rhutchin

Your make a hypothesis and support it with allegations and hypotheses. What is to answer? You are free to imagine whatever you want. Should we argue against that freedom?

Johnny Skeptic

You have adequately described yourself. The Bible is allegations and hypotheses. What is to answer? You are free to imagine whatever you want. Should we argue against that freedom?

You have often accused skeptics of stating personal opinions, and of being speculative when you are guilty of the same thing. Consider the following Bible claims:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - The Ten Plagues occurred in Egypt.

3 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

4 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

5 - Jesus never sinned.

6 - Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind.

Would you like to claim that those claims are not personal opinions, and are not speculative?

You are an inerrantist. Please be advised that inerrancy is nothing more than a personal opinion, and it is speculative. It cannot be corrobarated by history, science, common sense, logic, and reason. It must be accepted entirely by faith, or rejected, just like most other supernatural claims in the Bible. Nothing in the entire book of Genesis can be corroborated by history, science, common sense, logic, and reason, and the same goes for many other entire books in the Bible, and yet you have the audacity to accuse skeptics of stating personal opinions, and of being speculative.

The God of the Bible does not exist. I reasonably proved that in my thread at
http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259943 at the General Religious Discussions Forum. The titled is "It is doubtful that a God inspired the Bible." Would you like to participate in that thread? I doubt it since you have conveniently avoided that forum like a plague for years. I do not blame you since it allows a wider latitude of questions and issues than most other forums do, and you want to limit discussions as much as possible.

You pretend to be interested in history, but yet in another thread, you refused to provide even one example of a firsthand, eyewitness testimony in Matthew, Mark, or Luke. There is certainly nothing historical about the six examples that I mentioned. In addition, there is certianly nothing historical about a global flood either. In a thread about the flood at the Evolution/Creation Forum, you made a few posts, got into trouble, and quickly took the next bus out of town.

Your obvious approach has been, and still is, to start making posts in a thread, get into trouble, conveniently vacate the thread, and go to another thread with the hope that skeptics who embarrassed you in one thread will not be around to embarrass you in another thread. You are poorly prepared to debate issues, and you have been evasive for years.

Here is proof that you are evasive. This is a post from the thread on the rapture. In typical fashion, you conveniently refused to reply to it:

By the same token, perhaps you could explain why you believe what you believe. Please start a new thread at the General Religious Discussions Forum and state why you believe what you believe. If you do that, I will start a new thread there and state why I believe what I believe. Readers can rest assured that you will refuse to do that which you asked me to do, which proves that you are intellectually dishonest.

If you refuse to state why you believe what you believe, how can skeptics adequately reply to your arguments?

Please do not make false statements. A web definition for the word "substantive" is as follows:

"substantial: having a firm basis in reality and being therefore important, meaningful, or considerable; "substantial equivalents."

According to that definition, you have refused to reply to many substantive arguments that I have made. The following issues are most certainly important and meaningful:

1 - The flood. You believe that a global flood occured. A few days ago, I told you about a thread about the flood at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259291 at the Evolution/Creation Forum. You made a couple of posts, quickly realized that you were in trouble, and conveniently took the next bus out of town. The claim that a global flood occurred is utterly absurd. In order to believe the claim, a person has to abandon common sense, logic, reason, history, and science.

2 - Inerrancy. Although inerrancy is the basis for most of your beliefs, you have always conveniently refused to discuss it because you did not want to embarrass yourself. Inerrancy is merely an appeal to emotions, and yet you have claimed that Christians should not abandon common sense, logic, and reason. Although inerrantists have accused skeptics of wanting God to act like they want him to act, they (inerrantists) have an emotional need to have God act like they want him to act, and that includes providing Christians with inerrant texts. Inerrantists can easily image a God who kills babies and innocent animals, but for some odd reason they cannot imagine a God who would not inspire and preserve the Bible. If, as many Christians claim, God is not obligated to save anyone, he certainly is not obligated to provide Christians with inerrant texts, which invites the question "Why do you believe that the Bible is inerrant?"

3 - Firsthand, eyewitness accounts. I said:

You conveniently refused to reply to those arguments.

4 - Opinions and speculations. Consider the following:

As you know, a few days ago I started a new thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259452 at the General Religious Discussion Forums and quoted what you said. The title is "How is the Bible not the personal opinions of the authors?" You conveniently refused to make any posts in that thread.

As you know, a few days ago I started a new thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259383 at the General Religious Discussion Forums and quoted what you said. The title is "A fundie says "Speculation proves nothing and never will." You conveniently refused to make any posts in that thread.

You are obviously afraid to go to the General Religious Discussions Forum because much greater latitude and variety are allowed at that forum than at most other forums. If you do not have any intention of going to the General Religious Discussions Forum to discuss anthing, please say so.

Consider the following claims:

1 - The God of the Bible created the heavens and the earth.

2 - A global flood occured.

3 - The Ten Plagues occured in Egypt.

4 - Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit.

5 - Jesus was born of a virgin.

6 - Jesus never sinnned.

