• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

ONCE AGAIN! Facts in the Bible is supported by archaeology.

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Most people who wish to attack and denigrate the Holy scriptures, will say that the Roman census which was taken in Israel at the time of the birth of Jesus, was the census of Quirinius, and of course it wasn’t.

In the KJV, which is riddled with translation errors….. In Luke 2:1; 2: 2; 2: 3; 2: 5. And Acts 5: 37; the Greek word “Apographe,” is erroneously translated as “TAX.” But according to Young’s Analytical Concordance, it means, “A writing off or Register.”

The Amplified version…. Luke 2: 1; In those days it occurred that a decree went out from Caesar Augustus that the whole Roman Empire should be REGISTERED. Luke 2: 2; This was the first enrolment, and it was made when Quirinius was “hegemon” in Syria. Luke 2: 3; And all the people were going to be REGISTED, each to his own city or town.

It looks like your are trying to perform an equivocation fallacy. Census is the correct term here and the date of the Census of Quirinius is well known. That was where the author of Luke screwed up.

The Living New Testament….. Luke 2: 1; About this time Caesar Augustus, the Roman Emperor, decreed that a census should be taken throughout the nation. Luke 2: 2; this census was taken when Quirinius was “hegemon” in Syria. Luke 2: 3; Everyone was required to return to his ancestral home for this ‘REGISTATION.”

RSV…… 2: 1; In those days a decree went out from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be ENROLLED. Luke 2: 2; This was the first ENROLLMENT, when Quirinius was “hegemon” in Syria.

Luke does not specifically state what the Roman office held by Quirinius actually was when the first registration or enrolment was made in Judaea in 6 B.C. But in reference to the position he held, Luke uses the Greek word “hegemoneuontos tes Surias Kureniou.’ “hegemon,” Which the authors of the English bible have translated “Governor.” Such as Luke 3: 1; Where it is written in most English Bibles, that Pontius Pilate was “Governor” of Judea, whereas Tacitus speaks of Pontius Pilate as the “Procurator.”

Likewise, Luke’s reference to Felix, has been translated as ‘Governor’ of Caesarea, in Acts 23:24; also verses 26 and 33, then again in Acts 24: 1, and verse 10 and also Acts 26: 30.

A procurator is an agent having power of attorney or a Roman official acting as a financial agent of the Emperor or the administrator of a minor province.

[Wikipedia]…….”Marcus Antonius Felix was the Roman procurator of Judaea, in succession to Ventidius Cumanus.” So the word “hegemon,” used by Luke, could apply to any Roman official holding a leading position of authority, such as procurator, Vicegerent or Governor in any of the Roman provinces, including Syria.

Around the year of 6 B. C., the Governors of Galatia and Syria were involved in the construction of a system of military roads and garrison cities. They had a major problem. The Homonadenses had taken control of a Roman client nation located in the Taurus mountains which traversed the centre of these operations. Syria and Galatia would normally be required to intervene but Galatia had no army and Varus had no military experience. Whereas Quirinius was a general and famous for having quelled the Marmaridea rebellion in Cilicia (Libya) in BC.14. Quirinius was the one who Caesar Augustus sent to conquer the Homonadenses nation. This campaign had to have been implemented from Syria. It necessarily follows that in 6-5 B.C., General Quirinius dealt with the Homonadenses situation as Augustus' vicegerent, whilst Varus attended to the internal administration of Syria.

As Herod the Great died in 4 B.C. believing that Jesus was over 12 months old and ordering the death of all the male children two years and below, or all who were born in and after 6 B.C., we can now safely assume that Jesus was born in 6 B.C., when the census of ENROLLMENT was taken in Judaea, while General Quirinius in 6-5 B.C., was dealing with the Homonadenses in the Taurus Mountains, which marked the northern limit of the Syrian plain from where Quirinius would have undoubtedly launched his campaign against the Homonadenses.

This reveals that the census of Israel in 6.B.C, when Quirinius was on a campaign in Syria as Augustus’ Vicegerent, was not an exercise in tax collecting, but an exercise in information gathering, which was a census of the entire Roman Empire, decreed by Caesar Augustus, It would have taken a few years to implement and complete this. It was decreed in 8 BC. and the completed set of documents, which registered the loyalty of Roman citizens and people of note in subject nations to Caesar Augustus, was presented to him in 3 BC.

