Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Do you know the orange wasn't produced by nature? This does mean a non-orange was crossed with a non-orange and the orange was created.
-
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!
The Believabliltiy of Evolution
- Thread starter rrobs
- Start date
gnostic
The Lost One
No, faith doesn’t require understanding, it just require acceptance of belief, without evidence and without reason.
In John, Thomas wanted evidence that person is Jesus, by looking at where the spikes were nailed into Jesus’ limbs, and Jesus rebuke him for not having faith.
Jesus wanted blind faith from the doubting Thomas.
gnostic
The Lost One
I didn’t say the Bible is worthless.
The Bible is clearly of relevance to the Jews (minus NT) and Christians, therefore they have values to those people who the books as their scriptures. So I don’t dismiss it as work of traditional literature.
The Bible isn’t God, rrobs, it isn’t immortal, infallible or inerrant.
Just because they were written by men, it doesn’t mean the book is worthless.
Authors may have been inspired by god, but inspiration doesn’t mean authorship. What you are saying about god being the author, is not only wrong, it is also absurd.
I am not saying the authors of the OT & NT were absurd, I think your interpretation, reasoning and belief are absurd.
You are making claims that aren’t possible, especially knowing that most of the books weren’t by authors (eg Moses, Samuel, Job, Daniel, Matthew, Mark, Luke, John etc) that were attributed to them. Moses didn’t write any of the books of the Pentateuch/Torah, because no books exist in the Late Bronze Age or later half of the 2nd millennium BCE.
You will find no evidence of any biblical texts until the later half of 7th century or early 6th century BCE (eg Silver Scrolls from Ketef Hinnom, the oldest evidence of biblical inscriptions, which contained passage from Numbers 6).
Most of the OT books were written between Josiah’s reign and the Babylonian Exile period, with others written in the Second Temple period, like Chronicles, Ezra, Esther, Job.
gnostic
The Lost One
Look, rrobs. I am no biologist, and I am definitely no botanist. You would have to ask with more knowledge than I have.
According to Genesis 3rd day of creation, after creating dry lands, followed by plants with seeds, fruit and flowers.
And from what little I do understand from paleontology, the fossil records of the earliest plants have no seeds, no flowers and no fruits.
The earliest land plants didn't exist until the Ordovician period, which means marine animals predated plants. But I am not here to talk about marine life, since you were talking about "seeds".
The plants in Ordovician period only exist as primitive ferns, there were no tall trees, and no seeds and fruits.
Even today, some 30 to 50 thousand species of plants still don't produce seeds. These two plants below, don't produce seeds, nor flowers:
These are Pteridophytes, plants that produce spores, not seeds.
Others, like liverworts, hornworts and mosses also don't produce seeds.
Anyway, seed-bearing plants didn't exist until the Devonian period, flowering plants appeared in the Carboniferous period, and fruit-bearing plants didn't exist until a lot later in the Cretaceous period. Most of the fruit we see today, evolved, they didn't just appear *poof* and suddenly they exist.
Like I said, if you want to know more, then you should ask someone else, or look it up. Like, I don't know when the first apple trees appeared.
Ok.
So you are juggling semantics rather than an examination of biological genus and what that means. According to you genus used in the Bible is what is currently referred to as biological genus. What work have you got to show these are equivalent?
How do you deal with dogs? The dog kind has 14 genera (more than one genus). How did that happen? Kind of blows your claim about genus and kind to pieces.
What do you think is keeping all that change locked into a genus? Do you have an hypothesis that can be tested?
There was a scientific theory of bloodletting? When did that happen?
Bloodletting was a practice for over 2,000 years and was abandoned with the advent of modern science and the application of science to medicine. Today, the traditional use of it is considered a pseudoscience.
I have been looking for the scientific theory of bloodletting and had no luck. Perhaps you can turn me on to some of the sources you are using to review this very important historical failure of science and theory.
Really. That is why it is brought up. I had no idea. I did not know there was a rock solid theory of gravity. Or rock solid understanding of gravity. That is heavy dude.
I have not seen science presented that way. I have seen the theory of evolution compared to gravity and the fact that even creationists recognize the fact of gravity, but not that no true Scotsman (you didn't give an example of a straw man argument in your straw man argument) you are telling me is the straw man that broke the creationist back. Please feel free to provide me with the evidence you are using here.
We really don't understand gravity. We know something about it. Astronauts are subjected to gravity.
