steve_bnk

Your response makes no sense, wher's your conclusion?

Those of us classified as non-relgiious are far from a small percentage.

It has nothing to do with the internet specificaly.

And again, what is your purpose here? i answered your query, pleae answer mine.

spin

Who of them are actually trained as historians?? Any dog and its fleas can make statements about the past. Modern historical research requires coherent methodologies. We don't need a parade of people like Will Durant to make my case. Who have published in historical journals as against biblical journals? Thing is, people with real historical training avoid biblical studies like the plague. There are simply no historical sources in the field. It doesn't help to say that the biblical documents are historical sources, for I'd agree, then ask you though for what?, where? and when?, and you would fail to be able to answer any of the questions (yes I know you have apologetics for when, but really!), yet persist in the misguided folly that you can do history with such documents.


spin

rizdek

:constern01::notworthy:

Meaning, after thinking about your statement, I find it intuitive and correct. Too often groups have "followed" the leader without demanding proof or justification and it has led to terrible actions.

Chaucer

And you are a Jihadist apologist for mythicism. How does it feel to be the Jihadist stalker stalked?

Jedi Mind Trick

Yes and No... If by being made up you mean that they came from the minds of humans, then yes, but if you mean that there is therefore no "breath of life" in them, then no.

IMO, the God(s)ess(esses) come from human consciousness which is no different than (((it is identical to))) the divine consciousness that pervades the universe. This consciousness is ultimately formless, but takes on a myriad of form(s) in this and other worlds to suit the varied needs of sentient beings.

spin

This is fun: you've got no response, no reason to believe the crap that you believe and now you talk rubbish.


spin

Question

Lets step WAY back and look at a couple of facts..

If god wanted 1000's of religions he's a success...

If he wanted one he's a failure...

After 14 billion years this ONE planet has 1000's of religions..

Now think about the universe.........:wave:

Vinnie

Surprisingly, I'd say early Christian writings are probably studied more than many other works of history. Historical Jesus scholars are trained in the field that they work in, which is to say, a field of anonymous compositions and sparse documentation. The vast majority think that history can be pulled from these texts and rightly so. Early Christian writings may not be historical sources but they are sources of history. Even if a Christian author tells us more about his beliefs and his community than of events prior to it, that is still a reconstruction of past events (aka history).

There is no need to be so pedantic. If these works were not directly connected to one of the largest religions the world had ever known, they would hardly be studies so intensely. I urge you to start reading peer reviewed journals and scholarly books if you are not, and stop reading articles and caricatures on the internet. It will help give you a better appreciation for what many of these scholars do.

Vinnie

spin

I don't think there's anything surprising about that. I'm sure it represents the trend in Muslim countries regarding the Quran.

Yup.

Yup.

Another rabbit out of your umm... hat.

As I think I said to you in another thread, the problem being of when, where and what.

This is a belief statement.

You seem to have special knowledge as to what those texts do.

No doubt.

Vinnie, I do urge you to stop talking through your hat.

Why don't you thrill me with a select, succinct bibliography of specifically historian-reviewed scholarly articles rather than just going through the verbal motions. No stuff by "Historical Jesus scholars", please, just historians.


spin

steve_bnk

Christianity academically is studied no more than Greek history, Egypt, and all the rest. If anything due to the religious bias of a majority of ‘Christian Historians’ is self fulfilling analysis. There are thousands of books based on JC none of which have any historical validity.

The known factual events in early Christianity are virtually unknown compared to other religions and cultures.

We know far more about the historical figures of Confucius and Buddha who lived centuries BCE.

It doesn’t take an expert to see that human fascination with areas like Egyptology is a search for some unexplored mystical experience. An amorphous theism and astrology are no less in this respect. The study itself invokes a mystical feeling.

The fundamental problem with Christianity is that there were few words directly attributed to JC, compared to Islam and Buddhism. If you go by Paul, there was no theology other than Judaism and a fith that the end of world was near with the return OF JC, and to be saved one must believe in JC.

The point being, based on historical evidence and what has been passed down as ‘a Christian cannon, Christians have virtually no historical foundation for the faith. The result is when Christians presume to force a theology on us form their tradition, it is virtually all interpretation, and those like me stand up and say where is your justification?

You only have to watch the Sunday tele-evangelsits to see the variety of claims and views based on the NT.

My reference is the Oxford Bible and its companion 2000 page commentary and analysis. The translation was done by a large group of scholars using all the current documents and scraps. The commentary fully explores the possible interpretations, the sources of errors, and questions of historical truth, from an academic point of view.