Historical antecedents to modern-day Christian fundamentalism

Seems to me the answer is all there. Perhaps you could repeat the part you think I didn't answer.

I suppose it is like any other historical figure. You can believe what they have written or count it as lies, but I don't see what would be lucrative about it.

quote:

---

creavolution writes:
Like HOW the world came to be? IN what way has science ehanced your understanding of the bible? In what way has the bible enhanced your understanding of science?

faith writes:

​

I was like all of you until my 40s, just a fallen person who thought science was about our best handle on The Way Things Are. I liked reading Darwin and Gould and company. I was amazed, in a sort of giddy way, when I came to believe, to consider that the earth was maybe only 6000 years old, because I believed in the billions-of-years assessment of science. The idea of only 6000 years made me laugh. It still does sometimes. Wow, it really could be so. Amazing thought. Sure does shake up one's internal landscape to consider such a change in perspective. All kinds of things had to give to consider that possibility. A true apprehension of the nature of God reorganizes you in all kinds of unexpected ways. It was a discovery per day back in the beginning of my belief. Sometimes a discovery per hour, per minute. I LOVE the God who confounds human wisdom.

---

I asked: In what way has science enhanced your understanding of the bible?(I've corrected my spelling)
and: In what way has the bible enhanced your understanding of science? maybe you can point to where you answered these questions?
from what I see you stated as your main points:

quote:

---

was amazed, in a sort of giddy way, when I came to believe, to consider that the earth was maybe only 6000 years old

---

and

quote:

---

All kinds of things had to give to consider that possibility. A true apprehension of the nature of God reorganizes you in all kinds of unexpected ways

---

nothing adressing the questions. You are not bound to answer of course but it seemed strange that you would quote my questions and then proceed to ignore them

Well of COURSE it doesn't count. Good grief. I have 2 thousand years of people, all the originals having been Jewish and some today as well, who know He was the Messiah. Guess who's wrong? Well, you've bought the Jewish rationalization. You are welcome to it of course, but sorry, all of Christianity disagrees. I assume they believe it. Why does what they believe matter? They tell me it's from God all the time. Funny it's not in scripture if it is. And it can't be because a lot of it contradicts what God said in the scripture. And Jesus condemned it. Yes, DG, I know. They are wrong. Well, your loss then. No, they simply misunderstood God's message to them. As Jesus said. Could you please just think this through a little more carefully? They SAY that it's part of the Torah, yes they do, they certainly do say that, but they haven't a shred of evidence that it is part of Torah and there isn't a hint IN the Torah of an oral law, AND a lot of it contradicts the Torah. They've got themselves convinced it's on a par with scripture and Christians absolutely disagree. OK with you if we disagree? I didn't say that you mentioned Paul, did I? I brought up Paul to answer something you said, I forget what now. John also uses the term "Son of God" and 11:27 and 19:7 are particularly interesting, the first showing that the people expected the Messiah to be literally the Son of God, and the second showing that Jesus Himself used it of Himself in the very special sense of claiming to BE God because the Jews sought the death penalty for that claim as blasphemy. He was legally of the line of David through Joseph, but greater than David which is said in many places, since He preceded Abraham. Well, Christians regard Psalm 2 as Messianic prophecy, and Psalm 101 and I'd have to look up the others. You don't have to regard it that way of course, but then you'll be wrong. When he said that God would send a prophet to them that would be like himself, and that those who wouldn't obey that prophet would be lost. The Old Testament is full of prophecies of the Messiah. "Shiloh" was one name for Him, and Jacob prophesied concerning Judah with reference to Shiloh. The OT is full of Messianic references. Well, get enlightened. It's about the present and some of it is also about the future. You forget that thousands upon thousands of Jews believed He was the Messiah. You want Jewish corroboration that's it. The other Jews were wrong, plain and simple. The Jewish writers of the New Testament said the OT spoke of Jesus. You're the one out of step. It's you who won't recognize the differing views. You wouldn't believe he actually wrote it. You'd be suspicious that somebody else wrote it. If you won't believe what his disciples said, you wouldn't believe what he himself said. And he said THAT by the way.

GDR What is this black and white filter you express here GDR? It need not be either of these. It could easily be an error repeated by an intermediary to a gullible writer or a misunderstanding by a witness of an event through normal human fallibilty that was later transmitted as fact or any number of scenarios.This is the critical element that the bible itself shows by the differences of events in each of the 3 gospels of luke mark and matthew. No recording is perfect and alterations must have at some point applied. It is not a unknown condition that the levels of heroism or depravity get more embellished with the retelling, especially in oral history.Such is another aspect that fails with the biblical texts and that is that there are no documents pertainent to the time frame of the life of jesus. None ,nada zip. It took 60 years for recording to be accomplished and after the people involved {who could verify or refute accounts} had perished.
No coincident documents from seperate sources, not roman, not jewish,not even those people that were cured of diseases like leprosy etc. left a shred of written evidence or oral tradition recorded from the time in question 0 - 30 AD.
3 DECADES passed and then it was recorded yet, not by firsthand accounts, but by what is at this time easily synonymous with legend.Edited by sidelined, : No reason given.

