Was Jesus the god that Christians say he said he was?

[australopithecus]

1. pity! without me this forum would be a 100% atheist forum...

Why are you still asserting this lie when I myself have given you a list of Christian members in another thread?

Dragan Glas, YesYouNeedJesus, Stripe, BonEnyart, TheOnlyThing2Fear and Radd are all Christians who post here regularly. Hytegia is a Pagan, not an atheist.

So are you going to concede you are wrong about this being an atheist forum?

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

VyckRo, the more you lie about us all being atheists, the more you show us how arrogant, stubborn and naive you really are. You haven't shown any intellectual honesty thus far. If you keep on with this bullshit, you'll be proving Hytegia and the others' point.

You know what? If there's any intolerance on the LoR forums, it's not towards theists, or Christians, it's towards annoying people like yourself, who have nothing to do here but to repeat the same bullshit over and over again after being proved wrong. If you have a problem with that, none of us give a single fuck, so you can kindly leave and return to your cave.

 

[AronRa]

I never get 'desperate' about anything. Neither do I need to legitimize my own opinion, but it is notable in this instance that it is shared by some brilliant scholars devoted to the study of this topic.

Please, list a list whit their names!

I already did -starting with Sir. Isaac Newton. Surely you would agree that Newton is generally considered to brilliant, but he had another advantage over you too. Apparently he rejected the divinity of Jesus and the concept of the Trinity, and he claimed special revelation direct from God insuring that his interpretation of the scriptures would be superior to yours. How could you possibly argue with that?

However you want to misrepresent the account of Vesuvius does not change the fact that it was recorded by contemporaries

-I do not misrepresent nothing, I just tell you how it happened. There was no interest to record this event, the subject of the letters is the death of an uncle.

If there was no interest to record the event, then it would have been such a long, detailed, and interesting account as it was. That is how you misrepresent it.

- Let's not forget that God is not the only actor in this play, there is also your "revolutionary" friend. :lol: :lol:

What revolutionary friend do you think you're talking about?

The fact remains that there is still no extra-Biblical evidence of Jesus nor of any of the other fables in the Bible. None of your smoke screens will obscure that fact.

- I continue to tell you that we as historians, we do not rely exclusively on contemporary evidence.

Thank you for admitting that I am correct on this important point.

And the books included in the Bible are pretty good in the absence of other testimony.

No, they're not, not even according to many Biblical scholars, much less historians, archaeologists and so on. The books in the Bible are not "in the absence of 'other' testimony; they are in the absence of any testimony.

I believe there was an actual cult leader who inspired much of the stories of Jesus' life

No?/yes? continue to be slippery AronRa? and transform a field of science as History in a philosophical/sophist battle?

I was never 'slippery' to begin with, and history was never science to begin with. The legends of Jesus were apparently based on a real cult leader once upon a time which were then greatly exaggerated.

You see, If you deny His existence as a historical character then you put yourself in opposition to all scholars specialize in this area,

Not all of them.

if you say that it was a `cult leader who inspired much of the stories of Jesus' life` " then the burden of proof is on your shoulders to prove your claims, and to deny the evidence presented so far in favor of the classical version.

I have no such burden. I did not state this as fact or knowledge but as a belief, and I have already explained why I hold that belief. There is no more burden I need bear.

Paul's Letter

​

Amusingly, this letter is said to have been dated to within months of Jesus' death. In order to know that, you would also have to know when Jesus died -and when he was born. You don't know the answer to either question, nor can you -given the contradictions in the Bible on both accounts.

Scholars states that,the story of Jesus is not a myth which grew with time, You will need to, prove that it was not so, and to bring evidence in favor of your theory.

You don't have a scholarly concensus, and I don't have anything that qualifies as a theory. I only have a belief, a suspicion that is also shared by respected seminary scholars. I don't need to 'prove' anything. But I can cite parallels. In his book, Helter Skelter, prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi described how difficult it was to gather reliable courtroom testimony against cult leader, Charles Manson. The problem was that so many people were convinced that he was capable of remote viewing, astral projection, and/or telepathy. All their testimony had to thrown out as an issue of mental competency, which would not have been the case in the 1st century. In one case, his followers claimed that Manson even made their bus fly like an airplane. This was in the age of enlightenment!? Imagine what sort of stories we would likely hear about Manson had he lived in a time when people were readily accepting of wild-ass stories like these.

Again I remind you that here we speak of a scientific field, and that we are not competing philosophical, on who can produce the best arguments.

Again I remind you that we are NOT speaking of any field of science; we're talking about history instead -which is much more speculative.

when the people in Jesus' own home town didn't buy into his alleged miracles

What miracles are you talking about?

In the story, (as you yourself pointed out) Jesus didn't specify.

Therefore you just exaggerate a little, to promote your predetermined ideas! correct?