The following is Augustus' own account: Page 1. "during my sixth term as consul (BC.28), I, along with my comrade Marcus Agrippa, commanded a census to be taken of the people. I directed a lustrum, the first in forty-one years, in which 4,063,000 Roman citizens were counted. And once again, with imperial authority, I single handedly authorized a lustrum when the consuls of Rome were Gaius Censorinus and Gaius Asinius (8 B.C.), during which time 4,233,000 Roman citizens were counted."

In Luke’s day there was no B.C. (Before Christ) or C.E. (Christian Era). So, in what year did Luke say that the census of Caesar Augustus was held in Israel? [ANSWER] In the year that General Quirinius, as Augustus’ Vicegerent, was on a campaign in Syria dealing with the Homonadenses situation, which we now know as the year 6 B.C. two years before the death of Herod the Great.
The history of Quirinius is well known. Since he was a prominent Roman records were kept of him. Luke says it was the Quirinius was governor of Syria. He did not become governor of Syria until the year 6 CE. Also there never was an all encompassing census of Rome. Check the records. It does not exist. What Rome would do is different Census's at different times. Also under Herod there would have been no census. Herod's kingdom was a vassal state. He paid tribute, he was responsible for the funds that went to Rome. There was no direct taxation. And lastly a census taxes people where they live. Not where they are from The Roman census was for tax purposes. It would do them no good at all to know where people's ancestors lived.

You are relying on the work of apologists. People that will distort history to try to support their errant beliefs. Richard Carrier, a scholar of the time that understands both the language and the history of that period has refuted all of the claims of apologists that I have seen. You might want to read this:

The Date of the Nativity in Luke

Think of it though. Even today when we have censuses we do not force people to go back to their country of origin. We do census's based upon where people live and it would have been the same back then. You would need to find massive evidence that they did such a crazy pointless task.
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I went down that road. Expect a lot of ducking and dodging.

But I guess you didn't need me to tell you that.

I know, when it comes to sources on the Bible if they can't admit to the flaws that should not make much of a difference, such as the Tyre prophecy or the Noah's Ark myth then those sources clearly can't be trusted when it comes to the knottier problems in the Bible. I think that his sources are most likely unable to admit that Tyre can still be found today, contrary to what a minor prophecy claimed in the Bible.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Joier wrote...… What educated people also learn is that there is a way writers wrote history and a very specific way one writes myth. The gospels are 100% myth.
Also comparative writing analysis (and common sense) shows all gospels are re-writes of Mark. They don't teach you this in church.


The Anointed...…. No! The ridiculous statement that all gospels are rewrites of Mark, are only taught by atheists such a Carrier, Hitchens, etc, to those who are ignorant to the truths as revealed in the scriptures and who are deceived into believing such rubbish.

Please reveal where Mark wrote of the wise men from the east who saw the heavenly sign that had heralded the birth of Jesus, and arrived in Jerusalem almost two years later to pay homage to the promised messianic King of the Jews?

Please reveal where Mark speaks of the young child Jesus sitting in the temple confounding the priests with his knowledge of the scriptures?

Please reveal where Mark speaks of the raising of Lazarus?

Would you care for me to continue revealing to you how none of the other gospels could possibly be rewrites of Mark?

You don't get it at all.
Each gospel is fan fiction based on Mark. Each gospel has verbatim Greek from Mark, far more than enough to know it was copied.
But each new author adds more and more tales. But always written in the style of myth and parable.

Mark ends with 2 women in the empty tomb. His allegory is that the "least shall be first". All throughout he changes what you would expect and makes the "least of us first".
Later gospels add guards then angels then more guards and no angels. Each telling of the myth changes with the authors style.

But there are historical and grammatical mistakes that are far too coincidental to not be verbatim copies.
Your argument that because their are new myths in later gospels that they are not using Mark as a base text is completely backwards. As with all myths each time a new writer takes on a version of the myth they are supposed to add elements?

Luke add much of the Kings narrative and reverses or transforms much of the story. Each gospel uses different mythic structure.
Mark is basically updating the OT mythology for a new generation.

Why didn't Mark write of Lazurus is another good example. John uses many Egyptian sources and was possibly writing for an Egyptian audience he wrote Lazurus possibly from the Osirus myth"
Is Lazarus a remake of Osiris? - Freethought Nation


although D. M. Murdock is a historian she is not a PhD and I can't confirm all her works.




