Foundations

Originally posted by vistesd
I like it! But we ought to have one for “stockings” as well!

Here are some things to read about for the footings.

http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/Kramer/kramer-titile.htm


oops almost left off the site

Originally posted by frogstomp
Here are some things to read about for the footings.

http://www.earth-history.com/Sumer/Kramer/kramer-titile.htm


oops almost left off the site

What a rich site! I never knew that Graves and Patai were hooked up. Have you ever read Patai’s The Hebrew Goddess? Worth a look.

Originally posted by vistesd
What a rich site! I never knew that Graves and Patai were hooked up. Have you ever read Patai’s The Hebrew Goddess? Worth a look.

Here's another interesting site:

http://www-etcsl.orient.ox.ac.uk/edition2/etcslbynumb.php

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++
I already said I thought that Jesus calling the gentiles dogs could actually have been Jesus because its out of character with much of what else he said. How can you trust the gospel writers?
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Sounds like the account where He told the Gentile woman that the children's food should not be given to ...[text shortened]... ]

Isn't it YOU who have been very biased?

Oops got to go now. Talk with you latter.[/b]

In Marks gospel Jesus call the gentiles dogs who he had nothing to say to.

The New Testament is the historical source I consider to be inaccurate. It makes no difference that people in the New Testament were actually historical people, I belive it highly likely that they were. But some events of the New Testament were impossible. They are not reliable and there are plenty more rational reasons why they are in the bible then they actually occured.


I have not come from a background biased against the bible. I came from a background that was biased towards it. Its fairly recently that I became an atheist because I just could not accept that the stories were true, especailly when you look carefully at historical events that just don't match up. As well as this you have to remember that these evangelicals wanted a Messiah and could reasonalbly be expected to alter events to match prophesy. And the propheses themselves come from people no more reliable then the last prophet of God, Mohamed, who you so readily dismiss as some Arab.

So if I've been biased it certainly hasn't been in favour of atheism. You however are hardly likely to look with sceptisism at the bible and think rationally about it. I'm not sure why you can't see that your religion is as much about faith as any other, and also as much about evidence as any other.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
In Marks gospel Jesus call the gentiles dogs who he had nothing to say to.

The New Testament is the historical source I consider to be inaccurate. It makes no difference that people in the New Testament were actually historical people, I belive it highly likely that they were. But some events of the New Testament were impossible. They are not reliabl religion is as much about faith as any other, and also as much about evidence as any other.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In Marks gospel Jesus call the gentiles dogs who he had nothing to say to.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where is the specific verse you are refering to please?


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The New Testament is the historical source I consider to be inaccurate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Give me three historical statements from the New Testament that you know for certainty to be inaccurate.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
It makes no difference that people in the New Testament were actually historical people,
+++++++++++++++++++

Who told you that? If I can't trust it for historical facts how can I trust it for more important truths of salvation and God's plan.

Are you going to say "The New Testament is not correct" in one breath and turn around and say "Well it doesn't matter". It does matter as Peter said:

"For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesuis Christ, but we became eyewitnesses of that One's majesty." (2 Pet. 1:16)

I trust that the New Testament is not "cleverly devised myths".

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I belive it highly likely that they were. But some events of the New Testament were impossible.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Says who?

Which event was impossible?

You are not being specific in your charges. You are being too general and vague.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++
They are not reliable and there are plenty more rational reasons why they are in the bible then they actually occured.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

So now you are saying events did occur but for other reasons than what is stated in the New Testament.

General nonspecific charges. Vague charges which are for you, easy and safe to make.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have not come from a background biased against the bible. I came from a background that was biased towards it. Its fairly recently that I became an atheist because I just could not accept that the stories were true, especailly when you look carefully at historical events that just don't match up.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You became an athiest because of historical events mentioned in the NT that don't match up?

Match up to WHAT? Which event?


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
As well as this you have to remember that these evangelicals wanted a Messiah and could reasonalbly be expected to alter events to match prophesy.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The fact that they wanted a Messiah doesn't prove that they made up a fictitious person Jesus and concocted His deeds and His words.

This is conspiracy theory of the arrogant type. As if it is ONLY you who is concerned with reporting what this Man really did and really said.

So Peter imagined a Messiah and then denied Him to save his own skin?

