tat tvam asi wrote:

Doulos wrote:I guess that's always the crux of the matter isn't it Tat?

Do we trust ourselves, and our own desires and gut, or do we trust God? Is God real? Is He trustworthy? Is God represented by the God of the Bible?

These questions are not solved by myth, but by exploration of truth though. Wherever that truth may lead...

Yes, and the "truth" has led me towards understanding the polytheistic origins of ancient Judaism and how a tribal deity called YHWH was eventually elevated above and beyond the other deities to supreme deity status. And then everything was tainted and reworked thereafter towards the angle that YHWH had been the universal deity all along, when the forefront of archaeological inquiry has found other wise. And of course this mythological tribal deity is poured straight into the Christ myth later not only as if YHWH (yud, hey, vav, hey) were the universal deity all along, but also as if he came down to earth in the form of Yeshua (yud, hey, vav, shin, ayin).

Like they say in Avatar, "I see you."

Do I believe that the God of the bible represents the reality of God?

No, I actually lack belief in that assertion completely. And with good reason. And I also lack belief in the divinity of the gospel Jesus and I'll also go far as to take an agnostic position on the historicity of the Jesus fable. This is what mythicism boils down to. It's about taking the path of "truth" and declaring honestly that "I don't know."

Ehrman doesn't know.
You don't know.
Nobody really knows for certain.

Everyone who claims to "know" is essentially lying. They at best have faith in an "unknown" and what may prove to be "unknowable" altogether. Ehrman has faith that he can trust the late written gospel stories to some degree for historical accuracy, while discrediting the accuracy of the rest of it. Ehrman has not left faith behind completely, as you can see by this line of reasoning. Ehrman is currently a man of faith and his new book is hardly anything more than an article of faith in the historicity of the Jesus tale.

So what bothers me about all of this is that most people don't want to be up front and declare boldly to the public that there's no real science to any of this, it's squarely a matter of faith.

Robert Tulip wrote:

Doulos wrote:...about your assertion that Christian hatred of Jews was rooted in "questions of identity, especially political tribal conflict rooted in war and imperialism.'
How do you see this in light of the Jewish origins of Jesus and the early church?

My view is that the Gospel of Mark, upon which the other Gospels were primarily based for their story of a historical Jesus, was probably written in Alexandria in Egypt after the exodus of the Jews from Israel following the Roman War and the destruction of Jerusalem. Christianity was originally aimed at linking Jews and Greeks as 'all one in Christ Jesus' as Paul puts it in Galatians 3:28. However, over time Christianity became primarily a religion for non-Jews, since continuing Judaism rejected the messianic claims around Jesus. Across the diaspora, the Jews retained a tribal identity through Torah and synagogue. As Christianity evolved into an imperial religion, providing moral legitimacy for Christendom, the existence of Jews as unbelievers in Christ became more of an anomaly.

The anti-Semitic lines in the Bible, especially Matthew's blood guilt line at 27:25, then came to serve a racist propaganda purpose. My view is that the Gospel authors sought to blame the Romans and the Jews equally for failing to understand Christ. However, as Christianity was co-opted by empire, the Jews were scapegoated and the Roman guilt was minimised.

The situation of the Jews was most certainly a product of tribal identity shaped by Empire. The mixing of all people in the common era left the Jews as recalcitrants who refused to worship Caesar, rejecting what the Gospels call the 'abominating desolation in the temple'. This old insistence on maintaining their cultural identity was a main reason for the emergence of racism against them among the dominant culture.

Looks like I hit a nerve.

Sure youkrst, though as I've said to Interbane, I'm trying to reduce my forum time at the moment. I enjoy the intellectual challenge, but I've got some major IRL stuff happening right now. I'll take you up on this a bit later when I have more free time.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does

but kindly base it on real evidence.

Doulos wrote:Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.

youkrst wrote:
but if you dont know, how on earth can you claim to know that god does?

but kindly base it on real evidence.

tat tvam asi wrote:

Doulos wrote:Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.

Well then I guess since you think the evidence supporting my view is weak then we might as well move along past me and consider what you think Doulos.

Would you kindly provide your 'strong' evidence for the existence of God in order to establish the first premise you've put forward. We have to first see evidence that God exists before considering that God "knows" anything at all one way or the other. And then after you can strongly establish that much then you can move on to apply the proven God(1), who knows(2), to the asserted "truth" of this knowing God in the Judeo-Christian bible(3)....

So let's begin shall we?

Doulos wrote:I don't think there ever will be strong universal evidence for the proof of God though, as I've said in other posts.

Doulos wrote:Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.

I would say that a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible gives the clearest understanding of it though, and that there can be sufficient proof for individuals to come to faith.

Doulos wrote:

tat tvam asi wrote:

Doulos wrote:Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.

Well then I guess since you think the evidence supporting my view is weak then we might as well move along past me and consider what you think Doulos.

Would you kindly provide your 'strong' evidence for the existence of God in order to establish the first premise you've put forward. We have to first see evidence that God exists before considering that God "knows" anything at all one way or the other. And then after you can strongly establish that much then you can move on to apply the proven God(1), who knows(2), to the asserted "truth" of this knowing God in the Judeo-Christian bible(3)....

So let's begin shall we?

See post to youkrst

I don't think there ever will be strong universal evidence for the proof of God though, as I've said in other posts.

I would say that a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible gives the clearest understanding of it though, and that there can be sufficient proof for individuals to come to faith.

tat tvam asi wrote:^You'll have to pardon me again Doulos, but that's precisely the angle Stahrwe was coming from. He was representing a Southern Baptist Evangelical Young Earth Creationist perspective. And we covered these grounds repeatedly. Then Ant came along. And now you're announcing much of the same. For whatever the reason, when one person promoting this precise literalist or inerrancy perspective steps aside another promptly appears to take their place - and all under the same guise of a person calling for sound logic and reason around here while greatly lacking such logic and reason concerning their own personal belief systems...

tat tvam asi wrote:^

Doulos wrote:I don't think there ever will be strong universal evidence for the proof of God though, as I've said in other posts.

So then it's safe to say that you in fact base your belief's NOT on strong evidence?

tat tvam asi wrote: strong universal evidence
So it's rather odd that you would have come at me from the angle that I hold "beliefs" which are NOT supported by "strong" evidence then isn't it?

Doulos wrote:Yet part of the point is that the evidence you're using to support your view is very weak.

I don't claim that I know... but I do claim that God does, and that S/He's revealed that truth in the books of the Bible.

Again, you're welcome to disbelieve that, but kindly base it on real evidence.

In trying to belittle my worldview you sort of threw yourself under the bus in the process didn't you?

I would say that a 'literal' interpretation of the Bible gives the clearest understanding of it though, and that there can be sufficient proof for individuals to come to faith.

Proof for individuals to come to faith?

But this proof nonetheless DOESN'T involve starting out from a foundation of "strong universal evidence" though?

A "literal" understanding of the bible, however, begins with error instead of truth Doulos. And this starting point of inquiry has been well covered in a variety of places here at BT. The main place starting right here in my signature line:

http://www.booktalk.org/young-earth-the ... t8061.html