Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[pocaracas]

I have to admit, Drich, you never cease to amaze me.
At least, you're consistent with your own stuff.

It's still bollocks, because you take off from a faulty position, but it's consistent.

1. I never said that the bible had been written in Aramaic. I just said that I'd expect to see a good deal of its originals written in Aramaic,

If you do then you did not understand how literacy worked in that time. There was one primary written language for the empire despite what language you spoke. yes common people spoke aramaic, but educated people spoke greek and wrote and recorded in greek. Now 90% of Jesus' interactions was with the members of the Jewish hierarchy which again spoke and wrote in greek, Jesus spoke to tax collectors and centurions which again spoke and wrote in greek. Luke was a doctor which means he spoke and wrote in greek Matthew was a tax collector which meant he spoke and wrote in greek, Mark was the scribe of peter which means he wrote and spoke in greek. John while not a roman official could read and write which means he could read and write in greek. Why? because in their schools Greek was the official primary language that was taught. Like in japan or even in european countries where english while not an absolute mandate for those going off to trade school is a must for higher learning. Back then the literacy rate was 4% which means if you could read or write it was formally taught in the greek so as to unify the empire.

There are no officalbooks in aramaic as it was a bastard's langage. meaning no proper rule set and no one interested in teaching it. Do you understand now? If you expected to see the bible written in aramaic it is because you are ignorant to the culture in which you are trying to teach.

I'm not going to argue, as what you say does make sense.
But... Care to tell me which empire that was?

Last I checked, the Roman Empire's official language was Latin:
"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Languages
The language of the Romans was Latin, which Virgil emphasizes as a source of Roman unity and tradition.[54][55][56] Until the time of Alexander Severus (reigned 222–235), the birth certificates and wills of Roman citizens had to be written in Latin.[57] Latin was the language of the law courts in the West and of the military throughout the Empire,[58] but was not imposed officially on peoples brought under Roman rule.[
""


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empi...tic_legacy
""
The Babatha Archive is a suggestive example of multilingualism in the Empire. These papyri, named for a Jewish woman in the province of Arabia and dating from 93 to 132 AD, mostly employ Aramaic, the local language, written in Greek characters with Semitic and Latin influences; a petition to the Roman governor, however, was written in Greek.[78]
""

How curious... a wrench thrown in your story...


But I got there, because I was looking for that Empire where Greek was the official language... I thought it might be the Eastern Roman Empire, also known as the Byzantine Empire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Byzantine_Empire, but that one was formed in the 4th century, so no... can't have been that one.


Oh, but wait...
"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Languages
As a consequence of Alexander's conquests, koine Greek had become the shared language around the eastern Mediterranean and into Asia Minor.
""

So... an accident from the times of the great Alexander.
You got lucky, here Drich.

given the actual people who took part in the tale. But we don't see that. What we see is that it was written in Greek, so, at best, I'll give you that the meaning of the original tellers of the story could have gotten lost in translation...

to a native speaker of koine greek??? that is the other piece you are too dense to get... Those who wrote wrote as a native speaker of greek and aramaic. so what was lost? do you speak a second language? maybe this is why you can't seem to wrap your mind around this idea. you are a unitasker who is not speak from experience but is just trying to plug in comments to win an argument he know very little about. Again it is very obvious you are out of your depth here and should be asking questions rather than trying to assert what you think.

It may come as a surprise to you, but English is not my native language.
And it's still relatively easy to mistranslate things.
Luckily, I'm used to thinking in English so I don't do as many others who think in their native tongue and then translate their thoughts in real time. My posts are already messy enough without this extra layer of crazy that I could have easily been applying.

while the more likely case is that the stories we see were just penning down of stories floating around in the popular mythology... at worst, they're total fabrications.

that's a lazy mind easy out... so where are the other examples? why would anyone worship a god made up of 10 other god's myths? do you really see you fellow man as being sooo stupid they would not recognise this new super hero has superman's planetary origins bat man's detective skills green lanterns ability to materialize what he imagines with wolverine's ability to heal?!?!? If you one who does not understand how knowing a second language works can understand and see a plagiarized back story would you be soo stupid as to see this new story as being an original?

Who said anything of a god made up of 10 other god's myths, Drich? Why are you putting words in my mouth?
Popular mythology is the stuff that people believe in.

Given the span of generations in the people of the time, any story over 50 years old concerning a god, any god, would have been a mythological story.
200 years prior, according to some, there was the Teacher of Righteousness already advocating many of the things that have been later claimed to be advocated by Jesus. He, along with his followers, the Essenes, are not in the bible... for some reason. Perhaps as an attempt to bury that part of the story that's very inconvenient?

While you take the writings at face value, I look at mankind and consider that view to have been very unlikely

.My slow brother.. I actually have one what you pretend to do though the argument of people like crowder and ehrman. That is why I can punch holes in the simple challenges you throw up. like the one above. that has been regurgitated so many times it has become atheist cannon. but it fails to consider the people ablity to discern a fraud and christian cleansing/persecution by rome.. Again if you saw the origins of this new guy mirror the back stories of other people in the MCU or the DCU (Marvel cinematic universe) would you be tortured and die? would you see your family tortured and killed? But may did for Christ. that does not happen for old stories assigned for a new guy. You now can see an old story retold for a new guy is fake,then why in your mind's eye couldn't the people who lived in the time of Christ do the same?