Your conspiracy theory doesn't make much sense and is too vague and non-committal on details.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
And the propheses themselves come from people no more reliable then the last prophet of God, Mohamed, who you so readily dismiss as some Arab.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There are light years of difference between what Mohamed claimed and what Jesus claimed.

The two men are in two different classes. You're comparing apples and oranges.

Mohammed did not claim to be God incarnate or teach people to "Eat My flesh and drink My blood" or any number of other unique sayings uttered by Jesus.

Jesus said He was "the life." He said "I am the resurrection and the life".


I can't dismiss the words of Jesus, "Son of God," to be basically of the same sort of thngs the so-called last prophet Mohammed taught.

Furthermore, Jesus was selfless. He demonstrated that He cared nothing for Him self. He wanted nothing for Himself. He wanted everything for His Father - to the point of death on a cross.

Mohammed never said that he would come to live inside of his pupils. Jesus said He and His Father would come to make an abode within the one who loved Him.

The claims of Jesus are in another class from those of any other man, including Mohammed. Therefore your attempt to roughly classify them together are weak.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So if I've been biased it certainly hasn't been in favour of atheism. You however are hardly likely to look with sceptisism at the bible and think rationally about it. I'm not sure why you can't see that your religion is as much about faith as any other, and also as much about evidence as any other.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

If you're too vague and general, if you are fearful to commit to specifics how can you charge me with not considering skeptical views?

All I see from you is vague generalities.

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
In Marks gospel Jesus call the gentiles dogs who he had nothing to say to.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Where is the specific verse you are refering to please?


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The New Testament is the historical source I consider to be inaccurate.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

g skeptical views?

All I see from you is vague generalities.[/b]

Your taking this the wrong way. I don't need to give you three historical statments from the bible which are proven to be untrue. The gospels take the form of myth. They may contain truths but they are not exact historical records. Events which actually occured such as teachings of Jesus have contributed to the myth that is written in the gospels. The gospels were unlikly to have been contemporary. They are believed to have been written in the hundred years after Jesus died.

But anyway. Here is something spesifically wrong to make you happy. The gospel of Luke states that Jesus was born when Caesar Augustus called for a census of everyone in the Roman Empire. This happens when Quirinius was governor of Syria, (Luke 2:2). At this time, Herod was king in Judea (Matthew 2:1). However, historically we know that Herod dies in 4 B.C and Quirinius was not the govener of Syria during Herods reign. The gospel writters have made assuptions based on phrophesy of the whereabouts of Jesus' birth. It doesn't fit the facts.

I was agreeing with you when I said that people in the bible were historical. I said it doesn't matter that they actually existed, because fake things can be written about real people. Yes they were real people, but the events written about them prehaps arn't.

So impossible events in the New Testament. Well rising from the dead is a big one. Water in to wine, curing the blind, the list goes on. Plenty of Jewish healers were going around at the time. It was part of the general scene. Its become myth and exagerated.


I am not saying that 'events did occur but not for other reasons in the bible.' I am saying that they did not occur. I am saying there are more believeable reasons for their being in the bible then them actually happening. I could write whatever I wanted down and it wouldn't make it true. It would be far more likly that I just made it up.

I've given you an example of a historical event that doesn't match up. There are plenty more unbelievable things that happened. And all this is in a book which we know had lead to beliefs, like the imaculate conception, on the basis of a mistranslation. Events in the bible are not corroborated in other sources. Yes individuals are. Yes there is evidence that Jesus as a person existed. But that does not make the myths about what he did true. I do not believe that Jesus was fiction and I have never said I did.

What exactly do you know about Mohamed? He did not claim to be divine. I very well could if I wanted to. Would that make me right? Imagine I did. Then imagine someone else said I wasn't. Who do you trust? How can you compare us if we don't agree with each other? All the prophets who came before Jesus are as reliable as the ones who came after. Mohamed didn't think he was divine, he just said he was sent from God. He also said that Jesus wasn't divine.

Even if Jesus did say he was the son of god that doesn't make it true. And its highly unlikely that a monotheistic Jew ever did. Show me the gospel of Jesus. What record did Jesus ever leave? The point is he didn't.


(Mark 7 25-30 Jesus refers to her as a dog when she first comes to him. Not overly repectful?)

