who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[truthofscripture]

Because, as you stated previously:

"I indicated that without studying carefully the scriptures, drawing close to Jehovah, and applying the scriptures in one's life, the proof of the scripture's truths cannot be experienced or known. Proving their truthfullness requires the one requiring the proof to follow the scriptures' teaching to acquire such proof. Proof does exist, but the veil placed over their meaning cannot be pierced in any other way."

You can't get to a true understanding of the scriptures via studying the scriptures. You can only attain such understanding via first having the spiritual experience that the scriptures are about. Then, with a transformed consciousness, you can correctly read the scriptures, the scriptures being a second hand account of the first hand spiritual experience.

The problem with your approach is that it uses a mind conditioned by society, and the spiritual experience is one that is beyond all social indoctrination. You are attempting to encapsulate the meanings of an experience that is beyond what the mind can conceive. Therefore, any conclusions you reach, no matter how cocksure you are about them, are erroneous.

Can't you see that it is obvious that you are doing exactly what Jesus advises against in John 5:39?

Yes you most certainly can get to an understanding of the scriptures by studying them. If you study them without benefit of holy spirit, you won't understand them. If you study them with benefit of holy spirit, what you learn is quite amazing. One must take in accurate knowledge of the scriptures DAILY. Colossians 1:9 That is also why from the day we heard of it, we have never stopped praying for you and asking that you may be filled with the accurate knowledge of his will in all wisdom and spiritual comprehension, 10 so as to walk worthily of Jehovah in order to please him fully as you go on bearing fruit in every good work and increasing in the accurate knowledge of God;
1 Timothy 2:3 This is fine and acceptable in the sight of our Savior, God, 4 whose will is that all sorts of people should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth.

 

[outhouse]

. If you study them without benefit of holy spirit, you won't understand them.

Factually unsubstantiated apologetic rhetoric. Its not up for debate.

Did your spirit tell you the Exodus never happen?
Did your spirit tell you there was no global flood?
Did your spirit tell you Abraham has no historicity?
Did your spirit tell you why Matthew is the first book in the NT?
Did the spirit tell you why Pauls epistles are in order?

 

[truthofscripture]

Factually unsubstantiated apologetic rhetoric. Its not up for debate.

Did your spirit tell you the Exodus never happen?
Did your spirit tell you there was no global flood?
Did your spirit tell you Abraham has no historicity?
Did your spirit tell you why Matthew is the first book in the NT?
Did the spirit tell you why Pauls epistles are in order?

My spirit? What do you mean by that? And why would there have not have been an exodus, or flood? Or any of the other crap you listed? What are you up to? I see no reason to debate scriptures with an atheist. We have nothing to discuss. You don't believe in your God and creator. I do. We have NOTHING to discuss. Why don't you go debate on an atheist blog?

 

[godnotgod]

Only if you lack education on the topic.

Yes? and? C:\?.....


As concerns the prevalence of solar Yahwism in ancient Israel, Dr. J. Glen Taylor* concludes:

"Several lines of evidence, both archaeological and biblical, bear witness to a close relationship between Yahweh and the sun. The nature of that association is such that often a 'solar' character was presumed for Yahweh. Indeed, at many points the sun actually represented Yahweh as a kind of 'icon.' Thus, in at least the vast majority of cases, biblical passages which refer to sun worship in Israel do not refer to a foreign phenomenon borrowed by idolatrous Israelites, but to a Yahwistic phenomenon which Deuteronomistic theology came to look upon as idolatrous.... an association between Yahweh and the sun was not limited to one or two obscure contexts, but was remarkably well integrated into the religion of ancient Israel." (Taylor, 257)

Hence, the sun was worshipped by the Israelites, who associated it with their tribal god Yahweh. Like Father, like son, and the connection between Jesus and the sun is first evidenced in the OT book of Malachi (4:2), which immediately precedes the New Testament and in which the author refers to the "Sun of Righteousness" who will "arise with healing in his wings." This scripture, which is in the last chapter before the Gospel of Matthew, sounds much like the winged solar disc of Babylon and Egypt.

"The Sun of Righteousness will arise with healing in his wings."

This scripture in Malachi is perceived as a reference to the coming messiah, Jesus Christ. In this regard, this clearly solar appellation "Sun of Righteousness" is repeated many times by early Church fathers as being applicable to Christ.