Now, Hitchens teaching that all gospels are copies of Mark is very telling that you are not at all educated on this subject.
Hitchens is not a biblical historian, or a comparative Greek scholar or anything along those lines. He doesn't get into details like that at all.
Carrier does because he reads ancient Greek and is qualified to make these comparisons. Obviously you cannot but are unwilling to listen to what scholars say on the subject because you need this to be literally true.

Again you call Carrier an atheist as if this matters? As if this causes him to be unable to interpret Greek scripture properly? It's just a strawman argument that has no bearing on literary analysis.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Go back to the year 1900. There was new hope for Europeans -
the end of monarchy and the end of religion. Thus the end of
the cycle of wars involving monarchical power and religious
beliefs.
Fast forward to the year 2000. Of the great human killings how
many came from religious wars? I got a student to do the math.
Conservatively - about 85% of the pogroms, holocaust, killing
fields, gulags, great leap forwards, cultural revolutions, nationalism,
fascism,communism etc were all secular.
I would go further and say a more hard-nosed assessment would
have it at 95% secular.
As Nietzsche and Dovesieki put it, the loss of religion will lead to
either nihilism or totalitarianism. We got both, and it's only just
beginning.



First of all even if true it doesn't mean demi-gods are real. It would just mean humans need supernatural stories to keep them in check.
Joseph Campbell has already spoken on the need for myths in a society or bad things happen. He felt Christianity somewhat missed the mark on thinking the poetry was prose so the role of mythology to teach important lessons been all screwed up. But that's another topic.

But it isn't true. Hitler was tied to the church. As Hitchens pointed out fascism is usually religious, citizens think of the leaders as gods.
Christian values didn't stop an "epidemic" of child rapers. Or the Catholic vs Protestant wars or didn't inspire endless killing and corruption in the church.
So your theory that it would stop a world war falls flat. It only takes one regime and we have countless examples of Christians still doing evil things. Christianity can be used by any power hungry facist to justify a world war.

So there is no argument.

Except - religion is by far at it's lowest point and compared to any other time we are far more peaceful than any other time. There were wars everywhere up to 1900.
England alone was killing and taking land like they were Romans.

After WW2 Europe is considered secular and look what we have, more peace then ever before. The biggest area of fighting is the same unending holy war in the middle east.

Russia was Christian during the cold war. Wow that really helped so much. They wanted to blow us off the Earth during the cold war.
Rome became a Christian nation then blew themselves up?

By the way German soldiers in WW2 wore a "god be with us" signature on their uniform.

Hitchens and others have already debunked your weird stats on secular vs religious wars.
I listen to modern soldiers on different podcasts all the time. Like Joco that Navy Seal. They talk about honor, families, friends and fighting and dying for their loved ones and for freedom and country.
They also mostly say they do not believe in religious folklore.
So there is no need for demi-gods who forgive sin with ridiculous sacrifices and threats of hell fire for non-believers.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
What failures?
I would say that more than half of all the base prophetic themes
of the bible have been fulfilled.

Creation of Israel
Creation of a Judean monarchy
Loss of Israel in captivity I
Return of Israel
Advent of the Messiah as Redeemer
Loss of Israel in captivity II
Return of Israel II (still ongoing)
Falling away of the Gentiles from Christianity (still ongoing)
Global war through Israel (not yet)
Advent of Messiah as King (not yet)

Can't you see this? Even the return of the Jews to Israel today
is something that should be marveled at.


Uh huh. Here are about 220 which have not:

Bible: Prophecy and Misquotes

while some may be a stretch there are enough failed prophecies to clearly demonstrate the bible is written by men and not a god.

The prophecies of a messiah are fulfilled when Mark writes fiction, looks at the OT and uses those stories to help construct a myth!?
He writes in a purposefully non-historic allegoric style to convey stories, not history.

God makes sooooooo many promises about Israel that fail? Israel kept getting invaded and taken over over and over again?
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
First of all even if true it doesn't mean demi-gods are real. It would just mean humans need supernatural stories to keep them in check.
Joseph Campbell has already spoken on the need for myths in a society or bad things happen. He felt Christianity somewhat missed the mark on thinking the poetry was prose so the role of mythology to teach important lessons been all screwed up. But that's another topic.