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Hadn't actually seen this post. I think the thread is about foundations for our lives rather then foundations for believes. In terms of foundations for belief, I think you answered that already. I base my beliefs on 'valid and rational' evidence whereas your foundation appears to be absolutly nothing. Unless of course you base your faith in the bible wh ace to start in terms of what my life is founded on, but don't know if thats what you mean.

I believe that our beliefs roll into our lives making us the people we
are. I was simply attempting to find out the "foundations" of what
we believe are important, that which we within us that makes us
view all other things the way we do.

For example:
I agree with you family is very important to me, I come from a tight
knit family who loves to get together. My trip was in part to be at a
family reunion, to see those people I grew up with. Since we moved
out west my kids don't have the connection I do to them. My wife and
I tried to tell them, but until they met the 50+ people who showed
up they had no clue, and that was just half of us from just my side,
my wife’s family is very close too, but we were seeing them a little at
a time.

I would have to say my beliefs about God are core too in how I view
all things, but I didn't become a Christian until I was 25, I was not
raised in a church so I don't have the 'religious baggage' some had
when they grew up, my family simple ignored the topic, I guess that
means I was raised as an atheist since God wasn’t really taught within
my family. Most of what I have when it comes to religious knowledge I
have acquired after I got saved and Spirit filled after I was 25.

Whatever you think is your plum line of truth is that you use to judge
all things by, your foundation with which you build your life upon,
that is what I asking for. Sorry for the delay in my response, I’m
attempting to get caught up in a lot of things since we have been gone
from home for 3 weeks.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe that our beliefs roll into our lives making us the people we
are. I was simply attempting to find out the "foundations" of what
we believe are important, that which we within us that makes us
view all other things the way we do.

For example:
I agree with you family is very important to me, I come from a tight
knit family who loves to get t ...[text shortened]... o get caught up in a lot of things since we have been gone
from home for 3 weeks.
Kelly

Ok.

Well beliefs are important to me in terms of foundations. I believe this life is the one shot we have. I'm not living for an afterlife, I don't believe the things I do will effect my eternal soul. So anything I choose to do for anyone else, I'm doing it for them and not for heaven or god. I think the most important aspect of moral disicions should be based in its effect on the suffereing of others. I don't believe in morality for its own sake, and sometimes I completly disagree with some morals based in Christianity. However, a lot of the morals I do have are based in my upbringing which was Christian.

Thats part of my foundation. From there its up to me to try and actually do some good. I don't know exactly what I'll end up doing, but I'm starting at university this year studing medicine. I intend to become a doctor, exactly what specialty I don't know. I have several reasons for wanting to be a doctor. One of them is helping others. Its a way of useing what I have to do something that could really make a difference.

THats a very basic outline of what I intend to do with my life. I still find it difficult to say entirely what I base my life on. I guess I can only say I base my life on who I am. I couldn't say all the various factors that make me who I am. All I know is I believe what I believe, and I want to make the best attempt at life that I can.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Your taking this the wrong way. I don't need to give you three historical statments from the bible which are proven to be untrue. The gospels take the form of myth. They may contain truths but they are not exact historical records. Events which actually occured such as teachings of Jesus have contributed to the myth that is written in the gospels. The g Jesus refers to her as a dog when she first comes to him. Not overly repectful?)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your taking this the wrong way. I don't need to give you three historical statments from the bible which are proven to be untrue. The gospels take the form of myth. They may contain truths but they are not exact historical records.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


C'mon Jake! I couldn't even finish your post it was so unfair.

Tell me? Does this sound like myth or history being written?

"Now in the fifthteenth year of the government of Tiberius Caesar, while Pontius Pilate was governor of Judea, and Herod was tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip was tetrarch of the region of Ituraea and Trachonitis, and Lysanias was tetrarch of Abilene, during the high preisthood of Annas and Caiaphas, the word of God came to John the son of Zachariah in the wilderness" (Luke 3:1,2)

Does that sound like myth writing to you? Could not the readers of Luke's Gospel have checked these geopolitical and religious facts?

Could his comtemporaries not check on Luke's statments at least about:

The FIFTHEENTH YEAR of Tiberius Caesar ?

Where Pontius Pilate was then governor ?

Over what area Pilate had authority?