7 - Jesus' shed blood and death atoned for the sins of mankind.

Those are very important claims. Now will you please tell us why those claims are not the personal opinions of the authors, and why the claims are not speculative? Obviously, claims 1, 4, 5, 6, and 7 must be accepted entirely by faith, or rejected. Common sense, logic, reason, science, and history cannot be used to verify the claims. Regarding claims 2 and 3, history and science, including archaeology, do not back up the claims. It is incredible that for years you have claimed that arguments from skeptics are personal opinions, and are speculative. I do not know of any claim that is more speculative than the claim that the Bible is inerrant, with the claim that a global flood occurred running a close second.

Many skeptics are quite interested in the process that caused you to rubber-stamp hundreds of Bible claims that do not have any basis at all in science and history.

Toto

Please stick to the topic here - Galatians, not problems with rhutchins' world view.

Littlejohn

"..Why would Damascus mean Qumran??.."

Because the residents of Qumran, whoever they were, called the site that they lived "Damascus" or "Land of Damascus". Scholars who have engaged themself in study of Scrolls of the Dead Sea, have established it thanks to the famous "Damascus Document", found in the Genizah of Cairo around the end 800's.

The reason why, strangely, the "Ossim" of Qumran (Ossim ha-Torah) called their site "Damascus", lies in the content of the book by prophet Amos, where he alludes to the fact that Jews of the diaspora who took refuge in Damascus, were the only ones who had kept its purity of the origins, as they had marched rigidly in the law of the fathers.

The blindness of Paul/Saul was probably a historical fact (although the event has been told in a completely mystified way), with except that it happened at all on the Damascus road. It is very likely that the so-called "conversion" of Paul took place at Qumran/Damascus. Paul/Saul, at that time, was an agent Herodian and remained such until the outbreak of the Jewish War (66-67). In the Acts of Apostles are told that Paul, before the "conversion", was a sort of agent who went from house to house to find the "Christian" and made many imprison. Since the "Christians" (read you as Catholic-Christians) made their first appearance in the half of the second century, it is clear that at the time of Paul there was no Christians to strike.

Those that the agent Paul was hunting, were rebels-messianic zealots. The "messianic" term in Hebrew took the form of "moshahim" (from moshah, ie "messiah"). Translated in greek the same term takes the form "christianoi". Exactly the same word with which, many decades later, will be called the "catholic-Christians". It is clear that because of ambiguity in the use of the term "christianoi" (moshahim), the counterfeiters Fathers, who founded the cult Catholic-Christian over a hallucinating combination of lies, had "good game" to do believe what they wanted: as, for example, the "Christians" martyred by Nero, who, in reality, they were simply Jews of the diaspora (perhaps moshahim rebels) who had worked with Simon Peter in the failed attempt to kill the hated Simon Magus.


Littlejohn

.

rhutchin

Now, that is interesting. Did not know it before now.

Amos is a very difficult book to understand. However, I looked at the passages where I found the word, Damascus, and I saw nothing that seemed to relate to the Jews of the diaspora. Every reference looked bad for the Jews and Damascus seemed tied to their punishment.

Can you provide more info about the Amos reference?

Acts says that Saul sought out the "any of this way" or "disciples of the Lord." We don't find them being called "Christians" until:

And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch. (Ac 11:26)

This was some time after Saul's conversion.

Regardless, the account in Acts clearly indicates that Saul was heading toward the city of Damascus.

And Saul, yet breathing out threatenings and slaughter against the disciples of the Lord, went unto the high priest, And desired of him letters to Damascus to the synagogues, that if he found any of this way, whether they were men or women, he might bring them bound unto Jerusalem. And as he journeyed, he came near Damascus: (Acts 9:1-3)

Toto

The identification of Damascus with Qumran was made by Sid Green in an article published on Peter Kirby's christianorigins site, which can be read here.

I thought it was interesting when I first read it. I don't know how well it would stand up now.

I don't know that anyone else has made that identification - I would be interested in more references.

Clivedurdle

http://orion.huji.ac.il/orion/archiv.../msg00213.html

DCHindley

This idea had probably occurred to researchers almost as soon as it was realized that the versions of the "Damascus Document" of the DSS were essentially the same as the Cairo (ginezeh) Documents A & B found (well, actually stolen) by Solomon Schechter in the late 19th century. I believe even R H Charles (ca 1910) openly wondered whether the "land of Damascus" in CD (he called it a "Fragment of a Zadokite Work" in APOT vol 2) referred literally to Damascus in Syria or to the wilderness in general. When the similar documents were found among the DSS, where else but in the middle of the wilderness, it didn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out there may be a connection.

If one can get access to it, try Philip R Davies' "The Birthplace of the Essenes: Where is 'Damascus'?" in RevQumran 14/56 (1989-90): 503-519. There is probably a bibliography.

DCH

Littlejohn

I am sorry ... I can not be more specific .. I seem to remember that this explanation I get it from the book by Eisenman and Wise "The Dead Sea Scrolls Uncovered". This was several years ago ... (between 1996 and 1998)

"..Every reference looked bad for the Jews and Damascus seemed tied to their punishment."