What you are calling understanding of gravity is more likely the observation that things fall to the earth. That is a good first step, but it isn't a theory or understanding of what gravity is and how it works.
It is the reverse. The theory of evolution has far more support of evidence than the theories of gravity. Far more is understood about evolution than any other theory in science. Sorry.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
Well, apparently when you went to mass you weren't much paying attention.
Here is the order of the mass on a typical Sunday with my clarification in [brackets]:
Introductory Rites
- Entrance
- Greeting
- Penitential Act
- Glory to God
- Collect
Liturgy of the Word
- First Reading [from either the OT or NT]
- Responsorial Psalm [from the OT]
- Second Reading (on Sundays and solemnities) [from the NT]
- Gospel Acclamation [from the NT]
- Gospel [NT]
- Homily [must reflect at least the Gospel and at least one of the other readings]
- Profession of Faith (on Sundays, solemnities, and special occasions)
- Universal Prayer
Liturgy of the Eucharist
- Presentation of the Gifts and Preparation of the Altar
- Prayer over the Offerings
- Eucharistic Prayer
- Preface
- Holy, Holy, Holy
- First half of prayer, including Consecration [quotes the NT in part]
- Mystery of Faith
- Second half of prayer, ending with Doxology
- The Lord's Prayer [from the NT]
- Sign of Peace
- Lamb of God
- Communion [as ordered by Jesus in the Gospel]
- Prayer after Communion
Concluding Rites
- Optional announcements
- Greeting and Blessing
- Dismissal
Gee, if we supposedly are "very much diametrically opposed to the scriptures", we do seem to spend most of the time on them during mass.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
If you had continued within the Church and studied it's theology, you would probably have learned that the Trinitarian concept uses "essence" to try and explain what the relationship between God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit may have been. I say "may" because it is often referred to as being "the mystery of the Trinity", remember?
The use of "essence", which was a quite well known Greek concept back during Jesus' time, has it that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of the "essence" of God the Father but not exactly the same. Jesus implied much the same when he said that he and the Father were One, remember?
The early Church fathers knew how to read, rrobs, so they well knew that there were clearly some differences between them, such as when Jesus said he didn't know when the end of times would be as only the "Father" knows for sure. He also said that he would send a "Paraclete" to guide His Church, which actually is of "one body" as Paul kept saying later-- not 30,000 bodies.
Essence - Wikipedia
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
Not as I've defined it. And definitely not as you've defined it.
Of course it's relevant. I didn't gain an understanding of the reality I live in from pinning my hopes on ancient texts and hoping that they're true and all will be revealed. I had to actually go out and interact with the reality I find myself in and learn how to navigate around it based on my experiences as well as the shared experiences of all human beings.
Not as you've defined faith, and not as I've defined faith.
Do you not remember how you defined faith?
So you're just going to repeat this again, after I took all that time explaining how that isn't faith?
If I look at a chair and see that it looks to be in good shape (i.e. none of the legs are broken, there aren't any screws missing, etc.), I do have a reasonable expectation that the chair will not collapse when I sit in it, because from past experiences that chairs that aren't broken usually don't fall apart, that most chairs that I have sat on in my 41 years on the planet did not fall apart when I sat on them, and that carpenters generally know what they're doing when constructing chairs. It still could break though, . Perhaps I didn't notice there is a screw missing from the bottom or something. Perhaps the carpenter didn't know what he was doing. Most likely though, it will not break. This is not faith. This is a reasonable expectation of what is most likely to occur, given past experiences, and current observations of the condition of the chair.
What would be faith, was that if I looked at the chair, noticed that all the screws had fallen out of it and that one of the legs was broken and the wood was all rotting, and then decided that despite all evidence to the contrary, this chair will still hold me up. Perhaps I even ask God to make sure the chair doesn't collapse when I sit in it. That would be more of an act of faith, in my opinion than the first example where I don't see faith coming into play at all.
I'm sorry, I guess I'm not understanding how this ties in with your definition of faith that you provided?
So why not just use the word "trust" then? That's what you're really talking about in this post, which actually doesn't jive with the definition of faith you gave earlier.
How did you determine that God exists? How did you determine that this god has done good things (or anything at all)?
And how come when I ask you for evidence for something, you just declare "faith" is all you need, thus confirming that my definition of faith ("the excuse people give for believing something wwen they don't have good evidence") appears to be quite accurate ... ?