I've never yet seen you be correct about anything. I'll never need nor want to exaggerate anything the way you must, and my ideas are not predetermined like yours are. That is because the advantage that I have over you is that I am not committed to defend any position a-priori. I am free to be objective. Unlike you, it does not matter to me whatever I would rather believe; accuracy matters more. Your goal is to defend your preconceived notions no matter how wrong they may seem to be, so you will lie if necessary rather than ever dare to concede any critical failure. You have no choice. You're bound to a belief system,meaning you have both required beliefs and prohibited beliefs. Your religion bribes you with vague but unimaginable rewards only on the condition that you maintain your delusion, and it threatens you with a fate worse than death if you even allow yourself to be honest enough to examine your own position objectively. Fortunately I don't any such restrictions on whether I believe or doubt any particular thing, and I'm safe in the knowledge that even if a god really existed, Hell still wouldn't, and Heaven isn't realistic either.

or when Jesus cursed a tree after looking into it to see if it had fruit

He was at the same time, "Fully Man" and able to feel the humanity in all its forms.

And apparently given to cursing innocent organisms for petty reasons like 'revenge'. That one concept alone disproves the supremacy of your god in whatever form you claim for it.

There was obviously disagreement in the earliest 'Christians' as to whether Jesus was wholly human or wholly divine

not really,

Yes really,at least according to my professor of my college class on world religion, who was also a Christian with a doctorate in theological studies.

The fact that the scriptures do not actually support the idea of the trinity was brought up at the Council of Nicea, and several times thereafter.

Because of the persecutions, many of the early Christian texts, were lost, but the idea of the Trinity, it is found in the 2nd century

I found nothing in your explanation that would support either your point of the trinity being described in the 2nd century, nor dismissing the parallels between the Christian trinity and the Hindu trimurty. What still seems apparent to me is the idea that over the course of the first century (at least) the concept of the trinity was devised in a failed attempt to reconcile Paul's version of Christianity with that of the Gnostics and Ebionites, and all of them collectively vs the contradictions between the claims reportedly made by Jesus in the New Testament and the contrary comments attributed to YHWH in the Old Testament.

Newton are not "nullity" on the theological level. All theological opinions are equal since no one can show that their interpretation is any more accurate than anyone else's, and no one can distinguish their religious beliefs from figments of imagination.

-I guess here is that American principle, stating that everyone is right,

Wrong. As should be obvious, I cannot respect henotheism either.

but you see AronRa in this way several problems are born:
1. if you accept that Jesus is a historical character then what he preached is simply a matter of history. You can not say that, what Julius Caesar or Napoleon said or did, it is a subject free to be interpreted by anyone.

You're not making sense. I say that Jesus was not an historical character because no historian accounts for him, and there is no extra-Biblical evidence of him. I'm sure some cult leader did exist who was exagurrated into the legendary figure you know think is listening to you, but that figure isn't remembered historically either, and if he was, he certainly would not have been the character you imagine he was.

2. also, you can not have a discussion in which you claim, that you want to establish the historical truth, and affirm at the same time, that anyone opinions are equal valid (Then accept my opinion, and we stop talking)

Again, you're not making sense. I never said opinions were equally valid. I said there is no way to tell whether anyone's religious beliefs were any more or less accurate than anyone else's, and that it also impossible to distinquish any religious belief from the illusions of delusion.

3. It is totally dishonest, to reject dozens of sources, from that geographic area, that language, and a close historical period, and bring to your support, what some people believed one thousand and so years later on another continent.

Then why do you do that with regard to the similarities in the trimurti? To say nothing of similarities in Egyptian, Persian, Greek, and Semitic polytheism. We are not talking about different continents; we're talking about a continuous network of neighboring faiths, and your religion has apparently borrowed from all of them.

I know you meant to accuse me of what you yourself are doing, but I cannot ignore that which was never presented to begin with.

Obviously Jesus (the character in the Bible) did not think that he was God. If he were an actual person, then he seems to be doing exactly what Akenaten did, placing himself as the gateway to the sun-god; "No one gets to Aten but by me

No! Akenaten according to his cult, He Was GOD! Aton was only his personal God, that Akenaten favor. Aton was never a god of the masses, Aton was only the personal god of the Akenaten family and friends. For the masses, the Pharaoh remained the true God on earth.

Nope, sorry. Kings and Pharoahs were generally considered divine, and some of them still are, but every reference I've read for Akhenaten shows him as the gateway to Aten,for exactly the reason you yourself just explained. Akhenaten said there was only one god, and he wasn't it.

And here and prove that AronRa lied:

"No one gets to Aten but by me"

In the poems that Akenaten dedicated to Aton never was said anything like that.