I don't understand...All this is strange ... If it were such, would not have made sense for the Ossim of Qumran to choose for their site the name Damascus .. It would have been counterproductive!

Be careful not to take too much "to the letter" what you read in the Gospels and other works in the New Testament. It is in all cases of the deeply mystified works, even though they have almost always a core of historical truth. The "Christians" of Antioch WERE NOT "catholic-christians" but "Judeo-Christians". No parallel can be made between them, as the Judeo-Christian religion was a cult "filogiudaico" (very similar to the judaism), addressed essentially to the world of Jewish messianic rebellion. It did not have anything to do with the cult Catholic-Christian, founded in Rome several decades of years later (140-150).

Judeo-Christians, because their worship was virtually the same as the Jewish-Orthodox, although with some variations, that affect mainly the figure of the Messiah "expected" by the Jews, were called "minim" (heretics) by Orthodox Jews, while Catholic-Christians, since their religion had content clearly pagan, appeared to the Jews as a cult typically "goy" (pagan), they were not called minim but "notzrim" (nazarenes). This is because the community of the palestinian Nazarenes was seen as a community of believers "goym" (pagans), although they were of hebraic(*) matrix.

Actually, the Nazarenes were hebrew who did not accept the monotheistic reform of King Josiah and the high-priest Helkya, occurred towards the end of Seventh century BC, but remained faithful at the hebraism of the origins, essentially polytheistic. The same thing happened with the Samaritans, who refused too them jewish reform also (hence the term "Judaism" or "reformed hebraism"). The Samaritans, like the Nazarenes, were estimated by orthodox Jews as pagans (goym).

Note: the Paul who went to Damascus (the city of Damascus), without any letter, of course, was not the Paul (Paul/Saul) who was blinded, but Paul of Tarsus. I know it is very difficult to "digest" this explanation, in the absence of other explanations. However, for the moment it is all I can say (reasons for coverage of copyright)

______________

Note:

(*) - this term is not coincident "tout-court" with Judaism, as hebraism, of the origins one, was a typical cult polytheistic, in which the gods were called "Elhoim" (hebraic plural). Judaism, instead, was reformed hebraism in a monotheistic cult, where the god of reference was called Jahweh. This was not a real name, but the arbitrary vocalization of the famous tetragrammaton, the which, in turn, was not a name without vowels, but a real acronym (YHWH), which underlying the phrase: Yod He Waw He, namely "I Am Who I Am". In the oldest stage of the hebraism, the tetragrammaton was actually a "trigrammaton", as the "Yod" (I) was added belatedly. So, we had originally HWH, that is to say "(I) Am Who (I) Am". The same phrase was found, on several occasions, engraved on the sarcophagus egyptians. The egyptian equivalent of the hebraic sentence, underlying by Jewish trigrammaton HWH, was NPN, ie "Nuk Pu Nuk", whose meaning was, indeed, "I am Who I am. Anything greater testimony to the fact that much of the hebraic worship of the origins, was of egyptian matrix. Moses, in fact, others was not than a priest of the god Amen/Amon, and the phrase "Nuk Pu Nuk" was just referring to this god, head of the egyptian pantheon, also known by the name of "Amon-Rha".


Littlejohn

_________________________

All of the material posted by Littlejohn, or with other nicknames traceable to him, must be considered in all respects copyright.
.

rhutchin

That's my thinking also. However, the basic thrust of the prophecies was doom and gloom for Israel because of their sin yet there is always the promise that a remnant will be saved and these are always those who continue to serve and obey God. My quick scan of Amos saw this same pattern but I did not see anything special about Damascus, or those Jews who went to Damascus. If you run across an explanation, let us know.

For now, I will take what the bible says without regard to whether it is true or false. Nonetheless, the persecution was directed at those who were followers of Christ regardless what we call them.

OK.

That sounds right. It was clear from Peter's interaction with Cornelius that gentiles were to be saved. However, given that the issue of circumcision does is not addressed and resolved until Paul begins to evangelize the gentiles in earnest, it should not be surprising that those Jews who followed after Christ maintained a lot of their traditions when they did not have to do so.

Given this info, it seems to me that they are the same.

And there was a certain disciple at Damascus, named Ananias;...And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the street which is called Straight, and enquire in the house of Judas for one called Saul, of Tarsus: for, behold, he prayeth, And hath seen in a vision a man named Ananias coming in, and putting his hand on him, that he might receive his sight. Then Ananias answered, Lord, I have heard by many of this man, how much evil he hath done to thy saints at Jerusalem: And here he hath authority from the chief priests to bind all that call on thy name. (Acts 9:10-14)

The story identifies this as Paul who later says:

I am verily a man which am a Jew, born in Tarsus, a city in Cilicia, yet brought up in this city at the feet of Gamaliel, and taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers,...And I persecuted this way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women...and went to Damascus, to bring them which were there bound unto Jerusalem, for to be punished. And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and was come nigh unto Damascus about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? (Acts 22:3-7