Myth is the substance of the search for knowledge and truth.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Well, not ANY other historical figure because many historical figures are independantly verified in external sources. Fact is, you use the bible as evidence that what is said about Paul is true, therefore you enage in circular reasoning.How do you know that the Damascus road episode actually happened, when historically speaking it appears impossible under Pax Romana? There are other options, could be proaganda, or genuine reports of lies etc. Touring synagogues and living as a guest in other peoples' homes, doing the 'circuit' as a guest speaker isn't relatively lucrative ins first century Palestine? Well, it sure beats working for a living.This is one reason why the disciples lied about Jesus coming back to life, who would wish to return to the crappy lives they had before their meal ticket came along?Brian.

You don't make it easy. I wrote a response to your question and then you come back by quoting one line, right out of context, from my reply.That statement was in reference to having seen the resurrected Christ. I'm not talking about a specific quote from someone, but something that if witnessed would make an indelible impression that could not be misconstrued or misunderstood. I don't believe that to be accurate at that time. Most people would be dependent on the oral history and it would be important for it to be accurate. My understanding is that there were those who were actually assigned to keeping the oral history accurate. To the best of my knowledge that wouldn't be unusual in that era. The oral history predominated.However it doesn't mean that there weren't written accounts that were used when the gospels were written. There is the hypothetical "Q" that may or may not have existed.Also we don't know for sure one way or the other if they were first hand accounts or not. Somebody correct me if I'm wrong.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

It may be circular reasoning but that doesn't make it false. When Paul writes of his own experience we can come to our own conclusions about the truthfulness of it. Propagand if untruthful is a lie. A genuine report of a lie is still a lie. Somehow it seems to me that life as a high profile Pharisee beats doing the circuit and living in other people homes or jail. I don't think being a fisherman would be all that bad. Hey; it's a living.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

who knows, they didn't eather, the authors never knew jesus, not one of them did uh huh, and why should i care about some people who don't have a clue why jewish authors wrote what they wrote? no it doesn't, the gist of the talmud is exactly what jesus said it was: to love other as yourself and also love god. you have been brainwashed to believe the oral law is evil somehow. so i guess if its in this book decided on by men that means its truth then? how nice of a double standard that is for you and your authority is what? the NT? which was writen by men, you think its inspired by god, so is the torah, you are making a faultly judgement call, weres the evidence that the NT is inspired? its a belief, you have no monopoly on what is the true how is it my loss? because i don't take your "evidence" at face value? i don't believe that any of religion is right so, i don't really care, i just look at what people say and go "wait a minute, they work exactly the same!" this just boggles the mind uh huh, thanks for that wonderful insight in to a nice handwave of no substince. how do you know you are reading it right? maybe you are wrong and they arn't no its not, becuase you haven't shown this at all, where does it say that what they wrote down is wrong?
here is some stuff on the oral torah: Oral Torah - Wikipedia
it even gives a reason why its a good idea too, for ever changing life, the leaders of the pharisees added laws that hurt society which is why jesus attacked them, it even says why he did. for making laws they themselves wouldn't follow, jesus isn't attacking the oral law, but legalism no, they don't beleive he would be the son of god, at least no physically, they believe he would be like david a spiritual adopted son of god, are you sure you have read about this? any evidence of this? the linage thing is questionable, since you have to be related to david through soloman, through the father and the linage was cursed yes because anything that suports your religions fabrication is right, even though psalm 2 is not a messianic prophecy according to the people who are decendents of the authors. but of course that doesn't matter does it? yes there are they are clearly defined though.
as for Shiloh its a place its not a name, that is nonsense, its were the jews met in palastine.
http://www.jewsforjudaism.org/web/faq/faq069.html answers this i think, the vulgate translates it badly thus the kjv does too yes, for you it is, because it makes your religion work, but the text doesn't show this, all the stuff isaiah says comes true within the text, not some unkown time frame thousands? no i tihnk its closer to hundreds and believing it doesn't make it true, nor do i believe the jews, but i would accept what they say over people who don't have a clue about that time period what is this? are you just going to contridict me like a spoiled child now? i am saying that maybe the jews understand thier own text more than christians do, did you ever think of that? i recenize the differing views, i don't see them in the text though, because they requre you to pull meanings out of thin air to make it work and twist it to mean something else to make it work.
the OT just doesn't show it, unless you deny the parts that don't, and claim that this part talks about the future even though there is no evidence but your own imagination that they do thanks faith, you just go to show that, no matter what, people feel that anything that smells like questioning the status quo is blasphemy to fundiesanyway i'm done with this, its a waste of time, obviously you feel that there is only one way to look at things, yours.
good luck with that prybar

Not for the Qumran sectarians if the estimates accepted by scholars from paleography and RC dating as 200BCE-70CE are correct. They were busy beavers writing away on all the subjects dear to their heart. Btw, hardly anyone believes they were written in the wilderness.The Complete Dead Sea Scrolls in English--Geza Vermes--pp12-14

The Qumran sectarians regarded 'the Righteous' as ALL 'Sons of God'. Nothing restrictive, especially concerning the Messiah.The designation also applies to various kings in the OT.The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered--Eisenman/Wise--pp68-69

I don't need to guess. I know. The chrisitans are wrong. It doesn't matter how many of them believe, they still are wrong.

I wasn't suggesting that there weren't any written records but they weren't accessible to the lunch bucket crowd.Paul used the term "Son of God" to denote Jesus. The early Jews did have other uses. According to N.T. Wright, "Son of God" in Jewish thought was occasionally used for angels, sometimes for Israel, and sometimes for king. "Son of God" was found as a messianic title at Qumran.

---

Everybody is entitled to my opinion.

This seems, to me, to be waaaay off topic.Fix that please.