Not literally translated, no. But that is the generally-accepted implication of his writings none the less, this is what many egyptologists have been saying for quite a while now. "Akhenaten was considered to be the son of the Aten, and it was through him that the Egyptians were to worship the sun." -Encyclopedia Britannica

"As to the character of Akhenaten, Dr. Reeves finds him to be arrogant and egocentric, though intelligent and well versed in the theology of his time. He began his reign with a clear idea of his mission and a determination to share it with Egypt. By year 5 he had changed his name to Akhenaten, "He who is effective on the Aten's behalf", and had declared himself to be the Aten's sole representative on earth.
Shortly after this, he began the establishment of a new capital city at Amarna. There follows a very detailed description of the city of Akhetaten and its environs.
As for the inspiration of the new religion, Dr. Reeves believes that it was a mix of the religious, intellectual, and political. He finds that the famous "Hymn to the Aten" borrows freely from a variety of sources and that in the final analysis, it says that no one can know or contact the Aten except for Akhenaten.",Ellen LeBlanc's review of Akhenaten:Egypt's False Prophet

"Akhenaten's religion is based on a Holy Trinity to begin with, composed by Aten, himself and Nefertiti, what drives Hornung to question the monotheistic character of Atenism, although he doesn't seem equally willing to dispute Christianity's monotheism. Besides, Aten, the One God, shines only over the King and his family, and the King and son of God is reported to have said to his Father: "There is no other who knows you." Thirteen centuries later, another Son of the One God proclaimed in the very same way: "No one comes to the Father but by me".",Erik Hornung; Akhenaten and the Religion of Light

You're very confrontational and acusatory. You obviously fantasize about having a moment when you can catch me in a lie and say, "A-Ha! I've gotcha!", but that's just not going to happen, because I don't need to lie, nor would I ever want to. My goal is nothing like yours. I don't have any need-to-believe. I have only a desire to improve my understanding, and the only way to do that is to find the flaws in my current perception and correct them. So there can never be a time when I would even want to lie in defense of anything I currently believe. That would defeat my own purpose. If you could show where I am in error, I would have to accept that. Whenever I show that I am right, you have to deny it. Yours is the dishonest position, not mine.

 

[Gnug215]

VyckRo. Why do you even post here? Your obvious disdain for atheists aside, you know full well we're not buying the nonsense you're selling. You've convinced no one nor will convince anyone. What exactly is your motivation?

1. pity! without me this forum would be a 100% atheist forum, and you will discussed only between yourself. :lol: :lol: :lol:

VyckRo, now you're either being dishonest or conveniently inattentive.

It has been pointed out to you that this forum is not 100% atheist in this thread: http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?f=64&t=7510

If you've lost track of the threads you've posted in, I suggest using the "View your posts" function in the "Forum Views" roll-down menu in your upper right corner.

You are so tolerant on this forum that I see that Christians do not cease to post here!

What? You seem to be saying the exact opposite of what you intended here, or you're trying hard to be sarcastic, and failing.

 

[VyckRo]

I was never 'slippery' to begin with, and history was never science to begin with. The legends of Jesus were apparently based on a real cult leader once upon a time which were then greatly exaggerated.

The best proof of the dishonesty of my interlocutor, is the fact that he has come to deny, the history, science status.
Now although there are those who believe that history is only a "Humanities", and some conspiracy which speculate that Christianity is a religion built artificial from other religious or people who write successful novels that Jesus is a character of legend, in case of AronRa It is no accident that he believes all these things.
Especially when I saw him on BlogTv almost crying ( literally) that religion commit atrocities against children. maybe he should try gosateizm for a change
And he's willing to do "everything" to stop that.

Now to deny the status of science to history is absolutely necessary in the AronRa equation. Also, he is absolutely compelled to deny the existence of Jesus. You have to understand that AronRa does not want to make any compromises, becouse that thread long as HE exists Christianity will exists.
If history says it, then history itself must go, if all current scholars say it, then they all must be wrong.

AronRa is prepared to deny anything, to undermine the religion that built the modern society. The religion that has made the modern European culture, that implemented science and education , that generated the pre-industrial revolution of the Middle Ages, that preserved ancient literature, but AronRa's eyes see only some demented parents, who use religion to escape justice, or some impostors who use religion to avoid paying taxes.

Has AronRa a good reason to support a predetermined conclusion?
Yes he has!
All those abused children, and all those impostors.
But that justifies a lie?
No!


However I will remain professional, and I will try to explain to AronRa,how things stand.
After all he claims, that he wants to learn
First, history advanced significantly from the time of Herodotus, when we were talking only of storytellers.
Today history is a Social science, that is based on a Historical method.
So much history has evolved that nowadays we are talking about the "Auxiliary sciences of history" or the "special sciences of history" I'll therefore take my textbook of "Specials sciences of history" and I will list some random "Specials Sciences" that nowadays history is dependent.

- archivistic (Archival science)
- Archaeology
- Diplomatics
- Filigranologia ( watermark study?)
- Miniaturistic study ( miniaturology ?)
- Steganography
- Genealogy
- Heraldry
- Metrology
- Sigillography
- Epigraphy
- Numismatics
- Palaeography
- Codicology
- Toponymy
- Chronology
- Museology
- Papyrology
---------------------------
* those marked with yellow, I am not sure on the translation!
--------------------------

The history of these sciences , is as follows:
Almost all listed above have started out as sub-sciences of History, that is History as the mother science and the above, children of hers.
Many began to break from the mother-history and to become autonomous science, and the best example is Archaeology.

