You must know that any New Testament references you are quoting are far removed from that time period, and that they are copies of copies with many changes added in the interim.RT
I know you view the Gospels with extreme skepticism, but the range of Satanic references during the life of Jesus include the temptation in the wilderness, the entry of Satan into Judas, and the condemnation of Peter for rejecting the path of the cross (Matt 16:23).
In the time that Jesus was supposed to have lived only the Old Testament (the Torah) had the character named Satan.
In addition, there are no records of Christian writings until at least a generation after the alleged death of Jesus, and those varied greatly in their stories, dogma and rituals until Emperor Constantine ordered the orthodoxy of the religion and the other sects were “purged” some three hundred years later.
Considering that, how can you reasonably claim to know anything about the original intent, writer’s ambitions or specific traits such as education? (You mentioned that Jesus in your opinion was well trained in astronomy despite the fact that there is no mention of this even in the biblical text) how do you feel justified in these claims, especially since we don’t know who wrote any of those works?
Do you not see that beginning with the assumption of Jesus and continuing with each successive unsupported claim you move further and further from probable truth?
Which is, by using a historical Jesus as a starting point, already on very weak footing.
Some of that was more like reinvention, and much of that has taken over a thousand years, but that is irrelevant; it is clear that by keeping the definition vague… “belief” that nearly any definition can be reasonably asserted.RT
In fact, the first Christian millennium was a time of the domination of belief around the world, as the major cultures of Europe, Asia and America were in isolation from each other and wrongly believed the universe revolved around them. Europe also made progress during the dark ages, with inventions like amour, castles and the wheelbarrow. The term “back up” was yours, and I partially accept it, while recognizing that belief as an organizing principal has both positive and negative features.
It can be convincingly argued that any point in human history (even today) has been subject to some form of false belief.
But it does provide a nice little escape from questions like these.
Later