who is the founder of christianity Jesus or Paul ?

[godnotgod]

What's funny is how they ran Salm out the last forum he tried to frequent. He could not even stand up to amateur's questions, and when the scholars got into him, he tucked tail and ran.

You have not been around this scene long enough, nor hung out where these people frequent.

We're not having a discussion with Salm at the moment. I repeatedly asked YOU for YOUR evidence of a 1st Century Nazareth, and after you came up with the paltry house, coins, and pottery, you then wanted to end the discussion. Is that because you have no real evidence? If you want to have an honest discussion, then I need to see some evidence to support your claims. Otherwise there is really no point in continuing. Now, I have presented negative arguments against your claim, which you just label as 'garbage' without defending your statement, even though I made a request for proof. So at this point, not only have you presented no credible evidence for your claim, you have presented no credible evidence to refute those who call that claim a falsehood.

 

[Vishvavajra]

Only if you have predefined consciousness as brain dependent. It isn't. The brain is consciousness dependent. If you think consciousness is brain dependent, then explain how non material consciousness emerges from the material brain.

That's the logical equivalent of saying that the atmosphere is weather-dependant, and that it's a serious problem in science to explain how you get weather from the atmosphere, if weather weren't already present to allow for an atmosphere.

The 'ability to react to things' ie; stimuli, is dependent upon first SEEING those things. It is SEEING, without thought, that is consciousness. IOW, consciousness is a form of knowledge, or rather, knowing, beyond the spheres of Reason, Logic, or Analysis. It SEES rather than THINKS. And because it SEES, it has the ability to react, whereas THINKING takes time and therefore creates a delay in reaction. Ask any accomplished martial artist, where delay can be a matter of life or death.

Again, "seeing" has been redefined into oblivion. There is no reason to believe that conscious subjective experience occurs in everything that reacts. That's simply anthropomorphizing things, projecting a human experience onto the rest of the cosmos. It's a very tempting thing to do, given our psychology, but that doesn't make it particularly instructive. The assumption that an electron is "aware" of a proton, and that that's the basis for its attraction, isn't based in evidence and really just amounts to anthropomorphizing assumptions.

Folks who spin this yarn often make it out to be a huge problem in science to explain how consciousness emerges from rudimentary processes, but it's not. The real (and unsolveable problem) is trying to explain how consciousness is an elemental quality that even subatomic particles have, since consciousness requires certain rudiments in order to even be possible; it's complex and therefore not infinitely divisible.

All of this starts with wanting very badly to see everything as conscious, then forcing everything into that model in order to make it seem to work. That's intellectually dishonest. As for where this "elemental consciousness" idea comes from, I'm not sure, but it seems to be a gross misinterpretation of Buddhist thought on the part of the New Age crowd (of whom Chopra is a leading figure these days).

 

[jonathan180iq]

I checked it...

1 is irrelevant
All the others were done AFTER the Jews had already celebrated it. So, if anything, the pagans took after Jewish customs.

Interesting that you think one is irrelevant when they are all so interconnected and preface the Jesus mythos.

If you prefer that I continue that timeline backwards, I will.


Attis - Attis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Adonis - Adonis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Tammuz - Tammuz (deity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Dumuzid - Dumuzid the Shepherd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

History of Sumer - History of Sumer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mesopotamian Mythology - Ancient Mesopotamian religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Your religion is totally original though and has had no influence from pagan sources...

 

[Kenny]

Interesting that you think one is irrelevant when they are all so interconnected and preface the Jesus mythos.

If you prefer that I continue that timeline backwards, I will.

Your religion is totally original though and has had no influence from pagan sources...

Attis - Attis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to your site... Attis cult began in 1250 BC. Moses Exodus was at apprx 1312 BC

Adonis - Adonis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to your site, Adonis comes from the Hebrew word Adonai. It suggests that it borrowed from the Jews

Tammuz - Tammuz (deity) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
According to your site, God through Ezekiel rebuked the Hebrews for worship Tammuz. Therefore, a clear separation. Any influence was rebuked.