Today history is working with a lot of sciences, to date with precision, various artifacts.
Here I remember of a Treaty of palynology that must be somewhere in my library, very important for as, because this science can tell as, whether a person was, for example, in a pilgrimage at Jerusalem. And that from a piece of clothing recovered from that person grave.
Or Philology and here I can not, not remember of the Donation of Constantine, which was the basis for papal supremacy in the Middle Ages. And in accordance with this document the emperor Constantine I supposedly transferred his imperial authority to the Pope from Rome, and the western part of the Roman Empire. After which he withdrew to an provincial city, leaving the Pope as the sole leader of the Roman Empire. The document sought to cancel the decision of Emperor Theodosius that left the authority to the east.
But as any language evolves, and as Gay means something in medieval English, and something now. The same was true for the Latin of Constantine and the Latin of Pepin's chancellery.
So a document can be dated with precision whit Philology

Therefore, history is accepted as a science of study of the past (History It's the Science of the Past).
sse
http://genesismission.4t.com/history/History_the_Science_of_the_Past.html

----
Some information about Akhenaten, before starting!


From the year considered as the start of Akhenaten reform, and up to year 1 of the Christian era, about 1330 years have passed.
Only a few years after the death of Pharaoh Akhenaten, that is, after Tutankhamun died, (and here I will avoid all the chronological problems whit Neferneferuaten, Smenkhkare and Ay. So not long after Akhenaten death (1335BC) Horemheb (1319BC) decrees that all the years that have passed from the death of Amenhotep III ( Akhenaten's Father ) until his reign, to be deleted from the official lists of Pharaohs, all (Akhenaten, Neferneferuaten, Smenkhkare, Tutankhamun) those who succeeded Amenhotep III to be forgotten.
And Amenhotep III to be succeeded in the official list of pharaohs by Horemheb.
Therefore the heretic pharaoh was forgotten until modern times, and yes, he was forgotten in the time of Jesus too.
There is no connection between the two, not even the on speculative level. ( Arthur Weigall, Dominic Montserrat )

Several other problems arise:

1. As many historians have notice including, Egyptologist John Wilson, in the cult of Akhenaten, were at least two gods, because the Pharaoh was regarded as god.
2. People at the court of Pharaoh Akhenaten, worshiped mainly the Faron, Aton was only the personal god of Pharaoh Akhenaten "Nobody knows you, outside of your son". This explain. the disappearance of this religion with it founder. No other religion has gone so fast, his son Tutankhamun already reinstalled the cult of Amon. Certainly persecution can not be the cause of disappearance of the cult, especially in a topic where we talk about Christianity.
3. Akhenaten has never tried, to prohibit the worship of other gods, as has been shown, even among the small group of loyal subjects, that have followed the Pharaoh in the new capital, were people who worshiped other gods.
4. God Aton, was not an invention of the Pharaoh Akhenaten , was simply his personal God, and it is possible to speak of a polytheistic religion, where The Pharaoh ( and only him) have a preferred god, and no other god besides him.
5. The Pharaoh Akhenaten was not a "prophet" of the desert, he left Teba and he built a new city Tell-el-Amarna, which was followed by a part of his court.
6. The Pharaoh Akhenaten has not made any kind of "evangelism", therefore his cult died so fast. In the two poems that Akhenaten dedicated the to Aton, we speak of a declaration of love from Akhenaten to his personal god.

 

[VyckRo]

"I already did -starting with Sir. Isaac Newton. Surely you would agree that Newton is generally considered to brilliant, but he had another advantage over you too. Apparently he rejected the divinity of Jesus and the concept of the Trinity, and he claimed special revelation direct from God insuring that his interpretation of the scriptures would be superior to yours. How could you possibly argue with that? "

I do not agree with him, I do not agree with Newtonian gravity also, (know, there are several inconsistencies, between his model and the latest discoveries )
"How could you possibly argue with that? "
Very simple when our church compound the bible compound it as a canonical book, for centuries not even many churches, could afford to order a whole Bible. The Church has never considered that its authority comes from the Bible, but exactly the opposite. Protestant reform had to come for the concept "sola scriptura" to be invented. Martin Luther had to find a legitimation for His Church and declared the Bible as the only source of truth.
And even if I understand his desire to separate from the schismatic and heterodox Catholic Church, I can not support a false view "Amicus Plato, sed magis amica veritas" because his doctrine has proved her inefficiency, by the 30,000 protestant churches ths have generated.

No religion is legitimized 100% by its "holy book" they all need an authority beyond that. Even Protestantism recognizes that, only that in the Protestantism, authority is given to anyone, regardless of the moral, social or intellectual condition of that person.
So is a real surprise for me, to see atheists, again and again (Coming from the Protestant world), supporting the Protestant version. Should not thos as "atheists" to be objective? however AronRa makes Newton a prophet and he consider "special revelation" now?

If I talk from a theological point of view, Newton was neither priest nor theologian and his writings had no impact on Christianity ( and with this we finish whit the "special revelation direct from God")
If I talk from a historical point of view, Newton was was no historian nor he had any specialization in the Near Eastern languages. There is no way for him to acquire some information, forgotten for centuries.