New Testament Solar Imagery
In the Gospel of Luke (1:78), Christ's very advent is depicted as a visitation from the "dayspring on high": "Through the tender mercy of our God; whereby the dayspring from on high hath visited us..." The word for "dayspring" or "day" in the original Greek is ἀνατολή or anatole, which means "sunrise, east." In reference to this scripture, Rev. Matthew Henry states:

"Christ is the Morning Light, the rising Sun, Mal. 4:2." (Jenkins, 417)

*Yahweh and the Sun: Biblical and Archaeological Evidence for Sun Worship in Ancient Israel, Rev. Dr. J. Glen Taylor

Jesus Christ as the Sun God throughout History

 

[godnotgod]

My spirit? What do you mean by that? And why would there have not have been an exodus, or flood? Or any of the other crap you listed? What are you up to? I see no reason to debate scriptures with an atheist. We have nothing to discuss. You don't believe in your God and creator. I do. We have NOTHING to discuss. Why don't you go debate on an atheist blog?

This forum is not a platform to advance one's religious beliefs, but to discuss, debate, and answer questions. If you want to have a discussion, then you will need to answer questions to support your position. Why can't you answer those questions, instead of simply asserting your position and the dismissing those who disagree with you?

What you choose to believe is your business, but when put forth on a public forum, it becomes everyone's business, who may not necessarily care what you believe, but why.

 

[godnotgod]

Yes you most certainly can get to an understanding of the scriptures by studying them. If you study them without benefit of holy spirit, you won't understand them. If you study them with benefit of holy spirit, what you learn is quite amazing.

It is obvious you are deceiving yourself. The spiritual experience is a transformative one. The mind of learning is not the spiritually transformed mind. It is the limited mind, the grasping mind, the mind of learning and conceptualizing. The spiritual experience is beyond all grasping, learning, and conceptualizing because Reality is none of those things. Hence, John 5:39, which you continue to deny and oppose, choosing instead to aggressively charge ahead like a bull in a China shop with your own half-cocked notions that you only think are the Absolute Truth. We call that kind of view 'delusion'.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Assuming for the moment that Christianity did not derive the doctrine of blood sacrifice as a means of sin redemption from Mithraism, where do you suppose it originated from? The clear blue sky?

Um... Judaism? You know, the culture that Christianity grew out of. For the origin of the concept in Christianity, see the book of Hebrews, which frames the Christ in terms of the familiar sacrificial cult of the Jerusalem temple and is aimed at Jews. As for the Satisfaction Theory of Atonement that Anselm developed in the 11th century CE, it's based on a combination of the sacrificial metaphor from Hebrews and medieval aristocratic social structures. There was no extant sacrificial cult for Anselm to draw inspiration from, least of all Mithraism.

Mithraic iconography shows an Asiatic figure, presumably Mithras, slaying a bull, and that may well be a sacrificial image. But it's not as if the ancient Mithraists left a caption with an explanation of what it's all supposed to mean. Anybody who claims to know what exactly Mithraism was about is pulling stuff out of their imagination and presenting it as fact.

 

[truthofscripture]

It is obvious you are deceiving yourself. The spiritual experience is a transformative one. The mind of learning is not the spiritually transformed mind. It is the limited mind, the grasping mind, the mind of learning and conceptualizing. The spiritual experience is beyond all grasping, learning, and conceptualizing because Reality is none of those things. Hence, John 5:39, which you continue to deny and oppose, choosing instead to aggressively charge ahead like a bull in a China shop with your own half-cocked notions that you only think are the Absolute Truth. We call that kind of view 'delusion'.

You speak of things about which you have not the slightest idea. And you speak things that bear little resemblance to the truth. You can call anything you want whatever you want, but that doesn't make it so. It is quite apparent that you've not got Jehovah God using his holy spirit with you to draw you to Him, or to teach you, so you spout strange untruths and pretend to be knowledgeable. I find that to be a bit less than dishonest. Your screen name speaks volumes.

 

[outhouse]

And why would there have not have been an exodus, or flood?

Because that is mythology. Not even up for debate by anyone credible.

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is the founding myth of Israel;


The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".

You think you have an ounce of credibility proposing the flood may be real??????????????? Sorry wont debate this myth.

You don't believe in your God and creator.

Unsubstantiated rhetoric. I factually evolved in a process that took millions of years.

Why don't you go debate on an atheist blog?

Because its obvious.

So many apologetic biased people that think they know something, need to be shown the real light through the state of modern education and knowledge they have refused for so long.


YOU SHOULD go to the same faith section where accuracy, truth and plausibility are not required. You can throw faith at each other by the bucket full unchallenged

 

[outhouse]

concerns the prevalence of solar Yahwism in ancient Israel

Not credible.

You do know they had a sun deity by name don't you?

You do know they redacted polytheism out of the text?

Jesus Christ as the Sun God throughout History

Don't bring that trash in here.


I have been debating her for years, she knows to run, and cant say a word to me now, I wont deal with the ignorance. Her minions are even less educated then she is.

 

[outhouse]

Anybody who claims to know what exactly Mithraism was about is pulling stuff out of their imagination and presenting it as fact

Agreed, not only that it seems to have been possibly influenced by the early Christian movement. But definitely not the other way around.

