Minimalist

Sorry, Don, but most of the ones I've run into all have the same act. When confronted by science they simply declare that "god can do anything."

Magic is for six year-olds.

GakuseiDon

No doubt somewhere a creationist is saying "When evolutionists are confronted by the science behind creationism, they simply ignore it." But that would be just as much a strawman argument.

mountainman

More to the point, Arius of Alexandria hid out in Syria 324-335 CE.

Constantine had the power of mass destruction, and we know that he used it in achieving his initiatives especially during the period leading up to the Council of Nicaea. I am quite prepared to argue the case that Constantine the Great is best regarded as the equivalent of a fourth century malevolent despot.

And to answer the original question:

Archaeology appears to have rendered christian origins totally moot. Aside from the fact that there are no unambiguous inscriptions or other archaeological citations to the existence of anything "christian" before the fourth century, the new testament literature does not have a C14 date until the fourth century. It's a fraud.


Best wishes,


Pete

mg01

The whole thing is a smokescreen. Literalist believers, faced with scientific/historical challenges challenges to the Bible as their pillar of faith have to be re-assured their faith is not misplaced. Organizations then begin to produce ideologically based alternative explainations to feed the masses essentially telling them science/history is wrong so they will continue to fill the pews and write the checks. Many involved in the propaganda production are well aware of their deception and intellectually dishonest. Others, lacking the background to recongize it as such, buy into it willingly based on personal desire for it to be true.

It comes back to the idea of "worshiping the Bible" vs "worshiping God". It's why the Catholic church focuses on dogma rather than scripture and why their was reluctance on the part of the church concerning printing/copying the Bible and making it avalible for anyone. Prior to the printing press, churches were in complete position to interpret the text for their congregations.

But now that anyone can pick up a copy at Walmart (and despite the efforts of the translators) the problems are avalible for anyone to see. And as modern understanding impassionately exposes issues with literal interpretation, those who use the Bible as their reason for believing have to be re-assured.

arnoldo

It appears you are assuming that the writers of the OT are a fraud since they intentionally set out to deceive us by writing an inaccurate portrayal of Israel's history. Most serious bible scholars certainly do not believe that the OT is a "fraud." For example, Thomas Tompson in his book The Mythic Past: Biblical Archaeology And The Myth Of Israel states "How the Bible is related to history has been badly misunderstood. As we have been reading the Bible within a context that is certainly wrong, and as we have misunderstood the Bible because of this, we need to seek a context more appropriate. As a result, we will begin to read the Bible in a new way." Due to it's tremendous impact on Western Civilization the OT/NT will continued to be studied by serious scholars long after you and I are gone.

Toto

No, that would be an outright lie. When confronted by the alleged science behind creationism, evolutionists patiently explain why it is wrong or refer the deluded pseudoscientist to talkorigins.

There is no symmetry between the positions.

wavy_wonder1

Just to make sure I'm understanding you correctly, are you saying that we have no Christian literature that antedates the 4th century?


Thanks,
Eric

Toto

Hi Eric, since you are new here, please be advised that mountainman (Pete) claims that all Christian literature that appears to have been written before the 4th century was forged by Eusebius under the direction of Constantine.

Please let's not go further on this issue in this thread. There are many previous threads where Pete expounds on his thesis.

Thank you.

Toto

mountainman

Dear arnoldo.

See my thesis.
It is to the new testament that I refer when I stated fraud.

Best wishes


Pete

mountainman

However in direct reference to the thread, also thatthe set of archaeological citations for earlier christian origins is devoid of any unambiguous cite.

Best wishes,


Pete