SkepticThinker
Veteran Member
What evidence do you have that the Bible was authored by God(s)? Why do you believe that?
rrobs
Well-Known Member
Well, as an altar boy who had to recite the mass in Latin, I can assure you I did pay attention.
Here's one of the big differences I saw in the church vs the scriptures:
When in the church, I never knew for sure my standing before God. I didn't know if I was going to heaven, hell, or purgatory, and if to purgatory I didn't know how long I'd be there. I was always in doubt as to my future.
When I went to the Bible I saw a completely different doctrine. There I learned that right now I have the very same righteousness as God.
Rom 3:22,
Even the righteousness of God [which is] by faith of Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference:
I learned that I've already been justified.
1Cor 6:11,
And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God.
And I learned that at this very moment I am seated with God in heavenly places.
Eph 2:6,
And hath raised [us] up together, and made [us] sit together in heavenly [places] in Christ Jesus:
I think it worth noting that all of these verses are in the present of past tense. I could also give tons more if you are interested.
Now to be sure, I (nor anyone else) do not deserve such an honor as to be a child of God. Jesus did the work. What I did was to confess him as my Lord and believe that God raised him from the dead.
Rom 10:9,
That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.
Another example is the priesthood. You may want to read the Book of Hebrews where it talks about the priesthood. Compare what it says to what the RC says about priests.
I don't want to offend you in any way. I can only tell you from experiencing both sides of the coin, that the scriptures offer way more assurance, hope, and joy in life than the church, and it's not because I didn't pay attention or was insincere. I've always searched for God. I never found Him in the church. I had to go directly to the scriptures to find Him. I know my experience is not unique either.
I think it all comes down to where we want to get our doctrine. Some go to creeds, catechisms, tracts, etc.That is where the liturgy of the Mass you mentioned came from. Others go directly to the scriptures. In them you will not find anything even close the the liturgy of the Mass. So I would think the question ought to be, where did the church get that liturgy? If not from the Bible, where did it come from, and what makes it a reliable source?
Take care...
rrobs
Well-Known Member
I understand "essence" as the Greeks taught it. It was used to describe their pagan gods. Doesn't that, plus the fact that neither the words "essence" nor "the mystery of the trinity" are in the scriptures give you any pause whatsoever?
If Jesus being one with God means Jesus was God, what does this mean:
John 17:22,
And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:
If we went with the church usage of "one" then we some explaining to do, namely, why does Jesus being "one" with God make him to actually be God, but our being one with God does not?
1Cor 3:6-8,
6 I have planted, Apollos watered; but God gave the increase.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
7 So then neither is he that planteth any thing, neither he that watereth; but God that giveth the increase.
8 Now he that planteth and he that watereth are one: and every man shall receive his own reward according to his own labour.
Does that make Apollos to actually be Paul? Of course not. In general, it is vitally important to understand how God uses the words He uses. It says every word was purified 7 times. We ought to read it with the same scrutiny. There is nowhere that it is said that the words of the church have been purified even one time. Bottom line, if it's not in the scriptures, there is no guarantee for truth.
Clearly the way the Bible uses that word "one" is not the same way the church uses it. Actually it's incredibly simple. It's a well known and used figure of speech. I'm sure you've heard of two or more people that are said to be "one" by virtue of having a common goal and way to reach that goal. Jesus and God certainly had the same goal and they worked together to accomplish that goal. Jesus always did exactly what the Father told him to do.
I'm pretty sure the doctrine declares all members of the trinity to be equal in all ways. One knowing what the others don't is hardly equal in all ways.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
There's a difference between hearing the liturgy as an alter boy versus actually studying it at the university level and beyond.
I have no problem with you finding a different denomination if you feel it helps to make you a better person, which is why I have the word "ecumenical" up near my avatar where it says "religion". I have never been a member of the "one size fits all" club.
No, which tells me that you really didn't pay attention to the liturgy I posted for you and where the words come from. How could you possibly have missed that? What a bizarre conclusion you have over something something so utterly basic. I'm still stunned that you actually wrote that.
Again, you're posting complete unadulterated nonsense. Where do you think these "readings" come from? Why can't you understand that the homily must reflect at least two of the three readings? Where do you think we got the "Psalms" from?
Oh, my aching head.
metis
aged ecumenical anthropologist
No, it was not, which tells me you really didn't read the link.
It was a concept formulated by Aristotle, followed up by Plato, and basically it deals with the idea that something is more than just a sum of its parts, thus "purpose" if often its main end game.