Who was tortured and killed?
Is that what the book edited by the late christians tells you? A bit self-serving, don't you think?

On the other hand... can we compare this to witch burning? Those witches did die for their precious witchcraft, huh?

2. If there is a god and that god was to provide people with a morality manual,

You are not reading anything I am telling you...

There are two rules to christianity not a "morality manual."

I can think of far better things than what we see in the OT.

again not morality God's will.

Ah... God's will.
That which is plastered all over the OT?

Or that which wills you to have faith?

Speaking of, did you ever get around to answer the question: What sort of god values faith, or belief?

You douche bags invented 'morality' as a reason or excuse not to live by God's will.

God went a different direction for those who could not live under his will. Redemption... Not you 'good people' you just make up morality and if you do more 'moral things than immoral things you get to call yourself good.

See that is how man's religion works... So if man were to invent a God would it not be off the idea of morality? Eg Islam, Roman catolic church, laterday saints, JWs???Atheists... The God of the bible is not the god of your morality. you are. The God of the bible is the God of Agape and atonement.

The god of the bible is the god of a book. Like the Green Lanterns. I don't think one is any more real than the other, but they both exist in their respective books.

In the absence of any external moral imposition, "we" invented nothing. Mankind, as a social species, developed it's own often intuitive moral guidelines, and, mostly through trial and error, arrived at what we now call moral rules.
There are many other species that follow their own moral guidelines... and we see a few parallels with our own.

Better, like timeless, independent of the trappings of a particular geographical people, with no need for interpretation, no need for faith, no need for religious leaders, no need for religious conflicts, schisms, differences of opinion, nor any other religious idiocy we witness. So I dismiss the OT as any guide provided by any god. It reeks of man-made.

you are right morality does reek of being man made.. but something time less like redemption based on your ablity to forgive others... that is unlike anything else ever done in religion.. Example: "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.. " right there in hiding in the middle of the lords prayer is the key to christianity that still escapes you. God does not judge the moral nor does he care what we consider to be good and bad. as we all have fallen short of the glory of God thus we need redemption. if we have it then there is no judgement. if we do not THAT this where the OT law still applies. (in the judgement of the self proclaimed moral)

Ah... redemption towards god. Of course, given the absence of that god, something like that had to be invented to keep people in line and striving to be acting more in line with the perceived moral guides.

3. The Church was created, or popularized, by Paul, never Peter.

citation please.

Didn't you say it?

The Peter detail is "church tradition" and, as such, far from certain. But it is well known that Paul ended up being the philosophical creator of the christianity that would become catholicism. At the time that the bible's NT books were compiled and many were rejected, a different church was also formed... the first schism. Can you tell me on which southern European country that other church is still prevalent? I'll give you a hint, it starts with G and rhymes with eek. You think they wouldn't know enough to properly read the books written in their language and would require a German to come and say how to do things? Even those rejected Paul's version of Christianity... But they don't matter, huh? No power in Europe... History is written by the victors.

citation please.

Once more, people writing books for other people to read. Books based on other books that had been written by people. Books and mythology, all in people's minds and pens.

citation please.

Isn't that how books work?

Because the catholic church it selfsay Peter was the father of the church not paul.
which if you will remember is the catylist for this discussion/you in the beginning were arguing for peter's claim to the fatherhood of the church.
https://www.catholic.com/tract/origins-of-peter-as-pope

Yes, and you said it was Paul.
I still see only people being mentioned as actually doing something on Earth.

4. If there really was a god and that god cared enough to guide all of mankind into the light, then I would expect a far better implementation, than this seemingly man-made mythology.

and if he wanted to not guide all of man kind but a select few?? IE do you think he wants the ISIS guys in heaven worshiping allah and bombing cities? What the more white collar unrepentant are just another tpye of isis? what if their fence sitting and or 'morality' is a far greater plague that allows sin to seep in over time? Not everyone is meant to enter heaven as we are not all of God's children. There is a parable of a land owner that explains this if you wish.

If there is a god, and if that god only wants to pick out a select few, then why are those allegedly selected always yammering the non-selected about how these should accept some hidden entity as lord and savior and super creator of the whole cosmos?
Leave us be. We were not selected.
Why are you here?!

The poor ISIS guys never had a chance. You see, this god of yours put in place a system where one can easily guide a child into believing almost anything. And religious belief is a regional thing, so people in particular regions teach a particular god to their children.
Seems a bit shoddy for a god to basically ignore whole populations, due to accident of birth.

It does make perfect sense in a man-made god, though... so there's that.

 there would be no need to interpret (like I said above) any text glue it with any scientific knowledge that crops up, and no need for any gymnastics!  No need to make it fit. Things would be plainly explained to anyone, independently of the era and location on the planet.
As it is, it's a mess.

like pluto is not a planet or world is not flat or the universe does not revolve around the earth.. because one could also conclude the same when 'science' split those hairs/theories as well. One's man's mental gymnastics is just the evolution of knowledge and understanding. But your closed minded understanding of religion will not allow it..

What you call "evolution of knowledge", I call rehashing religion.
Religion is not knowledge, ok? It's called "belief" and you value your "faith" for a reason! And that reason is that it's NOT knowledge.
And you need mental gymnastics to glue the belief part with what is actually known of those ancient times.

In the meantime, I'm here looking you twisting yourself while I have the most straightforward and realistic perspective upon things. People.