"If there was no interest to record the event, then it would have been such a long, detailed, and interesting account as it was. That is how you misrepresent it"

No, if they wanted to record this event, would have done it in a special account, dedicated to this story. Nobody stopped any of the two to do so, nor the state officials, or the hundreds of relatives of the deceased or the survivors themselves.
As about the letter, how many letters of antiques you have read? Keep in the mind that they did not have MTV back then

~What revolutionary friend do you think you're talking about?"

you know ... Him :twisted: "the star of the morning " ... "father of lies"
see
John 8:44
Isaiah 14:12-15

~was never 'slippery' to begin with, and history was never science to begin with. The legends of Jesus were apparently based on a real cult leader once upon a time which were then greatly exaggerated."

-No! Sory,
There is not enough time, for a legend to form.

"Not all of them. "

I am still waiting for that list

~I have no such burden. I did not state this as fact or knowledge but as a belief, and I have already explained why I hold that belief. There is no more burden I need bear."

a belief,? can you define this term? Something similar to a religion? a atheistic religion,in your case ?
dose this "belief" helps you whit your atheism? can it be questioned?

~Amusingly, this letter is said to have been dated to within months of Jesus' death. In order to know that, you would also have to know when Jesus died -and when he was born. You don't know the answer to either question, nor can you -given the contradictions in the Bible on both accounts."

towards the end of the Pontius Pilatus magistracy

~You don't have a scholarly concensus, and I don't have anything that qualifies as a theory. I only have a belief, a suspicion that is also shared by respected seminary scholars. I don't need to 'prove' anything. But I can cite parallels. In his book, Helter Skelter, prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi described how difficult it was to gather reliable courtroom testimony against cult leader, Charles Manson. The problem was that so many people were convinced that he was capable of remote viewing, astral projection, and/or telepathy. All their testimony had to thrown out as an issue of mental competency, which would not have been the case in the 1st century. In one case, his followers claimed that Manson even made their bus fly like an airplane. This was in the age of enlightenment!? Imagine what sort of stories we would likely hear about Manson had he lived in a time when people were readily accepting of wild-ass stories like these. ~

- Charles Manson and the Age of Enlightenment, what a beautiful chronology!
and where is the cult Manson today? probably in the same place where the Akhenaten cult is, to the dustbin of history, so you do not have a good analogy!

~I've never yet seen you be correct about anything. I'll never need nor want to exaggerate anything the way you must, and my ideas are not predetermined like yours are. That is because the advantage that I have over you is that I am not committed to defend any position a-priori. I am free to be objective. Unlike you, it does not matter to me whatever I would rather believe; accuracy matters more. Your goal is to defend your preconceived notions no matter how wrong they may seem to be, so you will lie if necessary rather than ever dare to concede any critical failure. You have no choice. You're bound to a belief system,meaning you have both required beliefs and prohibited beliefs. Your religion bribes you with vague but unimaginable rewards only on the condition that you maintain your delusion, and it threatens you with a fate worse than death if you even allow yourself to be honest enough to examine your own position objectively. Fortunately I don't any such restrictions on whether I believe or doubt any particular thing, and I'm safe in the knowledge that even if a god really existed, Hell still wouldn't, and Heaven isn't realistic either."

- What I found funniest is that in a post in which AronRa claim that, his ideas are not predetermined ends with "I'm safe in the knowledge that even if a god really existed, Hell still wouldn't, and Heaven isn't realistic either. "
Because after all it matters if a Hell or a Heaven exist, and certainly is not a small question, as "what socks I will wear today?"
Certainly this question is more important for an atheist, than would be for me. If atheism is true, things that I have lost are very little, and if atheism is true, certainly I will not have even a second to regret it.
But for an atheist things should be different, the idea of God existence should not be foreign to him, because anthropological studies, shows us that, all human cultures, have known the idea of supernatural. So if you do not assert that atheists are not humans, then you must acknowledge that this concern, exist in the mind of atheist too.
Therefore you must ensure yourself ""I'm safe in the knowledge that even if a god eally existed..."

Therefore AronRa everything you said above, applies to you!

" And apparently given to cursing innocent organisms for petty reasons like 'revenge'. That one concept alone disproves the supremacy of your god in whatever form you claim for it."

-Not because he allowed this, for him to feel the humanity in all its forms, was all part of the plan.

"Yes really,at least according to my professor of my college class on world religion, who was also a Christian with a doctorate in theological studies."

... but he was not a historian? I will consider "your testimony" as a "personal testimony", until I am able to analyze his Treaty, and especially the bibliographic part, hopefully unlike his pupil AromRa, he probably uses some academic sources.