For example, what's an "automobile"? If one lists all its parts, that still does not say what the "essence" is, such as "being a method of transportation...". And let me remind you that the early NT was written in Koine Greek, thus it used that language and the concepts within that culture and language going back 2000 years ago.
Therefore, using that approach, we can say that Jesus and the Holy Spirit are of God using that concept. But that obviously doesn't mean nor imply that they actually are in their entirely God. You should have been able to derive that from that link, but it's clear you just blew it off or you just can't understand it.
Not everything is written in the Bible, which both the OT and NT actually do say.
Again, "essence" is a theological concept that actually is used extensively in both the OT and NT, such as Moses seeing the essence of God in the Burning Bush and hallowed ground. Capice?
Apollos was one of the disciples of Jesus, so...? It's not a reference to the Greek god, Apollo. See: Apollos - Wikipedia
Anyhow, I've had enough, and let me just finish off with two things with one of them that it's best to actually look things up, especially if one posts you links, rather than just shooting from the hip. It's also wise to study and not just use emotional responses because serious theology just doesn't automatically fall out of the sky and into our hands.
Finally, as I posted before, I'm pleased if your new denomination helps you, but maybe at least give some others credit if their denomination or religion helps them, OK? I grew up in a fundamentalist Protestant church and left it in part because of it's anti-Catholic bigotry that we had to hear on a regular basis, plus its anti-science positions. I thought about converting to Catholicism during my undergrad years but I still had way too many questions, thus I didn't end up converting until 10 years later.
Hopefully, if we have a future discussion on anything it can be done more cordially, but some things just get under my skin at times, I'll admit.
Take care.
rrobs
Well-Known Member
First of all, I'm glad you don't take offense. But I wish it didn't hurt your head.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
"I am wrong, as I thought I might be, but I am still right"
No, the "proof" does not stand, for you did not provide a proof.
You provided an unsupported assertion - that you provided pictures does not rescue the fact that you did not prove anything.
In order for your claim "The first animal suddenly turned into the second animal." to have been proved, you would have had to do more that assert it and provide a couple of pictures.
Let me see if you accept this:
The first animal turned into the second animal over very long periods of time, hundreds of generations:
Proof!
Re-stating the assertion 100 times will not make it true. Sorry.
Re-stating the assertion 101 times will not make it true. Sorry.
Your pseudoscience is shaped by your fantasies borne of an inability to understand actual science.
You keep thinking that writing things over and over make them true.
If something you write over and over were true, it seems that it should be trivial for you to provide sufficient evidence so as to change the mind of a skeptic. And were that skeptic to continue to disagree, you could rightly call him out, and all could see how the skeptic was in error yet refused to acquiesce.
That you have not done so tells the casual reader and skeptic alike that you cannot.
If I were to claim that gravity makes things fall down, I could provide hundreds of pieces of evidence to show that this is so.
Your claim is, essentially, that your mere assertions are trivially correct, seeing as how they are so ubiquitous (all change is sudden). Yet on the occasions that you have tried (or believed that you had actually tried) to provide what you think to be evidence, by writing a short list when asked for examples of how speciation is sudden, ALL YOU DID was write a list. A list is not evidence, especially when it is easy to show (as I did) that for one critter on your list, mink, speciation did NOT occur "suddenly", but rather over the course of at least 7 generations.
Why is it that others are required to produce evidence (which you then ignore) but you need to merely provide a list?
Ok - here is my evidence of creatures that evolved gradually via survival of the fittest (as you naively and pathetically keep describing it even though you've been corrected repeatedly):
Humans, elephants, storks, giraffes, naked mole rats.
Prove me wrong.
And he never did. By his own criterion, I proved evolution.
rational experiences
Veteran Member
Human healing is self evident from a mutated form by sex and sex chooses the babies form. Two parents can have a mutated baby or a healthy baby.
Not evolution.
Most ideas human seek a perfect life sex partner.
Humans today still gain mutated expressive stated DNA where Bones deform.
What condition you reviewed about ancient human bones.
Not evolution at all.
The atmospheric science bible teaching quotes man's use of Phi changed natural pressures and gases. By applying it to minus form.
Not evolution.
All conditions asteroid star earth heavens effects. Comets. Meteors. Radiation caused science fallout not evolution either. All earth changes effects.
Nor are floods or storms life changing events earthquakes tornados evolution.
Using science by introducing extra de evolution of form.
Science using resources of gods earths powers consumes the product.
