was the "new testament" actually finished around 400 AD?

[Retro Rob]

Why should we believe that there is a god capable of it in the first place? Sure, if you begin by assuming there exists a being with limitless powers a lot of things become possible, but that has all the benefits of theft over honest toil.

You don't have to believe anything. Please, no one's forcing you.

The idea of pregnancy resulting from the spontaneous appearance of a male gamete in the female organism *is* absurd, and has no precedent in human biology whatsoever.

Don't you believe life spontaneous appeared from nothing? :hmm:

 

[HumblePie]

the flood has been connected to the filling of the black sea. it is also a sumerian tale. hebrews took it as their own.

New religions tend that conquer and area tend to take in bits from the old religions in the area to ease the transition.

 

[rudeguy]

New religions tend that conquer and area tend to take in bits from the old religions in the area to ease the transition.

Could you please site a documented instance of this?

 

[norseamd]

New religions tend that conquer and area tend to take in bits from the old religions in the area to ease the transition.

are you saying others took the great flood from the hebrews?

the story is called the epic of gilgamesh. the sumerians were around thousands of years before the hebrews.

the natural disaster is called the great deluge i think.

 

[HumblePie]

You don't have to believe anything. Please, no one's forcing you.


Don't you believe life spontaneous appeared from nothing? :hmm:

From nothing? No.

From chemical reactions of a highly active atom called carbon that formed basic amino acids that later formed into bigger conglomerations of other carbon molecules that started working together to stay the molecule that they formed. Then eventually through various means, of energy and chemical reactions mostly, the molecules formed something like a virus that eventually turned into a single cell organism. From which the continuation of bigger and better as the precedent being set by the original carbon molecules to form bonds became an inherent prime directive of the organisms. After billions of years those basic carbon building blocks became what we see on Earth today as life after eventually becoming self aware in the need to conquer out environment to still fulfill the original mandate of the original carbon molecules or to continue to grow bigger and better.

 

[HumblePie]

are you saying others took the great flood from the hebrews?

the story is called the epic of gilgamesh. the sumerians were around thousands of years before the hebrews.

the natural disaster is called the great deluge i think.

No I am saying that when a new religion comes around that displaces the old religion(s) of an area it typically absorbs many of the components of the old to make the transition to the new easier for those that used to practice the old.

 

[HumblePie]

Could you please site a documented instance of this?

Do you REALLY need this or can you not spend 5 seconds on google to see the thousands of instances of this? This is pretty fundamental way that religions have "grown" over human history.

 

[norseamd]

the tale may predate the sumerians but it also predates the hebrews by a far margin

 

[rudeguy]

Do you REALLY need this or can you not spend 5 seconds on google to see the thousands of instances of this? This is pretty fundamental way that religions have "grown" over human history.

So that is a no?

 

[norseamd]

Do you REALLY need this or can you not spend 5 seconds on google to see the thousands of instances of this? This is pretty fundamental way that religions have "grown" over human history.

true

roman conquest of the gauls or the ayran conquest of the dravidians comes to mind

 

[HumblePie]

So that is a no?

If you want a basic and very documented version of this happening just google Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, and then Christianity during the Roman empire.

Seriously this is basic theology 101 here.

 

[norseamd]

greek and roman mythology are descendants of ayran mythology. so are germanic, vedic, slavic, iranian, and celtic.

 

[norseamd]

hinduism is a mixture of indo ayran and dravidian religion

 

[norseamd]

but the hebrews never conquered mesopotamia. they took it from their conquerors.

were you just bringing up the idea

 

[HumblePie]

greek and roman mythology are descendants of ayran mythology. so are germanic, vedic, slavic, iranian, and celtic.

Oh I know this. Some of it just shared stories as merchants or nomads travel around and bring what they hear from one religious group of people to another. Some of it is directly from conquering areas which happened a lot back then.

 

[HumblePie]

but the hebrews never conquered mesopotamia. they took it from their conquerors.

were you just bringing up the idea

What? Hebrews at one point were conquers in the area. To a degree everyone back then did it. The first testament even has stories about it like Joshua conquering the land. There was new huge hebrew empire back in the day like the Roman Empire, but not everyone practicing the hebrew religion back then were peace loving people.

 

[norseamd]

wikipedia says the some christian beliefs like a cataclysism, angels, final judgement, etc. are inherited from zorosterism, but many religions have these as well, like norse mythology. christianity was also a mediteranian wide religion, not just a roman religion.

my question is what happened between the early underground days and the edict of constatine? how did christianity rise to a major influence?

 

[norseamd]

What? Hebrews at one point were conquers in the area. To a degree everyone back then did it. The first testament even has stories about it like Joshua conquering the land. There was new huge hebrew empire back in the day like the Roman Empire, but not everyone practicing the hebrew religion back then were peace loving people.

but not mespotamia.

 

[rudeguy]

If you want a basic and very documented version of this happening just google Greek Mythology, Roman Mythology, and then Christianity during the Roman empire.

Seriously this is basic theology 101 here.

So a really big no?

 

[norseamd]

much of the levant was conquered by the hebrews, but not mesopotamia, egypt, southern arabia, or even anatolia.

 

[AViking]

I don't think you understand what I'm telling you. 98% if current percentages hold up historically.

Human beings innately understand the existence of God...to frame this as my God vs. your God is wrong thinking...I'm talking about everyone's God...one that doesn't fit into a box fabricated by 3 pounds of brain.

As far as I know 2% of the world is atheist with another 10% being non-religious. In Sweden 18% are atheist and I'm not able to find a number for non-religious. The USA is very religious and this is the frame of reference you're coming from but the USA does not equal the world.

Honestly though, who cares? At least on this forum. At best these numbers are useful for calling the other side stupid or unenlightened and that's not very useful.