But it isn't true. Hitler was tied to the church. As Hitchens pointed out fascism is usually religious, citizens think of the leaders as gods.
Christian values didn't stop an "epidemic" of child rapers. Or the Catholic vs Protestant wars or didn't inspire endless killing and corruption in the church.
So your theory that it would stop a world war falls flat. It only takes one regime and we have countless examples of Christians still doing evil things. Christianity can be used by any power hungry facist to justify a world war.

So there is no argument.

Except - religion is by far at it's lowest point and compared to any other time we are far more peaceful than any other time. There were wars everywhere up to 1900.
England alone was killing and taking land like they were Romans.

After WW2 Europe is considered secular and look what we have, more peace then ever before. The biggest area of fighting is the same unending holy war in the middle east.

Russia was Christian during the cold war. Wow that really helped so much. They wanted to blow us off the Earth during the cold war.
Rome became a Christian nation then blew themselves up?

By the way German soldiers in WW2 wore a "god be with us" signature on their uniform.

Hitchens and others have already debunked your weird stats on secular vs religious wars.
I listen to modern soldiers on different podcasts all the time. Like Joco that Navy Seal. They talk about honor, families, friends and fighting and dying for their loved ones and for freedom and country.
They also mostly say they do not believe in religious folklore.
So there is no need for demi-gods who forgive sin with ridiculous sacrifices and threats of hell fire for non-believers.

Re "weird stats"
Secular killings account for a minimum of 85% of all killings.
Just count them -
Armenian genocide - religious?
Bolshevik and Communist killings - secular
Great Leap forward - secular
Jewish wars 1948/1967/1973 - religious maybe
WWI - secular
WWII - secular
Korean war - secular
Vietnam war - secular
Gulf war - ?????

Hitler's mother was Catholic
Stalin studied for the ministry
Mao was a Buddhist
Pol Pot was a Buddhist
etc..

If these people stayed faithful to their religion there would never
have been the Gulags, killing fields, Cultural Revolution, nationalism.

The "ridiculous stats" I quoted on my profile below demonstrate, along
with quarter of a billion murdered in the 20th Century, that an age of
secular peace, justice and happiness has turned out the reverse.

As an aside. The Roman Catholic Inquisition killed about one to two
million people over 600 years. Firstly this is not Christianity and those
who did such murders are evil. Secondly, a million dead is neither here
nor there in the 20th Century - do the math: 250 million over a hundred
years. Next great secular war we could do 250 million dead per day.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The prophecies concerning the Messiah as Redeemer,
rejected of his own people, but embraced by the Gentiles,
is a fulfilled prophecy.

Period - get that straight.

And this is the most important prophecy in the bible.

The prophecies that Israel would twice lose their land
but eventually return to it have been fulfilled.
No Nostradamus here - the only thing missing in these
bible prophecies were dates.


Twice, "Period." .......LOL that's so wrong.

Persians conquer the Jews. 539-322 BC

Greeks conquer the Jews 332-110BC

Romans conquer the Jews 63BC-636 AD

in 70 AD the Romans destroyed the Temple which was the center of the religion. This temple was the way to get rid of sins. Yearly they would also do Yom Kippur, killing 2 goats, one walks off a cliff (scapegoat) the other is killed and it's magic blood swayed gods wrath for 1 year.


The Christians used Jesus to replace the temple but his blood is the most magic and forgives sins forever.

The prophecies are mainly predicting that the Jews will be the master race. This obviously did not happen. Your confirmation bias on this whole topic is out of control.

Zacariah, Jerimiah, it's clear they thought they were going to be the master race. Or as you say god was telling them. Nothing about this happened.

Nostradamus actually did better.
 
Last edited:

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Twice, "Period." .......LOL that's so wrong.

Persians conquer the Jews. 539-322 BC

Greeks conquer the Jews 332-110BC

Romans conquer the Jews 63BC-636 AD

in 70 AD the Romans destroyed the Temple which was the center of the religion. This temple was the way to get rid of sins. Yearly they would also do Yom Kippur, killing 2 goats, one walks off a cliff (scapegoat) the other is killed and it's magic blood swayed gods wrath for 1 year.


The Christians used Jesus to replace the temple but his blood is the most magic and forgives sins forever.

The prophecies are mainly predicting that the Jews will be the master race. This obviously did not happen. Your confirmation bias on this whole topic is out of control.