"I found nothing in your explanation that would support either your point of the trinity being described in the 2nd century, nor dismissing the parallels between the Christian trinity and the Hindu trimurty. What still seems apparent to me is the idea that over the course of the first century (at least) the concept of the trinity was devised in a failed attempt to reconcile Paul's version of Christianity with that of the Gnostics and Ebionites, and all of them collectively vs the contradictions between the claims reportedly made by Jesus in the New Testament and the contrary comments attributed to YHWH in the Old Testament. "

First, I gave you a few names that mentioned the Holy Trinity in the 2nd century the as:
- Ignatius of Antioch
- Theophilus, Patriarch of Antioch ( for the Greek world)
- Quintus Tertullian ( for the Latin world).

on the alleged parallels, between the Christian "Trinity" and the Hindu "Trimurti" I have shown that the concepts do not match ( "The Indian populace pays Brahma little atention, while both Vishnu and Shiva are quite popular"), the three persons do not enjoy equal attention, and in
Hinduism the Great Goddess, is not even mentioned in the "Hindu Trinity" formulation. I have told you that in Hinduism the concept of "Trimurti" has evolved in approximately 1000 years.
Therefore there are no parallels!

"What still seems apparent to me is the idea that over the course of the first century (at least) the concept of the trinity was devised in a failed attempt to reconcile Paul's version of Christianity with that of the Gnostics and Ebionites,"

- Realize that the 1st century, is the century in which Jesus preached? and that we do not have a 0 century? right?
And the Gnostics and the Ebionites belong to the 2-3nd century? And your "Paul's version of Christianity" is in the second half of a 1st century?

So! The Holy Trinity is mentioned in the 2nd century
Now
If you confused the publication of an idea, whit the date on which that idea appeared, you will conclude that the German nation, never had Fairy Tales & Folk Tales prior to 1810.
Therefore, an idea almost always occurs, before publication, so the Holy Trinity is mentioned in the 2nd century, and before 2nd century
we have the 1st century ( obvious is the AD age), and then in this century know who preached....

"You're not making sense. I say that Jesus was not an historical character because no historian accounts for him, and there is no extra-Biblical evidence of him. I'm sure some cult leader did exist who was exagurrated into the legendary figure you know think is listening to you, but that figure isn't remembered historically either, and if he was, he certainly would not have been the character you imagine he was."

we can already say that AronRa is a historical negationist, opposed to all modern scholars

"Again, you're not making sense. I never said opinions were equally valid. I said there is no way to tell whether anyone's religious beliefs were any more or less accurate than anyone else's, and that it also impossible to distinquish any religious belief from the illusions of delusion."

You are the one that is not making any sense! Jesus was a historical character, who preached in the first century Israel. His teaching is not, a matter of interpretation for everyone. And not all opinions are a equally valid, some are more accurate then others. Like any historical character Caesar, Aristotle, Pythagoras, said and did some thingst which, if believed by several people, can be true or not.

an example:
A) In the year 49,on January 10, BC, Julius Caesar passed the River Rubicon in Northern Italy, and said:"acta alea est"
B) In the year 47,on April 9, BC, Julius Caesar passed the Colorado River on the American continent and said: "Thank the gods for the turkeys" :lol:

From these two "beliefs" one is more likely than other, even if you do not know anything about Julius Caesar.
In the same way, what testifies a 2nd century Middle East man is more accurate then what Newton said.

"Then why do you do that with regard to the similarities in the trimurti? To say nothing of similarities in Egyptian, Persian, Greek, and Semitic polytheism. We are not talking about different continents; we're talking about a continuous network of neighboring faiths, and your religion has apparently borrowed from all of them."

We can discuss all your Zeitgeist stuff, however, all your similarity will not mean causation

"Nope, sorry. Kings and Pharoahs were generally considered divine, and some of them still are, but every reference I've read for Akhenaten shows him as the gateway to Aten,for exactly the reason you yourself just explained. Akhenaten said there was only one god, and he wasn't it"

facepalm facepalm facepalm

For him, only for him! for everyone other, the Pharaoh was "God", God on earth, and their first concern! He was worshiped and praised by all his subjects, no matter what other god they believed. And he was no "gateway " to nowhere. All your reference you've read, are based on two hymns that Akhenaten dedicated to his Aton God.
In these hymns he dedicated all his love, to his one god Aton. That's all, there was no "salvation" no "evangelism " no nothing, Therefore his religion died with him

"Not literally translated, no. But that is the generally-accepted implication of his writings none the less, this is what many egyptologists have been saying for quite a while now. "Akhenaten was considered to be the son of the Aten, and it was through him that the Egyptians were to worship the sun." -Encyclopedia Britannica"

" nothing indicates that he was no "gateway" or even worse "No one gets to Aten but by me" used as a quote

"As to the character of Akhenaten, Dr. Reeves finds him to be arrogant and egocentric, though intelligent and well versed in the theology of his time. He began his reign with a clear idea of his mission and a determination to share it with Egypt. By year 5 he had changed his name to Akhenaten, "He who is effective on the Aten's behalf", and had declared himself to be the Aten's sole representative on earth.
Shortly after this, he began the establishment of a new capital city at Amarna. There follows a very detailed description of the city of Akhetaten and its environs.
As for the inspiration of the new religion, Dr. Reeves believes that it was a mix of the religious, intellectual, and political. He finds that the famous "Hymn to the Aten" borrows freely from a variety of sources and that in the final analysis, it says that no one can know or contact the Aten except for Akhenaten.",Ellen LeBlanc's review of Akhenaten:Egypt's False Prophet

