Posts by Viviane

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

My argument was not that yahweh predates the semetical region.

I know. I said religion, not region. You said you have evidence. Do you?

You re like an expert on the "straw man", you've done it fantastically. Were you in a pioneer school at some point? Because that would explain it.

Ah, look at you, trying to change the subject and insult me at the same time. Dear, that's not gonna work. You can't insult me and I'll stay on topic (if you don't run away, you've already posted after you said you were done).

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

well as of your last post I'm not going to continue responding. You've demonstrsted your ignorance with astounding loyalty to it, and I think you're really only interested in arguing, which I am not

Well, bye. I find it interesting that, right after you claim to have evidence of your position, you run away when asked for it.

Unlike you, I have read the bible many times, which is why I was able to show you where you are incorrect and reference scriotures that are showing a far earlier monotheistic stance.

Except that you've not done that even once. Also, you've no idea how many times I've read the Bible. Don't make ignorant claims.

I also know, for sure, that the Greek phrase, "ho huios tou anthropou" is only found in the gospels. Okay?

Yes, it would be truly amazing if a Greek phrase were found in something written in not-Greek. That was never the point. You claimed the phrase "son of man" was unique to Jesus and only appeared in the NT. That is demonstrably untrue. Changing your argument after the fact is a weasel move.

The bible wasn't written in English and your insistence otherwise is showing your ignorance

I never said it was. Only an idiot would claim that or attempt to claim I said it.

That Greek phrase, and it's expressed meaning in Greek, IS ONLY FOUND IN THE GOSPELS.

Yes, I would expect the Greek form of a phrase to be written in Greek. In the Hebrew form, it would be written in Hebrew, exactly as it was in the OT, predating Jesus and not unique to the NT.

now I'm done posting on the topic. If you still ensist otherwise please feel free to contact any New Testament scholar of your choosing to inform them they are wrong and you are right.

Why would I contact a New Testament scholar to "ensist" (sic) that you are not done posting on this topic and they are wrong about that? How would I even know what their opinion on you posting on this topic is?

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

A second point I will make as well, because I went on to read your other post, is that the many gods came after the one not before it.

There is ample evidence demonstrating many Semitic gods before Yahweh.

The many gods worshipped in the pagan customs find their originality in the region where babel was founded (which I can't remember what the whole region is called off the top of my head).

Back up. Pagan, at the time, had no meaning for that region. You are pushing back a modern world view into a vastly different culture. You're speaking of the Levant area of West Asia and parts of North Africa. It was populated with Semitic peoples who had common language and religious root. They were the proto-Hebrews, Cannanites, Phonecians, Assyrian, Akkadian, etc.. They shared the same background for language, writing and religion. The Israelite/Hebrew religion was born in this melting pots of gods, goddesses, angels, demons and a continuum of the divine.

You're attempting to separate out the Hebrew/Israelite religion as unique to all the others when, in reality, it sprang from the same source and shares many of the same features. Over time it evolved into something different, as did all the others, but in no way was it's origin unique.

The one God, was worshipped in Salem by Melchizadek long before these other gods popped up created by the people living in the babel region. There are many historical references that I can bring into this that provide their reasons for making this assertion if you like.

I would love to see actual historical evidence that Yahweh pre-dates the Semitic religion from which he came.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

Viviane: Okay, according to you, a person who wish to look at all possibilities to explain a phenomena has a woefully lacking view of science.

That's also either a dishonest or dumb representation of what I wrote and not even close to anything I've said.

I wonder how the phrase "generous interpretation" fit into how you believe we should evaluate other ideas lol.

Well, in this specific case, I am giving you a generous interpretation and assuming that you simply don't understand what I write when you incorrectly regurgitate it instead of actively lying.

67

Exactly what is the HISTORIC view of the DIVINE or of what being GOD meant long ago?

by TerryWalstrom in

the purpose of this topic is twofold.. first, any who are endlessly fascinated by scholarship, practised by genuine bible scholars, are urged by me to do what i did, subscribe to bart ehrman's blog.

the subscription money (as little as $3.95) goes entirely to charity.. secondarily, by broadening our view of the new testament era on up through two millennia to the present day, our knowledge of all things 'christian' is deepened to include actual knowledge (as opposed to watchtower fabrication.

by this i don't mean to imply you'll fall to your knees and get saved, but rather, you'll simply have facts to inform your present transitional mindset toward whatever end you finally choose.. now .