Where was the realm of Herod's jurisdiction?

etc. etc. etc.

There is no "Once Upon A Time In A Far Off Land" writing here. You may believe the Gospel or you may reject the claims of the Gospel. But you cannot accuse the Evangelist Luke or writing geopolitical facts which could not be verified through civic and religious records.

My feeling at this time is that you don't read the New Testament. My suspicion is that you read some skeptical stuff about the New Testament and assume that you know the New Testament because of this and can spout off assertions.

Some of us won't be so easily impressed. Try reading it.

Originally posted by Jake Ellison
Your taking this the wrong way. I don't need to give you three historical statments from the bible which are proven to be untrue. The gospels take the form of myth. They may contain truths but they are not exact historical records. Events which actually occured such as teachings of Jesus have contributed to the myth that is written in the gospels. The g ...[text shortened]... Jesus refers to her as a dog when she first comes to him. Not overly repectful?)

I read a little more of your "They wrote Myths" post above.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But anyway. Here is something spesifically wrong to make you happy. The gospel of Luke states that Jesus was born when Caesar Augustus called for a census of everyone in the Roman Empire. This happens when Quirinius was governor of Syria, (Luke 2:2). At this time, Herod was king in Judea (Matthew 2:1). However, historically we know that Herod dies in 4 B.C and Quirinius was not the govener of Syria during Herods reign. The gospel writters have made assuptions based on phrophesy of the whereabouts of Jesus' birth. It doesn't fit the facts.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I'll take this up and get back to you on it after some study.

Originally posted by jaywill
[Does that sound like myth writing to you? Could not the readers of Luke's Gospel have checked these geopolitical and religious facts?

Many of these geopolitical facts have been checked and found to be wrong.

Jake,

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
But anyway. Here is something spesifically wrong to make you happy. The gospel of Luke states that Jesus was born when Caesar Augustus called for a census of everyone in the Roman Empire. This happens when Quirinius was governor of Syria, (Luke 2:2). At this time, Herod was king in Judea (Matthew 2:1). However, historically we know that Herod dies in 4 B.C and Quirinius was not the govener of Syria during Herods reign. The gospel writters have made assuptions based on phrophesy of the whereabouts of Jesus' birth. It doesn't fit the facts.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



Glenn Miller writes on his Christian Think Tank in response to objections of the Lukian facts set forth concerning the census.

From website: http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Used by permission



Quirinius, at the time of King Herod's death was doing military expeditions in the eastern provinces of the Roman empire (Tacitus , Annals 3:48; Florus, Roman History 2:31), with some evidence indicating that he either was a co-ruler with the governor of Syria (the somewhat inept Quintilius Varus) or at least placed in charge of the 14-year census in Palestine. Varus was famous for the later fiasco at the Teutoburger forest in Germany (9 ad) and at his appointment as Gov.. of Syria in 7 BC was largely 'untested'. The census was due in 8-7 BC, and Augustus could easily have ordered his trusted Quirinius (fresh from subduing the Pisidian highlanders) to assist in this volatile project. Herod I had recently lost favor of the emperor and was probably dragging his feet on taking the census--a process with always enraged the difficult Jews! This would have pushed the timeframe into the 5 BC mark, which fits the general data.

Glenn's concluding word to a lenghty discussion on the point is placed below and used by permission:

That Augustus MIGHT HAVE issued a world-wide census decree (a record of which is only preserved in Luke's gospel) is ALTOGETHER reasonable and plausible. The data about Augustus' 'propensity' to count and tax is well known. For example, he documents, in his own records, how he counted the Roman nation some three times (Res Gestae Divi Augusti , 8--from Roman Civilization--SourceBook II: the Empire, eds. Lewis and Reinhold, p 12)., and increasingly levied detailed taxes throughout his reign--with the attendant increase in bribery and vice (see Gibbons' Rise and Fall). As vain as he was, it would not be surprising at all for this to have occurred.
It was also customary for the Roman empire to take a census when there was a change of local government (e.g. when Archelaus was deposed in AD 6, one of Quirinius' first tasks was to liquidate his estate and hold a census to determine the tribute load.) The implication of this pattern for our discussion is that when Varus became governor of Syria in 7 BC, one of his first acts would have been to take a census (the one which would have produced the trip from Nazareth to Bethlehem for Joseph/Mary.)
We KNOW Augustus instituted a 14-year census-cycle for EGYPT in 10/9 BC...(SourceBook II, above, p. 388)...Not only does this give us more confirmation that Augustus was a "countin' sorta guy'" but it may reflect a local execution of a 'worldwide decree' of Augustus.
To assert that Augustus did not make such a decree is an affirmative historical statement. And, "the burden of proof, for any historical assertion, always rests upon its author" (Hacket, Historians' Fallacies, Harper: 1970, p 63.).
And to argue that Luke was wrong because there was NO worldwide decree (because we don't have a record of the specific decree) is to make a common mistake in historical method--arguing from 'slim' silence (some silence-arguments can be made to work, though). Hacket again:
"evidence must always be affirmative. Negative evidence is a contradiction in terms--it is no evidence at all. The nonexistence of an object [read: "worldwide decree"-gmm] is established not by nonexistent evidence [read: "we can't find the decree so far"-gmm] but by affirmative evidence of the fact that it did not, or could not exist [e.g. a document that says it did not happen--gmm]" (above, p62)
And, in spite of the above methodological and background problems, we DO HAVE CONCRETE EVIDENCE of an empire-wide Augustian registration--literary, archeological, iconographic.
To summarize this section on the 'the missing census of 7/5 BC': I HAVE affirmative evidence and good arguments for such a census--

Luke, a very, very, very reliable historian SAYS SO!
Augustus was this 'type of person' with repeated, known actions along this line.
These kinds of events occurred at major changes in ruling personnel--a situation that obtained in Palestine at the time Luke indicates.
Parallel events occurred in other Roman-controlled areas, in roughly the same time (i.e. Egypt 10/9 BC).
There is not a scrap of contrary data.
Quirinius' participation is such an event (along with Varus) is not only possible, but highly likely.
We have positive evidence of an empire-wide decree of Augustus within a year or two of the required date.

Originally posted by KellyJay
We all have some clue about the universe, what it is, what it isn't, and
we build our lives around things that we think are true, be they some
things we can see and handle, some things we can not, some things
we accept as factual, some things we simply accept because we believe
them to be true. The mix is our foundation for our lives, some are
more imp ...[text shortened]... ou
define it too I think would be important if you care to partake in this
discussion.
Kelly

Very simple really; refusing to take things at face value, loyalty, trying to be consistent, non-contradictory, forgiving, slow to anger and quick to laugh. The rest is all tassels and lace.

Originally posted by Starrman
Very simple really; refusing to take things at face value, loyalty, trying to be consistent, non-contradictory, forgiving, slow to anger and quick to laugh. The rest is all tassels and lace.

Wise
Kelly

Originally posted by jaywill
[b]++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Your taking this the wrong way. I don't need to give you three historical statments from the bible which are proven to be untrue. The gospels take the form of myth. They may contain truths but they are not exact historical records.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


C'mon Jake! I couldn't even finish your ...[text shortened]... n spout off assertions.

Some of us won't be so easily impressed. Try reading it.[/b]

Look I doubt we are going to reach any kind of agrement on this. All I am saying is that the gospels are clearly not unbiased histories. They don't paint the complete picture. I am not saying that one day Matthew, Mark, Luke and John desided to sit down and make up a load of rubbish about a man who really existed. The gospels were most likey written down after the passing down and alteration of an oral tradition. They clearly are not pure eyewitness accounts, the last words of Jesus can't have been three different things! You cannot say for certain who wrote the gospels or when they were written. Some argue that Mark was written around 60 A.D, Luke 80 A.D, Luke 85 A.D and John as late as 100 A.D. Others think they were eariler, prehaps ranging from 30 to 50 A.D. But the point is, they are not histories, they are theologic text. They can only be taken at face value with a great deal of faith. You have to trust that these books written nearly 2000 years ago were written by who the say they were. You have to trust that they saw all the events they say they saw, even at the point when the disiples left Jesus. But most importantly you have to believe that impossible and uncorroborated events such as the raising of the dead actually occured. Is it not more believeable that it is just not true? People don't sit down and make up lies. These stories develop. But relgion is not about evidence its about faith. If you could proove that the gospels were accurate why are we not all Christians? Its the same reason why we are not any other religion. You just can't.