 

[truthofscripture]

Because that is mythology. Not even up for debate by anyone credible.

The Exodus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Exodus (from Greek ἔξοδος exodos, "going out") is the founding myth of Israel;


The archeological evidence does not support the story told in the Book of Exodus[3] and most archaeologists have abandoned the investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit".

You think you have an ounce of credibility proposing the flood may be real??????????????? Sorry wont debate this myth.





Unsubstantiated rhetoric. I factually evolved in a process that took millions of years.



Because its obvious.

So many apologetic biased people that think they know something, need to be shown the real light through the state of modern education and knowledge they have refused for so long.


YOU SHOULD go to the same faith section where accuracy, truth and plausibility are not required. You can throw faith at each other by the bucket full unchallenged

You're not credible. Each and every word of the inspired word of God is completely true. Since you aren't honest, God doesn't draw you to Him, and He does not use holy spirit to unfold the truth of the scriptures to you, therefore you believe about them what you do. Your being atheist means we have nothing to discuss. Why don't you debate atheism on the atheist blog? You'd be more comfortable, and you wouldn't annoy those who believe in and worship OUR God, Jehovah. Yes, He is your God and mine, but you refuse to acknowledge that FACT. It's ok, you have the freedom that God gave you to not believe in Him, and He has the freedom to bestow upon you the judgement that He said He would give all who believe as you do. No problem.

 

[outhouse]

Um... Judaism? You know, the culture that Christianity grew out of

Yep mythicist somehow always manage to ignore this little tid bit.

One thing you can count on mythicist, they are great at tearing down credible evidence. never seen people so good at destroying credible history not in dispute. They mirror YEC creationist on so many levels.


One thing they fail miserably at is actually constructing history.

Price at least gave it a try. It was easy to refute and laughable at best, but he did try to provide a replacement hypothesis.

Carrier on the other hand went off he deep end. Never trained in biblical history, and holds his work in classics, and though he may be a genius of some sorts, his work is a riot aimed at those with less education then most. He plagiarized Doherty's work to some extent and polished a dog doo into a mess. His theorem is such a joke, ive lost all interest in his money making adventure. My friends have hung with him last week, nothing new to report.

 

[outhouse]

. Since you aren't honest

Factually in error. Also not tolerated here at this website.

You're not credible

That is a compliment coming from a YEC.

 

[outhouse]

He has the freedom to bestow upon you the judgement

Oh no!!! what will I do, the mythology is going to get me! Not the judgment!!!! [by the way, your god taught you to spell judgment wrong]

Doesn't your religion teach you not to judge others?

 

[truthofscripture]

Factually in error. Also not tolerated here at this website.



That is a compliment coming from a YEC.

If you had an honest heart Jehovah would use holy spirit to open up the meaning of the scriptures. It's all spelled out in the scriptures. There is no tolerated/not tolerated with regards to stating what the scriptures teach. Your demonstration is proof of what God thinks of what He sees in your heart. it's quite evident. It's not my opinion, it's stated in the scriptures. It is for that reason that you do not realize what the scriptures actually teach, and for that reason that you hold the opinion that you do, or so it appears. The scriptural principles involved are pretty straight forward. I encourage you to research this in the scriptures and you will grasp what I'm trying to explain. You continue to state things about me that you haven't a clue about and continue to attack me and what I post. Why not search it out and see if what I post is true, rather than simply attack? Seems to me that it would be more educational than just a knee jerk reaction.

 

[outhouse]

it's stated in the scriptures

The scripture are not credible on many levels.

They are not historically accurate, and they are not scientifically accurate, nor were they meant to be.

You can hold a literal interpretation if you want. But that doesn't mean you hold the truth you think you do.

holy spirit to open up the meaning of the scriptures

Unsubstantiated rhetoric. Many will claim this is imagination or just your conscious thought running wild. Either way, you have limited knowledge with this method.

 

[truthofscripture]

The scripture are not credible on many levels.

They are not historically accurate, and they are not scientifically accurate, nor were they meant to be.

You can hold a literal interpretation if you want. But that doesn't mean you hold the truth you think you do.



Unsubstantiated rhetoric. Many will claim this is imagination or just your conscious thought running wild. Either way, you have limited knowledge with this method.

The scriptures are the only thing that IS credible on EVERY level. Nothing even comes close. Absolutely nothing. But it seems that you will NEVER come to realize that fact.