Zacariah, Jerimiah, it's clear they thought they were going to be the master race. Or as you say god was telling them. Nothing about this happened.

Nostradamus actually did better.

The Jews lost their land twice.
They were conquered often - but with the exception of the ten lost
tribes they still remained on their land.
It's interesting. I grew up being told there's no Jews, just a religion.
But then came DNA testing.
And I was told there were no twelve tribes of Israel - but now we
can identify one of these tribes through DNA - the Levites. I think
we can date how far back they go, but I want to check on that.

The prophets never saw Jews as a master race. They saw them
as being small amongst the nations, and sinners in the sight of
God. It's interesting - there were about 5-7 million Jews in Jesus'
day, and if memory serves me correct, about 20 million Chinese.
Today there's 1.3 billion Chinese and how many Jews? Maybe 15
million. They were in one of the smallest nations, and smallest
peoples - and would stay that way according to the bible.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
Re "weird stats"
Secular killings account for a minimum of 85% of all killings.
Just count them -
Armenian genocide - religious?
Bolshevik and Communist killings - secular
Great Leap forward - secular
Jewish wars 1948/1967/1973 - religious maybe
WWI - secular
WWII - secular
Korean war - secular
Vietnam war - secular
Gulf war - ?????

Hitler's mother was Catholic
Stalin studied for the ministry
Mao was a Buddhist
Pol Pot was a Buddhist
etc..

If these people stayed faithful to their religion there would never
have been the Gulags, killing fields, Cultural Revolution, nationalism.

The "ridiculous stats" I quoted on my profile below demonstrate, along
with quarter of a billion murdered in the 20th Century, that an age of
secular peace, justice and happiness has turned out the reverse.

As an aside. The Roman Catholic Inquisition killed about one to two
million people over 600 years. Firstly this is not Christianity and those
who did such murders are evil. Secondly, a million dead is neither here
nor there in the 20th Century - do the math: 250 million over a hundred
years. Next great secular war we could do 250 million dead per day.


Again, the bottom line is it does not mean demi-gods are real.

When a Christian does start a war you have an easy out - "he's not being Christian"

total BS. Hitchens argued that religions create the evil in people that gives them the drive to want to conquer more people and land.
All a world leader has to do is quote Matthew "I come not for peace but with a sword"
The sword is for non-believers.
A leader just points out that the neighbor country are non-believers (a different religion or non-religious) and you can justify war.
Any leader can claim revelation. Abraham and Paul did. Revelation to destroy the non-believers. It can be done. Jesus speaks of apocalypse.
ANY crazy leader can convince other religious followers that Jesus wants this or that. You can throw other passages at them but they can spin just the scripture they want to use. You can't get around it.
I've had a revelation, Jesus came to me, he wants me to bring the sword to non-believers.

You cannot have bronze age mythology as moral absolutes. It will fail.

Either way, it's still mythology. I'm sure some people need those myths to behave while some will use it to abuse. In the end it's going to be abused. The entire myth is based on blood sacrifice???? You don't think that's going to come back to bite you someday??? It can be abused.

Secular humanists cannot claim revelation. They have to abide by a humanist code.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Twice, "Period." .......LOL that's so wrong.

Persians conquer the Jews. 539-322 BC

Greeks conquer the Jews 332-110BC

Romans conquer the Jews 63BC-636 AD

in 70 AD the Romans destroyed the Temple which was the center of the religion. This temple was the way to get rid of sins. Yearly they would also do Yom Kippur, killing 2 goats, one walks off a cliff (scapegoat) the other is killed and it's magic blood swayed gods wrath for 1 year.


The Christians used Jesus to replace the temple but his blood is the most magic and forgives sins forever.

The prophecies are mainly predicting that the Jews will be the master race. This obviously did not happen. Your confirmation bias on this whole topic is out of control.

Zacariah, Jerimiah, it's clear they thought they were going to be the master race. Or as you say god was telling them. Nothing about this happened.

Nostradamus actually did better.