I like how people though use the bible in circular logic to back up their arguments. The bible says a virgin birth happened therefor it is true. That's absurd since the bible was written long after the fact. The gospels were written by people that neither met Jesus or were alive during his lifetime - let alone his virgin mother. The old testament was written over hundreds of years. It's mostly a recycled story that has been told time and time again.

I get the distinct impression that you guys advocating the bible as sacred truth have not read it.

Oral tradition was far more important back then and I think it's an important consideration. However so is the phenomenon of "telephone". Surely you all played this as a child. Stories change and this one was not written down until many decades later. Would you believe a story about a virgin birth told 100 years after the fact by someone who was not there?

It's very interesting to read but so is some of the more modern analysis. I'm more interested in the history than the religion. I like the current research with pottery shards, strata, etc and carbon dating as they go through the historical bible.

I think everyone is free to have faith in whatever they want. However the bible is just a book. A creation myth. It is just a story like so many told before it and so many that will be told after it. Worshiping it is a fools errand.

 

[rudeguy]

As far as I know 2% of the world is atheist with another 10% being non-religious. In Sweden 18% are atheist and I'm not able to find a number for non-religious. The USA is very religious and this is the frame of reference you're coming from but the USA does not equal the world.

Honestly though, who cares? At least on this forum. At best these numbers are useful for calling the other side stupid or unenlightened and that's not very useful.

I like how people though use the bible in circular logic to back up their arguments. The bible says a virgin birth happened therefor it is true. That's absurd since the bible was written long after the fact. The gospels were written by people that neither met Jesus or were alive during his lifetime - let alone his virgin mother. The old testament was written over hundreds of years. It's mostly a recycled story that has been told time and time again.

I get the distinct impression that you guys advocating the bible as sacred truth have not read it.

Oral tradition was far more important back then and I think it's an important consideration. However so is the phenomenon of "telephone". Surely you all played this as a child. Stories change and this one was not written down until many decades later. Would you believe a story about a virgin birth told 100 years after the fact by someone who was not there?

It's very interesting to read but so is some of the more modern analysis. I'm more interested in the history than the religion. I like the current research with pottery shards, strata, etc and carbon dating as they go through the historical bible.

I think everyone is free to have faith in whatever they want. However the bible is just a book. A creation myth. It is just a story like so many told before it and so many that will be told after it. Worshiping it is a fools errand.

Hi

We are still waiting cor the archeological evidence.

As far as I know 2% of the world is atheist with another 10% being non-religious. In Sweden 18% are atheist and I'm not able to find a number for non-religious. The USA is very religious and this is the frame of reference you're coming from but the USA does not equal the world.

Honestly though, who cares? At least on this forum. At best these numbers are useful for calling the other side stupid or unenlightened and that's not very useful.

I like how people though use the bible in circular logic to back up their arguments. The bible says a virgin birth happened therefor it is true. That's absurd since the bible was written long after the fact. The gospels were written by people that neither met Jesus or were alive during his lifetime - let alone his virgin mother. The old testament was written over hundreds of years. It's mostly a recycled story that has been told time and time again.

I get the distinct impression that you guys advocating the bible as sacred truth have not read it.

Oral tradition was far more important back then and I think it's an important consideration. However so is the phenomenon of "telephone". Surely you all played this as a child. Stories change and this one was not written down until many decades later. Would you believe a story about a virgin birth told 100 years after the fact by someone who was not there?

It's very interesting to read but so is some of the more modern analysis. I'm more interested in the history than the religion. I like the current research with pottery shards, strata, etc and carbon dating as they go through the historical bible.

I think everyone is free to have faith in whatever they want. However the bible is just a book. A creation myth. It is just a story like so many told before it and so many that will be told after it. Worshiping it is a fools errand.

 

[norseamd]

No I am saying that when a new religion comes around that displaces the old religion(s) of an area it typically absorbs many of the components of the old to make the transition to the new easier for those that used to practice the old.

what about the conflict between aten worshipping pharoahs and amun worshipping priests.

it seems like some aten worshippers may have fled egypt and mixed with arabian nomads and then moved into the levant.

 

[Retro Rob]

As far as I know 2% of the world is atheist with another 10% being non-religious. In Sweden 18% are atheist and I'm not able to find a number for non-religious. The USA is very religious and this is the frame of reference you're coming from but the USA does not equal the world.

Honestly though, who cares? At least on this forum. At best these numbers are useful for calling the other side stupid or unenlightened and that's not very useful.

I like how people though use the bible in circular logic to back up their arguments. The bible says a virgin birth happened therefor it is true. That's absurd since the bible was written long after the fact. The gospels were written by people that neither met Jesus or were alive during his lifetime - let alone his virgin mother. The old testament was written over hundreds of years. It's mostly a recycled story that has been told time and time again.

I get the distinct impression that you guys advocating the bible as sacred truth have not read it.

Oral tradition was far more important back then and I think it's an important consideration. However so is the phenomenon of "telephone". Surely you all played this as a child. Stories change and this one was not written down until many decades later. Would you believe a story about a virgin birth told 100 years after the fact by someone who was not there?

It's very interesting to read but so is some of the more modern analysis. I'm more interested in the history than the religion. I like the current research with pottery shards, strata, etc and carbon dating as they go through the historical bible.

I think everyone is free to have faith in whatever they want. However the bible is just a book. A creation myth. It is just a story like so many told before it and so many that will be told after it. Worshiping it is a fools errand.

Didn't you say archaeology proved the Bible inaccurate? Where is this evidence?

Please, show me anything irrefutable that confirms that the the Bible was written by people who never met Jesus. Back this up.

You're a fool, and losing all credibility.

 

[norseamd]

much of the new testament comes from diciples of jesus.

scientific analysis often thinks they are the true authors.