 

[Vishvavajra]

You're not credible. Each and every word of the inspired word of God is completely true. Since you aren't honest, God doesn't draw you to Him, and He does not use holy spirit to unfold the truth of the scriptures to you, therefore you believe about them what you do. Your being atheist means we have nothing to discuss. Why don't you debate atheism on the atheist blog? You'd be more comfortable, and you wouldn't annoy those who believe in and worship OUR God, Jehovah. Yes, He is your God and mine, but you refuse to acknowledge that FACT. It's ok, you have the freedom that God gave you to not believe in Him, and He has the freedom to bestow upon you the judgement that He said He would give all who believe as you do. No problem.

He's kinder to Judaic/Christian scripture than you are. He encourages people to think more deeply about it, while you just rave like a crazy person who claims to have a magical direct link to God. Nobody is going to come to share your beliefs or appreciate scripture by reading your bizarre rants; on the contrary, they're very likely to be turned off the whole thing and think that religious people are all nutters who are rude to people on the Internet and possibly schizophrenic. Is that really a constructive stereotype to perpetuate?

I doubt this will penetrate that wall of smug sanctimoniousness you've built around yourself, but consider the example you set on here. You've never demonstrated an ounce of love or solidarity or humility. On the contrary, it's all arrogant condescension, personal attacks, and unsupported claims that do nothing but alienate people. Even if I didn't know anything else, that alone would be enough to prove that you don't possess the wisdom you claim. You contribute absolutely nothing to the discourse here, yet you tell other people they should leave.

Even leaving aside the fact that claiming to have supernatural powers that others don't have is... questionable to begin with, the way you claim to have magical perfect understanding of things is not going to impress anyone, nor is it going to persuade anyone that you are correct, since apparently the only way to see things correctly is to agree with you, which is circular reasoning--i.e. a logical fallacy. Therefore there is nothing that can be learned. And you're not willing to learn, since you already think you know it all. So, the question is, why are you here? You can't really believe you're helping anyone to understand anything.

But of course you'll dismiss me as one not filled with the Holy Spirit, as if you could possibly be the judge of that. I guess that's the fun thing about non-falsifiable hypotheses: there's nothing anybody can ever say to convince you that you're not correct, since your correctness is axiomatic. If they disagree with you, then they don't have the Spirit and are deluded by Satan. If empirical facts disagree with your assertions, then apparently we're all deluded by Satan. The only way to not be deluded by Satan is to see things your way. Therefore, once again, there's no point in discussion. Either someone already agrees with you, or they're deluded by Satan and are incapable of understanding, so you can retire and enjoy your magical exegetic powers secure in the knowledge that you're the only person in the world who really understands anything.

Sheesh, it's presuppositional apologetics, only with someone who won't admit to being a Fundamentalist Christian because he thinks he's too good for "religion."

 

[truthofscripture]

He's kinder to Judaic/Christian scripture than you are. He encourages people to think more deeply about it, while you just rave like a crazy person who claims to have a magical direct link to God. Nobody is going to come to share your beliefs or appreciate scripture by reading your bizarre rants; on the contrary, they're very likely to be turned off the whole thing and think that religious people are all nutters who are rude to people on the Internet and possibly schizophrenic. Is that really a constructive stereotype to perpetuate?

I doubt this will penetrate that wall of smug sanctimoniousness you've built around yourself, but consider the example you set on here. You've never demonstrated an ounce of love or solidarity or humility. On the contrary, it's all arrogant condescension, personal attacks, and unsupported claims that do nothing but alienate people. Even if I didn't know anything else, that alone would be enough to prove that you don't possess the wisdom you claim. You contribute absolutely nothing to the discourse here, yet you tell other people they should leave.

Even leaving aside the fact that claiming to have supernatural powers that others don't have is... questionable to begin with, the way you claim to have magical perfect understanding of things is not going to impress anyone, nor is it going to persuade anyone that you are correct, since apparently the only way to see things correctly is to agree with you, which is circular reasoning--i.e. a logical fallacy. Therefore there is nothing that can be learned. And you're not willing to learn, since you already think you know it all. So, the question is, why are you here? You can't really believe you're helping anyone to understand anything.

But of course you'll dismiss me as one not filled with the Holy Spirit, as if you could possibly be the judge of that. I guess that's the fun thing about non-falsifiable hypotheses: there's nothing anybody can ever say to convince you that you're not correct, since your correctness is axiomatic. If they disagree with you, then they don't have the Spirit and are deluded by Satan. If empirical facts disagree with your assertions, then apparently we're all deluded by Satan. The only way to not be deluded by Satan is to see things your way. Therefore, once again, there's no point in discussion. Either someone already agrees with you, or they're deluded by Satan and are incapable of understanding, so you can retire and enjoy your magical exegetic powers secure in the knowledge that you're the only person in the world who really understands anything.

Sheesh, it's presuppositional apologetics, only with someone who won't admit to being a Fundamentalist Christian because he thinks he's too good for "religion."

You're entitled to your opinions, but they're SUPPOSED to be based on facts.