What Zachariah, Isaiah et al said was that the Jews would return to their land
"a second time" (this was during the Babylonian captivity BTW) still be small
in number and still under attack. Ezekiel gives one of the best accounts of the
Jews winning a war that was unimaginable in scale and ferocity to biblical Jews.
But still, no master race.
What separated the Jews from Gentiles was simply that to them was the oracle
of God given. Jews are a symbol of God's intent, metaphors for us all, ie Exile,
in Bondage, the Promised Land, the cost of forsaking God, rebuilding the walls,
Deliverance, banishment, cursing, blessing etc.. That part is also h.i.s.t.o.ry.
It is astonishing to many thinking people that the Jews, perhaps the most hated
people in the world, are still with us. One monarch was convinced of the reality
of God because there were still Jews, and living in his kingdom. Who has saved
them? Why do they still think of themselves as Jews? Why "next year in Jerusalem"?
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The Jews lost their land twice.
They were conquered often - but with the exception of the ten lost
tribes they still remained on their land.
It's interesting. I grew up being told there's no Jews, just a religion.
But then came DNA testing.
And I was told there were no twelve tribes of Israel - but now we
can identify one of these tribes through DNA - the Levites. I think
we can date how far back they go, but I want to check on that.

The prophets never saw Jews as a master race. They saw them
as being small amongst the nations, and sinners in the sight of
God. It's interesting - there were about 5-7 million Jews in Jesus'
day, and if memory serves me correct, about 20 million Chinese.
Today there's 1.3 billion Chinese and how many Jews? Maybe 15
million. They were in one of the smallest nations, and smallest
peoples - and would stay that way according to the bible.

No they lost their land each time.

They believed they would be the master race. Sources given.

Greek and Roman myths are also set in historical settings this is nothing new.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
You cannot have bronze age mythology as moral absolutes. It will fail.

The stats below speak volumes. You have a choice - moral absolutes or
moral relativity (or equivalency)
I take the Sermon on the Mount - Matt 5,6,7 to be standards for all humanity.
Jesus didn't come for moral standards but salvation. You can be moral but
have no love of God. But moral figure. And Jesus made them harder when
he spoke of things written in the Old Testament but now held to a higher
standard. It was a standard most of the world does not accept - even in
the churches.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
What Zachariah, Isaiah et al said was that the Jews would return to their land
"a second time" (this was during the Babylonian captivity BTW) still be small
in number and still under attack. Ezekiel gives one of the best accounts of the
Jews winning a war that was unimaginable in scale and ferocity to biblical Jews.
But still, no master race.
What separated the Jews from Gentiles was simply that to them was the oracle
of God given. Jews are a symbol of God's intent, metaphors for us all, ie Exile,
in Bondage, the Promised Land, the cost of forsaking God, rebuilding the walls,
Deliverance, banishment, cursing, blessing etc.. That part is also h.i.s.t.o.ry.
It is astonishing to many thinking people that the Jews, perhaps the most hated
people in the world, are still with us. One monarch was convinced of the reality
of God because there were still Jews, and living in his kingdom. Who has saved
them? Why do they still think of themselves as Jews? Why "next year in Jerusalem"?

Yes god promised they would be the master race who was conquering the world.
The term "master race" was not literally used, this is the obvious meaning.

There are passages in Zacariah , Jerimiah where they clearly expected the entire world to be bowing to them and their god. They also said god promised this to them.
This never happened.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The stats below speak volumes. You have a choice - moral absolutes or
moral relativity (or equivalency)
I take the Sermon on the Mount - Matt 5,6,7 to be standards for all humanity.
Jesus didn't come for moral standards but salvation. You can be moral but
have no love of God. But moral figure. And Jesus made them harder when
he spoke of things written in the Old Testament but now held to a higher
standard. It was a standard most of the world does not accept - even in
the churches.

Sermon on the Mount has been shown to be massively taken from a Greek source.

Religion does in no way provide moral absolutes because people actually understand they are myths. You cannot force scripture from Hercules on people no matter how good because we know it's just Greek fiction.

There may be a small number of church goers but with the exchange of information religion is fading away.

Stats on Wiki clearly show a decline as I posted in an earlier thread.
You can't use religion as moral absolute because it's a made up story.
Too many people know this.

Kids are now growing up with access to the PhD historicity community, there is no chance religion will survive.
We are only left with moral relativity.
I know you won't allow yourself to see it but it's not historical. So when we get to the point where very few people believe religion that's all we have.
Maybe we will blow ourselves up.