"Akhenaten's religion is based on a Holy Trinity to begin with, composed by Aten, himself and Nefertiti, what drives Hornung to question the monotheistic character of Atenism, although he doesn't seem equally willing to dispute Christianity's monotheism. Besides, Aten, the One God, shines only over the King and his family, and the King and son of God is reported to have said to his Father: "There is no other who knows you." Thirteen centuries later, another Son of the One God proclaimed in the very same way: "No one comes to the Father but by me".",Erik Hornung; Akhenaten and the Religion of Light

-----

There is an academic standard AronRa, and that is No wikipedia, all you have are speculation that are not supported by evidence.
Speculation good to make a tabloid title, and nothing more.
---

 

[Avatra1]

VyckRo

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Frum

and

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult

leg,·end (ljnd)

1.
a. An unverified story handed down from earlier times, especially one popularly believed to be historical.
b. A body or collection of such stories.
c. A romanticized or popularized myth of modern times.
2. One that inspires legends or achieves legendary fame.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

VyckRo accusing someone of academic dishonesty is like a thief giving his friend grief over not turning in a twenty he found on the sidewalk. Don't you have more important things to do - such as that action-packed thread that you will never return to because it shows how baseless your flippant excuse of "definitions" are?

 

[Dogma's Demise]

Especially when I saw him on BlogTv almost crying ( literally) that religion commit atrocities against children. maybe he should try gosateizm for a change

Oh not this shit again DyckRo... You KNOW damn well that atheism was not the cause of communism, you know that communism did not spawn from an atheist worldview, but from several problems associated with the working class of that time. I mean let's face it, many poor people are just envious of rich people (plus the working conditions, work protection, pay etc. of 1850 weren't exactly that great) and you would have had this problem with or without religion.

Now contrast this with witch hunting (which apparently is STILL practiced today in west africa) thanks to your scripture which says "thou shall not suffer a witch to live". Whether or not that's out of context is irrelevant, the fact that it can inspire people to commit atrocities is what makes it dangerous.

 

[australopithecus]

VyckRo, are you going to admit you were wrong when you stated this would be a 100% atheist forum without you?

1. pity! without me this forum would be a 100% atheist forum...

Why are you still asserting this lie when I myself have given you a list of Christian members in another thread?

Dragan Glas, YesYouNeedJesus, BobEnyart, TheOnlyThing2Fear and Radd76 are all Christians who post here regularly. Hytegia is a Pagan, not an atheist.

So are you going to concede you are wrong about this being an atheist forum?

 

[AronRa]

Surely you would agree that Newton is generally considered to brilliant, but he had another advantage over you too. Apparently he rejected the divinity of Jesus and the concept of the Trinity, and he claimed special revelation direct from God insuring that his interpretation of the scriptures would be superior to yours. How could you possibly argue with that? "

I do not agree with him,

Wait a minute. Newton and I both argued that the Bible does not actually say that Jesus is an avatar of YHWH. You say you disagree with me on that point, but you do not disagree with Newton on that same point?! What?

Should not thos as "atheists" to be objective?

We are.

however AronRa makes Newton a prophet

No, that was Newton's claim, not mine.

and he consider "special revelation" now?

Of course not.

~What revolutionary friend do you think you're talking about?"

you know ... Him :twisted: "the star of the morning " ... "father of lies"

You mean your misunderstanding of Isaiah 14:12-17. He was riduculing Babylonian mythology. That character was not the "lord of lies"; it was Helel bin Shahar, a rebellious prince who's koo against his father failed. His part was played by Venus, the "morning star" which was actually a planet, but of course the people who wrote the Bible didn't understand things like that.

-No! Sory,
There is not enough time, for a legend to form.

Yes there certainly was. It took only two years for similar legends to emerge regarding Charles Manson. My professor of world religions said that the character of Jesus may have lived in the 1st century BCE.

a belief,? can you define this term?

Of course: Something one suspects is true, but does not know to be true.

Something similar to a religion?

No, because beliefs can be based on evidence instead of faith.

a atheistic religion,in your case ?

No, I am neither Buddhist, nor Shaman, nor Jedi, nor any other atheist religion. I am an empiricle rationalist; I believe nothing on faith. I don't believe in an afterlife, nor anything supernatural. Hence I cannot have any sort of religion.

dose this "belief" helps you whit your atheism?

Your question does not make sense. Aheism neither needs assistance nor wants it. Atheism is a resignation, not a resolve.

can it be questioned?

Everything can be questioned, even NOT believing impossible absurdities for no good reason.

~Amusingly, this letter is said to have been dated to within months of Jesus' death. In order to know that, you would also have to know when Jesus died -and when he was born. You don't know the answer to either question, nor can you -given the contradictions in the Bible on both accounts."

towards the end of the Pontius Pilatus magistracy

There is an irreconcileable contradiction there that you're obviously not aware of yet.

"Yes really,at least according to my professor of my college class on world religion, who was also a Christian with a doctorate in theological studies."

... but he was not a historian?

Yes he was.

The best proof of the dishonesty of my interlocutor, is the fact that he has come to deny, the history, science status.

