1. Sunni Hanafi
2. Sunni Maliki
3. Sunni Shafi'i
4. Sunni Hanbali
5. Shi'i Imāmī (followers of the Ja'fari jurisprudence)
6. Shi'i Zaydi
7. Khariji Ibadi
8. Sunni Ẓāhirī

Are you unable to stay on topic?

You: The church even made a creed saying this is the exact truth how it's written. This came about around 385 CE and was around for 4 centuries and Yahweh couldn't get it right? And he couldn't tell any Christians if it was wrong?

Me: Yes, I find it all very interesting.
Trinitarians v Arians [labels denoting creed]
Christian v Christian politcally declared war on each other ..heresy bla bla

There was much enmity between the Roman Empire and other Christians [Arians] for a couple of hundred years.
..eventually Muhammad, peace be with him, was born in 570,
with the Qur'an that confirmed the belief of Arians .
i.e, Jesus is not God

..and then you immediately divert to Islamic schools of thought?
..not relevant to the topic being discussed.

To Christians Jesus is still God. They are growing and as fast as Islam..

Irrelevant apologetics..

 

[muhammad_isa]

A prophet that says Jesus is not God is a false prophet in Christianity..

Only because trinitarians declared all creeds except theirs as heresy. The Roman Empire enforced their creed politically, and burned earlier texts that didn't agree with what a person "must believe".

Armageddon already was supposed to happen. They are not future predictions..

Well that's nonsense .. armageddon will happen when it happens .. and the signs are, that it will likely be soon.
The catastrophes that mankind have brought upon themselves are becoming more frequent day by day .. climate change .. serious escalation of wars etc.

I'm sure I am more familiar with the early history of Christianity than you..

Maybe .. then you have an advantage.

The 2nd century was half Gnostic but the modern canon was beginning to be put together around 180 CE, we know from the letters of Ignatius he was using Matthew, Mark and Luke but they hadn't yet been named..

Yes, I know what you mean when you say "gnostic" ..
..belief mixed with falsehood.

The councils in 313/385 CE put the offical canon together. But the church argued that those books are what God wanted exactly to say.

Something like that, yes.

And this isn't a debate. I'm telling you historical facts as they stand..

You know historical events better than God?
Sorry .. I can't buy that..

OK you don't want a debate about Early Christianity .. is that right?