Human and nature were given the same law. Caused by man's choice to change natural laws applied by spatial womb pressures.
Men today remember now quote and infer Phi as if Jesus man by Phi is resource advice.
So we must ask his mind are you going to convert nature's life into Phi what you claim is God creating us? To say begin with.
Yet it ends as the pattern on the ground.
End equals reason you see it. Formed.
Ask why the bible was written it was against science. Why science today wants it proven wrong.
The true reason.
As religious idealism is a chosen hu man practice so too is human behaviour. Choice. As we choose what group we want to belong to.
As we are all human first the human expressed science the theist is who is wrong. We are a human first. We are not science first.
Why the bible said what it did. After the nature garden two humans lived.
As we don't exist anywhere else. Exactly where human is stated.
You seem to misquote ideas when the bible was always just humans theorising just like they do today telling stories first using both pretend and belief. Then inferring what science inferred to humans.
As humans.
The argument is against theorising science then the practice machines.
Ignored that first temples were science buildings and not temples of healing.
Why after we were life consumed irradiated like a resource humans said new church and temples for healing were hypocrites as they irradiated us by science temple pyramid.
Actually as the human abuse was the sin of man.
God only owned mass.
Mass equals just mass in both places.
Not evolution.
Most ideas human seek a perfect life sex partner.
Humans today still gain mutated expressive stated DNA where Bones deform.
What condition you reviewed about ancient human bones.
Not evolution at all.
The atmospheric science bible teaching quotes man's use of Phi changed natural pressures and gases. By applying it to minus form.
Not evolution.
All conditions asteroid star earth heavens effects. Comets. Meteors. Radiation caused science fallout not evolution either. All earth changes effects.
Nor are floods or storms life changing events earthquakes tornados evolution.
Using science by introducing extra de evolution of form.
Science using resources of gods earths powers consumes the product.
Human and nature were given the same law. Caused by man's choice to change natural laws applied by spatial womb pressures.
Men today remember now quote and infer Phi as if Jesus man by Phi is resource advice.
So we must ask his mind are you going to convert nature's life into Phi what you claim is God creating us? To say begin with.
Yet it ends as the pattern on the ground.
End equals reason you see it. Formed.
Ask why the bible was written it was against science. Why science today wants it proven wrong.
The true reason.
As religious idealism is a chosen hu man practice so too is human behaviour. Choice. As we choose what group we want to belong to.
As we are all human first the human expressed science the theist is who is wrong. We are a human first. We are not science first.
Why the bible said what it did. After the nature garden two humans lived.
As we don't exist anywhere else. Exactly where human is stated.
You seem to misquote ideas when the bible was always just humans theorising just like they do today telling stories first using both pretend and belief. Then inferring what science inferred to humans.
As humans.
The argument is against theorising science then the practice machines.
Ignored that first temples were science buildings and not temples of healing.
Why after we were life consumed irradiated like a resource humans said new church and temples for healing were hypocrites as they irradiated us by science temple pyramid.
Actually as the human abuse was the sin of man.
God only owned mass.
Mass equals just mass in both places.
joelr
Well-Known Member
Because there is a vast amount of evidence.
[QUOTE="rrobs, post: 6471763, member: 64030Not only must a particular life form spontaneously arise, but the other organisms upon which it depends must have arisen in lock step. And what are the odds of the flora arising in the required sequence as that of the fauna which depends on that flora? That is more believable than Genesis?[/QUOTE]
No. Only one form of self-replicating chemical needed to slowly evolve into a basic form of RNA. The research on what we have seen regarding self-replicating compounds is impressive. Over the last several years all types of amino acid stacks have been found to turn into peptides and so on. That is 100% more believable than the creation myths in the Hindu, Greek, Mesopotamian religious myths. Genesis is mostly re-writes of Mesopotamian creation stories, flood stories as well as some Babylonian myths.
Geneis being in line for being the actual model of creation is no more likely than any other myth with a creation story.
[QUOTE="rrobs, post: 6471763, member: 64030Science is based on observation. Who has ever seen one genus becoming another? Nobody! It's purely inference which is only slightly better than guessing. It is a model that admittedly could be said to fit with some observed phenomena, but there is perhaps a better model that nobody has thought of yet. A model is a model. It is not necessarily a reality.[/QUOTE]
Of course they have seen that? How do you think we see microscopic and quantum objects? Through noon-direct observation. Fossils demonstrate this has happened. We see the micro changes in fossil records?