Which I did not do in any case.

Now although there are those who believe that history is only a "Humanities", and some conspiracy which speculate that Christianity is a religion built artificial from other religious or people who write successful novels that Jesus is a character of legend, in case of AronRa It is no accident that he believes all these things.
Especially when I saw him on BlogTv almost crying ( literally) that religion commit atrocities against children.

You're hallucinating now.

maybe he should try gosateizm for a change
And he's willing to do "everything" to stop that.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

Now to deny the status of science to history is absolutely necessary in the AronRa equation.

No it isn't. That's why I don't deny anything that actually is historic..

Also, he is absolutely compelled to deny the existence of Jesus.

No I'm not. I am not 'compelled' to do anything, neither to believe nor disbelieve anything, nor to prove nor disprove anything. My mind and my opinions are free to go where logic and evidence may lead. Your mind is not free in that way. You're bound to a belief system which compells you to lie about people like me.

You have to understand that AronRa does not want to make any compromises, becouse that thread long as HE exists Christianity will exists.

It doesn't bother me whether I should compromise or not.

If history says it, then history itself must go,

Wrong again. You're talking about things history does NOT say.

if all current scholars say it, then they all must be wrong.

Wrong again, you're talking a subject that is disputed by scholars.

AronRa is prepared to deny anything,

Wrong again. I have no such compulsion.

to undermine the religion that built the modern society.

No religion built modern society.

The religion that has made the modern European culture, that implemented science and education , that generated the pre-industrial revolution of the Middle Ages, that preserved ancient literature,

Burning books and converting heathens does not preserve their culture.

but AronRa's eyes see only some demented parents, who use religion to escape justice, or some impostors who use religion to avoid paying taxes.

I see no such things. You're the one who is seeing things.

Has AronRa a good reason to support a predetermined conclusion?
Yes he has!

No he doesn't. That's why he, I do not have any predetermined conclusions.

But that justifies a lie?
No!

That's why I don't lie either.

However I will remain professional,

No, you will remain delusional. You are clearly out of your warped, hate-distorted little religion-twisted mind. Bias and bigotry are all you know, and by them you get everything else wrong. I'm not going to waste another moment on you. I wouldn't mind discussing any particular point you want, one item at a time, but you are clearly a madman and do not appear to be capable of adequate comprehension to discuss anything without vitriolic outbursts and poisoned propaganda.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

maybe he should try gosateizm for a change
And he's willing to do "everything" to stop that.

I don't even know what you're talking about.

To put it simply, VyckRo is trying yet again to link atheism with communism in a very dishonest and misleading manner.

It's his usual slander tactic. He's even claimed that atheists who reject communism or support free markets are simply "deluded".

 

[Anachronous Rex]

To put it simply, VyckRo is trying yet again to link atheism with communism in a very dishonest and misleading manner.

It's his usual slander tactic. He's even claimed that atheists who reject communism or support free markets are simply "deluded".

Wow. Somebody get this guy some Ayn Rand.

Actually, you know what don't. On the off-chance that he likes it that might just make him even more insufferable.

 

[Dogma's Demise]

I do find it funny how VyckRo accuses us atheists and secularists of somehow being "communist" while people like DawahFilms do the exact opposite: "While Secular Humanism is the mother of this irrationality, capitalism its ultimate manifestation- human rights is its codification and the method by which it continues to breathe". :lol:

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Raw, uncontrolled capitalism -
You mean the ultimate paradigm of Darwinian Society and total monopolies, coupled with unfair business practices and shitty dealings? Child labor? No minimum wage? Rat poison in food? Lead in water?

THAT capitalism?

I will not concede anything to VyckRo until he gives me a synopsis of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair and writes a 5,000-word essay titled "Child Labor, Monopolies, and the Business Practices of Rockafeller."
Oh, yeah. 'dat Capitalism.

 

[scalyblue]

Raw, uncontrolled capitalism -
You mean the ultimate paradigm of Darwinian Society and total monopolies, coupled with unfair business practices and shitty dealings? Child labor? No minimum wage? Rat poison in food? Lead in water?

THAT capitalism?

I will not concede anything to VyckRo until he gives me a synopsis of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair and writes a 5,000-word essay titled "Child Labor, Monopolies, and the Business Practices of Rockafeller."
Oh, yeah. 'dat Capitalism.

Uhh, you are aware that Sinclair was trying to convert America to socialism with The Jungle

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Raw, uncontrolled capitalism -
You mean the ultimate paradigm of Darwinian Society and total monopolies, coupled with unfair business practices and shitty dealings? Child labor? No minimum wage? Rat poison in food? Lead in water?

THAT capitalism?

I will not concede anything to VyckRo until he gives me a synopsis of The Jungle by Upton Sinclair and writes a 5,000-word essay titled "Child Labor, Monopolies, and the Business Practices of Rockafeller."
Oh, yeah. 'dat Capitalism.

Uhh, you are aware that Sinclair was trying to convert America to socialism with The Jungle

Yeah.
Care to recall how he was trying to do that, exactly?