Viviane

i think you're missing my point, I wasn't saying you're right. You're very wrong. by which I mean no offense.

You not knowing what the Bible contains doesn't offend me in any way.

Also so addressing your pseudo knowledge of ancient times, you are incorrect to assert that the expectation of the Hebrews to worship the one God originated as a novel idea in the Ten Commandments

That's not what I said at all.

So no, you're wrong about that. You're not wrong that there were many gods, or that some Hebrews got swept up in the worship of them - but the God of the Hebrews is recorded as far back as Abraham as being yahweh and no other.

El (the supreme God) and Yahweh are distinct and different gods, along with Asherah, who was ALSO worshiped. El, in proto-Hebrew Semitic religion (from which the Hebrew religion sprang), El Elyon was dad and Yahweh and Ba'al were brothers... so, exactly what I said. Yahweh is their national God, the one they worship FIRST, but they also worship many others.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

Unless one proves to be absolutely beyond a shadow of a doubt indisputable, then BOTH should be considered.

Sorry, not how it works.

On the other end of the spectrum, it shouldn't be that all scientific research and study must assume we appeared out of nowhere, that may result in not doing research and study that could answer questions if we are the product of another life. Both are open, both should be on the table.

Not how it works. Follow the evidence. Zero evidence for spirits and gods, tons for naturalistic processes.

Every mystery ever solved turned out to NOT have magic as the answer.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

Hm. So let me get this straight. EOM, in your view, is "not even close" and has a "woefully lacking" view of science because he suggested we should "look" at all possibilities, whereas he should have said "investigate".

That's either an incredibly dishonest representation of what I wrote or an incredibly dumb one. Either way, not even close.

Pray tell how one should investigate all possibilities without looking at them?

I'm not advocating looking at all possibilities, no idea why you would ask me.I would, rather, advocate using the scientific method, namely, define a question, observe, gather data, devise a falsifiable hypothesis, reproducible steps, test it, publish results for others to test. Note that nowhere in the scientific method is there a line that says "investigate all possibilities".

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

those who do not follow religion prefer not to be labeled as atheists

That's how I label myself. I see nothing negative in it.

maybe our creator Isnt a God, did you ever ponder that?

Yes, many people have. In fact, that came up on this thread.

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

In science today I would think that looking at all possibilities is exactly the sort of advice I think one should give to people.

First, there are two key differences between what you wrote and EOM wrote. EOM said we MUST look at all possibilities. You wrote that people should be ALLOWED to look at all possibilities. Those are fundamentally different statements.

To negate the statement one end up with the suggestion that one should not look at some possibilities; however if we are really to take this suggestion seriously, we cannot decide to look or not to look at a possibility by investigating it's properties, because that would exactly require us to look at it in the first place

That's not true at all. No one ever said "don't investigate". The statement by EOM was "look at all possibilities". If a ball sitting on a table moves at a certain time of day, there are a variety of things I can do to determine why that is. What I don't have to do is entertain nonsensical possibilities, such as a butterfly flapping it's wings on Mars is the cause.

Saying "you don't have to consider non-sense or extremely unlikely possibilities" isn't the same as saying "don't investigate", much like saying "must" isn't the same as "allow".

69

Science still doesn't have the answers on how life first appeared

by EndofMysteries in

since so many athiests in this thread, and since i'm going to college, i was curious if what i would learn in biology would change my thoughts and show that life clearly and easily spontaneously happened.

just looking up the origins of dna or rna there is nothing conclusive.

for example, scientists today are able to manipulate life.

Viviane

That's still a more detailed answer than "God did it."

Holy scripture reveals the holy lunch was a holy BLT on rye with a cup of New England style clam chowder. Anyone who disagrees is a heretic worthy of only death.