Dumuzid - Dumuzid the Shepherd - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Addressing this at the end

History of Sumer - History of Sumer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Referring to Ur - the time of Abraham... will address at the end

Mesopotamian Mythology - Ancient Mesopotamian religion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
this is just a history

What we have here is two people arriving to two different conclusions (as in what came first, the hen or the egg). IF I am to assume that the historical presentation of Genesis is correct, then we have one God starting at the beginning. As time passed on, in Mesopotamia, a variety of religions arose, mainly polytheistic, yet all being influenced by the original source.

God, to correct this deviance from standard understanding, separated Abraham when he lived in Ur. (Thus monotheism in the area). That is not to say that absolutely no monotheism existed in as much it existed from the beginning. The children of Noah were all monotheistic and for there it began to morph. There will always be some likeness, since they all came from the same source. Abraham simply began going back to the original source by forsaking his parents and their morphed gods.

Thus, it isn't the pagan religions that influenced Judaism but rather Judaism that was bringing everything back to the original source. Again, unfortunately, the people began to go back to the pagan gods and thus the rebukes by the prophets over the centuries.

Having the prophets written rebukes simply shows us what the original intent was. By the reading of the prophets, one can differentiate what is from God and what isn't. If the Sumerians have some likeness, it is simply the original faith that got added to until it morphed into the pagan gods.

 

[jonathan180iq]

IF I am to assume that the historical presentation of Genesis is correct, then we have one God starting at the beginning.

You've nailed it.
Without quoting the self-serving source material of the Bible, please cite any credible evidence of Judaism preceding these Mesopotamian influences.

 

[Kenny]

1) The whole serpent thing had nothing to do with a messiah concept -- it simply isn't present in that story.
2) The whole Isaac thing never happened, did it? A sheep was provided.

Human sacrifice simply wasn't part of the picture.

I think you just erased what happened. Isaac was going to be sacrificed. In that it didn't happen, one must find out why. A substitute was provided and, as Jesus said, Abraham saw his day of substitution. The lamb was still a substitution. There are so many other corresponding realities that point to it.

As far as the serpent thing, I disagree. As the Targum Johnathan / Onkelos said,

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha.

King Meshiha - talking about the Christ.

 

[godnotgod]

That's the logical equivalent of saying that the atmosphere is weather-dependant, and that it's a serious problem in science to explain how you get weather from the atmosphere, if weather weren't already present to allow for an atmosphere.

Heh...heh...you're being foiled by your own argument.

The atmosphere and the weather are one and the same, in the same way that a tree is not made of wood; it IS wood.

IOW, the weather is simply a behavioral change of the atmosphere, just as ocean waves are a behavioral change of the ocean itself. Waves are not separate from ocean; they ARE 'ocean'.

We have some scientific evidence to show that consciousness grows the brain. Long term meditators grow thicker cerebral cortexes than non meditators.

The emergence of the brain in higher forms of life is the way consciousness deals with more complex tasks that the organism must face. It relegates certain repetitive duties to the brain so that it can then focus on what is going on up front. This way, it does not have to deal with heartbeat, breathing, blood flow, muscle action, digestion upfront all at once, 24/7, especially when danger presents itself. It wants automatic and immediate supercharging of the muscles for fight or flight if, for example, a tiger suddenly appears.

Not only is the brain consciousness dependent, the Big Bang itself was an event in consciousness.

 

[sojourner]

Isaac was going to be sacrificed.

Was he? You, of course, have exegetical evidence to prove this opinion. The fact remains that he wasn't sacrificed. The fact remains that there is no human sacrifice with the realm of Judaic religion.

And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between the seed of thy son, and the seed of her sons; and it shall be when the sons of the woman keep the commandments of the law, they will be prepared to smite thee upon thy head; but when they forsake the commandments of the law, thou wilt be ready to wound them in their heel. Nevertheless for them there shall be a medicine, but for thee there will be no medicine; and they shall make a remedy for the heel in the days of the King Meshiha.

WTF?? Here's the text from Genesis 3:

14 The Lord God said to the serpent,

“Because you have done this,
cursed are you among all animals
and among all wild creatures;
upon your belly you shall go,
and dust you shall eat
all the days of your life.
15 I will put enmity between you and the woman,
and between your offspring and hers;
he will strike your head,
and you will strike his heel.”

No messiah concept. Period. Anything else is eisegetical horse crap.