Like I said. World leader, has a revelation from Jesus, Jesus says it's time to wipe out non-believers. Makes sense because it says so in Matthew.
A universe where there is a god who sends people to eternal fire? That creates crazy people. It's way worse than moral relativity. Way worse.

A universe where all we have is each other, no silly sky-gods who are weird about sex, inspires us to bond together.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
Sermon on the Mount has been shown to be massively taken from a Greek source.

A lot of what Jesus said comes from the Old Testament. Loving your
enemies for instance is an injunction first recorded before the Greeks
ever existed. I pick up themes familiar to readers of King Solomon's
compilation - that's about 1000 BC.
One statement, the Golden Rule, is common to most cultures, but that
doesn't mean they were copied by Jews - it's absolutely the foundation
text of the Bible. God will do to you what you have done to others, and
what you have done to God.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
The stats below speak volumes. You have a choice - moral absolutes or
moral relativity (or equivalency)
I take the Sermon on the Mount - Matt 5,6,7 to be standards for all humanity.
Jesus didn't come for moral standards but salvation. You can be moral but
have no love of God. But moral figure. And Jesus made them harder when
he spoke of things written in the Old Testament but now held to a higher
standard. It was a standard most of the world does not accept - even in
the churches.



Mainstream consensus on Sermon on the Mount is that this was never actually spoken by Jesus but was actually composed in Greek using the Septugant by someone who was already aware that the temple cult was no longer operating because there is no mention of what to do about the temple cult or it's existence.

The structure is far to elaborate to be memorized but was very likely constructed in Greek as a written narrative.

This was detailed by Dale Alison on "The Structure of Sermon on the Mount"
in Journal of Biblical Literature 106 no 3.

Again, this is mainstream scholarship, who most people happen to find worthy of listening to. So you cannot force a moral system on people while scholarship is saying "sorry it's Greek fiction".
It's not possible. There may be a core of believers but it's shrinking.
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
There may be a small number of church goers but with the exchange of information religion is fading away.

Stats on Wiki clearly show a decline as I posted in an earlier thread.
You can't use religion as moral absolute because it's a made up story.
Too many people know this.

Kids are now growing up with access to the PhD historicity community, there is no chance religion will survive. We are only left with moral relativity.

Agreed. Your morals will be politicized now. Today we reject polygamy, tomorrow we
persecute those who don't accept it. American and Canadian campus politics show
the way forward - and it's ugly, uneducated, rude, illogical, ever shifting, self-hating
etc..
This view isn't shared by many church goers I know, but Jesus said Jerusalem shall
be trodden down of the Gentiles until the Gentiles time is fulfilled - that time was in the
1960's, during the great cultural and moral fervent of the Western world.

Revelations is interesting, it says of the churches there will be no more candle, no
sound of the bride and bridegroom, but a cage of hateful and unclean birds. When
this was written there was no church - Jesus rejected the concept of a worldly
sanctuary and temples of stone. So where did the bride and candle business come
from? And the hateful birds speaks to me of clergy who embrace social issues at
the expense of moral foundations.
 

joelr

Well-Known Member
A lot of what Jesus said comes from the Old Testament. Loving your
enemies for instance is an injunction first recorded before the Greeks
ever existed. I pick up themes familiar to readers of King Solomon's
compilation - that's about 1000 BC.
One statement, the Golden Rule, is common to most cultures, but that
doesn't mean they were copied by Jews - it's absolutely the foundation
text of the Bible. God will do to you what you have done to others, and
what you have done to God.


That's right, the Septugant is the Greek OT. Nice ideas but written by someone as a story using the OT. Exactly.
It's not all good though "Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire"

total BS. This gets into some peoples head and creates monsters. This is the problem.
Any power hungry facist will start chanting this over and over and give himself a revelation.
"Jesus said, Thou Fool! Are enemies are in danger of HELLFIRE. SO says Jesus!!"
Jesus hth callen upon ME to deliver his fire among non-belivers"
And, here come the nukes....
 

PruePhillip

Well-Known Member
I know you won't allow yourself to see it but it's not historical.

We can never know if God spoke to David. But David is historical, just
like Jerusalem, the Jewish people, the tribes of Israel, the Babylonian
captivity, the prophet Isaiah, the edict of Cyrus, John the Baptist etc..
They are historical.
Zeus and Thor are not historical. But you are seeing history relive itself
with the Jews once again going back to their homeland. Isn't that
amazing to you?
 
Top