[QUOTE="rrobs, post: 6471763, member: 64030If one does not believe Genesis it seems it would be better to just say, "I don't know how we all got here."[/QUOTE]
It would be better to ignore evolutionary science? This science contains over a century of thousands of scientists life work and you think it should be ignored? Even though all of the available evidence points to this being true? Your advice is to say ignore what all the cumulative evidence points to but you also find it likely that a complete myths from one culture (all borrowed myths) contains information that is the actual truth?
Despite the cosmology is plain wrong. The Firmament, water storage above heaven, a Celestial Temple below heaven. All in the upper atmosphere (the blue sky was the water storage that could be seen from Earth) or within the local planets? Not correct. But yet still you think this should be entered as evidence? No Christian still thinks God is living up there in the heaven in space, no Theologian believe that anymore. NOw God is in another dimension beyond space/time as theologians from the Middle Ages borrowed Platonic concepts of a tri-omni God and all that nonsense. You still want to cling to a myth that the religion itself proves wrong?
History scholarship is 100% that Genesis is not history but was written using older myths, that is your evidence, old myths?
"Religion Identity and the Origins of Ancient Israel
K.L. Sparks (ordained Baptist Pastor, PhD in Hebrew Bible/Ancient Near East)
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. It's 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 all 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 20..."
Have you ever actually studies evolution of just read anti-evolution apologetics?
joelr
Well-Known Member
And what makes the Gospels a reliable source? The concepts are taken from other older cultures, Christian scholarship has shown the source gospel is Mark and the others were copied from that. And Mark is a combination of mythic style stories taken from the OT, earthly versions of Pauls letters and a few other known sources to make a Jewish savior demigod myth. ll religions were doing this because Hellenism was popular and those concepts were being merged with all of the religions in the Middle East. Savior gods and many other Christian ideas are actually Hellenistic religious creations. Judaism was exposed to this during the 2nd Temple Period, this is all well known in Academia.
So these writings are as mythic as Hindu or Greek stories about Gods.
Second Temple Judaism
During the period of the Second Temple (c. 515 BC – 70 AD), the Hebrew people lived under the rule of first the Persian Achaemenid Empire, then the Greek kingdoms of the Diadochi, and finally the Roman Empire. Their culture was profoundly influenced by those of the peoples who ruled them. Consequently, their views on existence after death were profoundly shaped by the ideas of the Persians, Greeks, and Romans. The idea of the immortality of the soul is derived from Greek philosophy and the idea of the resurrection of the dead is derived from Persian cosmology. By the early first century AD, these two seemingly incompatible ideas were often conflated by Hebrew thinkers.
The Hebrews also inherited from the Persians, Greeks, and Romans the idea that the human soul originates in the divine realm and seeks to return there. The idea that a human soul belongs in Heaven and that Earth is merely a temporary abode in which the soul is tested to prove its worthiness became increasingly popular during the Hellenistic period (323 – 31 BC). Gradually, some Hebrews began to adopt the idea of Heaven as the eternal home of the righteous dead.[
Hellenistic religion
Hellenistic religion, any of the various systems of beliefs and practices of eastern Mediterranean peoples from 300 BC to AD 300.
With few exceptions, each of these religions, originally tied to a specific geographic area and people, had traditions extending back centuries before the Hellenistic period. In their homeland they were inextricably tied to local loyalties and ambitions. Each persisted in its native land with little perceptible change save for its becoming linked to nationalistic or messianic movements (centring on a deliverer figure)
and apocalyptic traditions (referring to a belief in the dramatic intervention of a god in human and natural events)
This led to a change from concern for a religion of national prosperity to one for individual salvation, from focus on a particular ethnic group to concern for every human. The prophet or saviour replaced the priest and king as the chief religious figure.
Yes the Churches make traditions and dogma not found in scripture. But all scripture is people claiming secret messages from a God. Yet the wisdom is nothing new and always similar to surrounding cultures. The Canaanite stories contained the same wisdom and did the Thracians, Syrians and others.
Abraham - talked to Yahweh
Paul - revelations from Jesus
Muhammaud - revelations from Gabriel
Joe Smith - revelations from Moroni
Hinduism - revelations from Krishna
Cargo Cults from 1950's revelations from John From
and so on
NOT RELIABLE wu-wu
exchemist
Veteran Member
Some very interesting material in this post. What source are you quoting, in the paragraph in bold?