 

[Kenny]

I don't know how we would know that. Even his biographers in the Gospels have no idea in what year he was born. Or rather, each one hazards a guess and picks a different one. There is zero primary-source knowledge of Jesus's early life. What we have has been constructed by later generations, often using other Biblical characters as a basis.

It isn't that complicated:

It was the time when the shepherds were watching sacrificial lambs that were going to be used. There are other factors. But the exact date is not known.

Well, the same problem comes up there too: we have no direct evidence of what Jesus said. The only time we have direct quotes are in the Gospels, and that's material that has already been heavily influenced by the theological tradition that developed in the first few decades after his death, to the point where it's a reconstruction of his character and teachings rather than a direct window to them, just as the Gospels are an attempt to reconstruct a life story for him from what is often scant evidence.

So if a sect that believes Jesus was X produces literature that contains him as a character saying that he is X, it shouldn't be terribly surprising. Of course, Jesus doesn't actually claim to be a god even in the Gospels, or at least not any more than anyone else is.

I disagree.

If we are reconstructing an accident and there are four witnesses, we take a statement to see if there is agreement and from their statements we reconstruct what happened.

Since we have the letters before the passing of the first century, there wasn't time to have a "reconstruction of his character and teachings".

Obviously you can disagree, but you have no support for that position. If there is some changing, one can certainly pinpoint what was changed by the multiplicity of evidence.

 

[Kenny]

Was he? You, of course, have exegetical evidence to prove this opinion.

WTF?? Here's the text from Genesis 3:

You certainly haven't offered a reason for me not to believe it. Apparently, according to Hebrews, they still believed it to be true.

Yes... that is the English translation that those who read it believe the one who would bruise the head of the serpent would be the Messiah. Targum's Jonathan and Onkelos agree. Why should I disagree?

 

[godnotgod]

Again, "seeing" has been redefined into oblivion. There is no reason to believe that conscious subjective experience occurs in everything that reacts. That's simply anthropomorphizing things, projecting a human experience onto the rest of the cosmos. It's a very tempting thing to do, given our psychology, but that doesn't make it particularly instructive. The assumption that an electron is "aware" of a proton, and that that's the basis for its attraction, isn't based in evidence and really just amounts to anthropomorphizing assumptions.

Folks who spin this yarn often make it out to be a huge problem in science to explain how consciousness emerges from rudimentary processes, but it's not. The real (and unsolveable problem) is trying to explain how consciousness is an elemental quality that even subatomic particles have, since consciousness requires certain rudiments in order to even be possible; it's complex and therefore not infinitely divisible.

All of this starts with wanting very badly to see everything as conscious, then forcing everything into that model in order to make it seem to work. That's intellectually dishonest. As for where this "elemental consciousness" idea comes from, I'm not sure, but it seems to be a gross misinterpretation of Buddhist thought on the part of the New Age crowd (of whom Chopra is a leading figure these days).

The error in your argument here is that the alleged consciousness of an atom or of any form, is localized within that form. The consciousness of all forms is universal and non-local. We, as humans, falsely create a static image of ourselves called 'I', which is a total illusion. It is based on our accumulated life experiences and social indoctrination, which, altogether, we call 'I'. We then think this 'I' is the localized ego that acts upon the world. Total illusion. We call this illusion the state of Identification, the Third Level of Consciousness.

That everything is conscious does not mean it is anthropomorphic. Pure consciousness is beyond all form. Remember, I said that the brain, a form, (and all forms) are manifestations of formless consciousness. Ultimately, the ground of all being is pure consciousness, out of which the entire universe is manifested, and to which it returns.

BTW, the latest findings in Quantum physics are that all mass is created by fluctuations in the Quantum field and in the Higgs-Boson. IOW, all mass is virtual, meaning that all reality is virtual.

Here. Check this out:

 

[Kenny]

You've nailed it.
Without quoting the self-serving source material of the Bible, please cite any credible evidence of Judaism preceding these Mesopotamian influences.

I don't find it self serving. The fact that monotheism is archaeologically proven to be during the time of Mesopotamia, supports the position that I hold. You certainly haven't proven me wrong in my position.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I don't find it self serving. The fact that monotheism is archaeologically proven to be during the time of Mesopotamia, supports the position that I hold. You certainly haven't proven me wrong in my position.

Are you or are you not making the claim that the god of Abraham (Yahweh) is the "starter" god and that all other gods and belief systems are a degeneration of that belief?
If you make that claim, which goes against the known evolution of religions, then the burden of proof to support and defend that argument is on you. Not me.

Your position is that Judaism, and the way that the Israelites worship their god, along with their scriptures, and even the advent of an off-shoot of it (Christianity), was not influenced by pagan religion, isn't it? I've shown you examples of parallel belief systems which Historically and factually can be traced to having a direct impact on the evolution of Jewish and Christian thought, not only directly but indirectly. These beliefs pre-date any evidence of Judaism staking claim to those beliefs. Your defense of those examples is "Well, Genesis talks about what happened "in the beginning" so it's older and therefor Judaism influenced the pagan religions... "

That's not how it works. If you're going to claim that Genesis is your root source, then you have to also prove that Genesis is a valid source.

Your inability to see a problem with your source material citing itself as authoritative really isn't my problem. I will suggest, just person to person, that as long as you maintain that belief, then you'll be hard-pressed to have worthy debate with anyone who disagrees with you because you;ll always have this weak cop-out of claiming an argument from authority without having truly established that authority.

 

[outhouse]

WTF??

Anything else is eisegetical horse crap.

Get used to it. he made a claim already he is working on his doctorate in theology

Like he has a masters in anything related to anything biblical.

 

[Kenny]

Are you or are you not making the claim that the god of Abraham (Yahweh) is the "starter" god and that all other gods and belief systems are a degeneration of that belief?
If you make that claim, which goes against the known evolution of religions, then the burden of proof to support and defend that argument is on you. Not me.

Hardly. It is my position with my supportive documentation. You say I am wrong but you haven't given me a reason to believe I am wrong. Why should I change my position?

Your position is that Judaism, and the way that the Israelites worship their god, along with their scriptures, and even the advent of an off-shoot of it (Christianity), was not influenced by pagan religion, isn't it? I've shown you examples of parallel belief systems which Historically and factually can be traced to having a direct impact on the evolution of Jewish and Christian thought, not only directly but indirectly. These beliefs pre-date any evidence of Judaism staking claim to those beliefs. Your defense of those examples is "Well, Genesis talks about what happened "in the beginning" so it's older and therefor Judaism influenced the pagan religions... "

You have shown examples of parallel belief systems but then applied it to the fact that Judaism/Christianity was influence by it. I showed you how the majority of your claims were after Judaism started so it would be in reverse. Those that were at the same time period simply shows they existed at the same time. Monotheism is the one faith that was different than all the rest. It doesn't show any influence but a declarations that they are different.

That's not how it works. If you're going to claim that Genesis is your root source, then you have to also prove that Genesis is a valid source.

It is my theory. You don't have to accept it. I have no reason to reject it.

Your inability to see a problem with your source material citing itself as authoritative really isn't my problem. I will suggest, just person to person, that as long as you maintain that belief, then you'll be hard-pressed to have worthy debate with anyone who disagrees with you because you;ll always have this weak cop-out of claiming an argument from authority without having truly established that authority.

And yet, likewise, you haven't pressed in any form that I am wrong. Is it because you have a weak case?

 

[outhouse]

It is my position with my supportive documentation

That's the problem.

We require credible docs

 

[sojourner]

You certainly haven't offered a reason for me not to believe it.

Find one instance where the Jews performed one ritual human sacrifice. There's your reason to believe it -- there are no instances of ritual human sacrifice.

Yes... that is the English translation that those who read it believe the one who would bruise the head of the serpent would be the Messiah. Targum's Jonathan and Onkelos agree. Why should I disagree?

No, that's commentary -- not the actual textual content. Plus, Targum is hardly an exegetical authority on the Hebrew texts (primarily because it's restricted to the Aramaic translations). That's why you should disagree -- because it's not contained in the texts, themselves.

 

[sojourner]

If we are reconstructing an accident and there are four witnesses, we take a statement to see if there is agreement and from their statements we reconstruct what happened.

The gospels aren't witnesses.

 

[sojourner]

That's the problem.

We require credible docs

"Credible" being the key term here.

 

[sojourner]

he made a claim already he is working on his doctorate in theology

I wonder from which online, unaccredited "degree-factory?" Because the arguments made thus far certainly aren't of a doctoral level of either information or exegetical acumen.