It's like Beccs says... so many goodies.
I hate all that arguing over the authors of some ancient text... it's pointless.
The contents, on the other hand, are what we have.
Evidence: contents of the bible - a string of stories about a man who, on occasion, is claimed to have done magic, the real sort of magic... and whenever he did that, all around him were amazed... even those who had already seen it happen several times, the disciples.
A few of those stories contain an account of what happened to that man after being tortured and killed by crucifixion, the guy was walking again! Talk about magic!
The book itself claims that these stories were actual depictions of real events.... or, at least, leaves that well implied and the followers of the stories assert that they do, in fact, represent real events, as accurately depicted as possible, for the literary abilities of the people who wrote them.
Does that mean that the stories really happened? Perhaps some, perhaps most were enhanced... specially where magic was involved, huh?
Some parts in the stories relate to actual known locations, customs and, even, events. Mundane events are not difficult to accept happened. Magical events are a "bit" more difficult.
You see, there are other pieces of evidence we can use here... evidence believers rarely even consider to be evidence.
Evidence 1: Pre-existing religions. Egyptians, Sumerian/Assyrians, Hindi, etc...
Evidence 2: Pre-existing fictional writings. Iliad, Odyssey, etc...
Evidence 3: Pre-existing cons, where people perform apparently impossible feats, like illusionism/stage magic... Like the levitating yogi.
What does this tell us?
People already believed in the existence of gods before yahweh came into the picture.
People were already producing written stories of events that didn't happen, often referencing known locations and customs.
People were already conning other people with seemingly magical events.
It is, then, much more likely that the stories in the bible, at least, the parts which involve magic, were literary devices included in the story, to make it more... amazing?... powerful?... power over the pre-believed gods?.... who knows....
Suddenly, the notion that the man depicted in the stories was the actual god incarnate becomes far less reasonable... which god? one of the pre-existing gods?
It's so much easier to make people believe in something they already believe, just with a few details tweaked in, don't you think?
That's how, a few decades ago, the Catholics believed in the notion of Limbo... but now the pope says there's no such thing.... so there's no such thing.... never was.
How could the stories in the bible gain so much traction in the ancient middle-eastern world?
There were probably many factors that went into that... but one is that the stories were relatable... the people saw themselves in that "fight the power" representation of J.C. against the temple merchants and traders.... as people always like to... and went with it.
Some people wrote them down, possibly adding some flourishes which, in time, became canon. Many others must have written other stories which, for several reasons, didn't make it into the canon. Those reasons were anything but divine... again, power over the people... with the people's support.
Eventually (there's that "time god" you keep speaking of), the roman leaders saw the power of this belief. One god to rule them all. Perfect to try to bring the whole roman empire into unity... didn't work out so well for the roman empire... but the institution that was created, the catholic church, that one resisted.... it spread out... the whole of Europe was forced to accept that belief... Europeans then took that belief to the Americas, sub-saharan Africa, Australia... And then we got Ken Ham.
With a history surrounding the stories in the bible so rich in control, gullibility, and evolution of a concept, why should I, now, believe that the stories represent true events?
There's no way my mind can accept them as true. They are on par with the Silmarillion, the Unfinished Tales, the The History of Middle Earth... or, if we can go for single authorship, Harry Potter - both have magic, the latter mentions actual real locations and all, both have the eternal struggle between good and evil, the former has a very awesome depiction of the creation of the Universe.
I hate all that arguing over the authors of some ancient text... it's pointless.
The contents, on the other hand, are what we have.
Evidence: contents of the bible - a string of stories about a man who, on occasion, is claimed to have done magic, the real sort of magic... and whenever he did that, all around him were amazed... even those who had already seen it happen several times, the disciples.
A few of those stories contain an account of what happened to that man after being tortured and killed by crucifixion, the guy was walking again! Talk about magic!
The book itself claims that these stories were actual depictions of real events.... or, at least, leaves that well implied and the followers of the stories assert that they do, in fact, represent real events, as accurately depicted as possible, for the literary abilities of the people who wrote them.
Does that mean that the stories really happened? Perhaps some, perhaps most were enhanced... specially where magic was involved, huh?
Some parts in the stories relate to actual known locations, customs and, even, events. Mundane events are not difficult to accept happened. Magical events are a "bit" more difficult.
You see, there are other pieces of evidence we can use here... evidence believers rarely even consider to be evidence.
Evidence 1: Pre-existing religions. Egyptians, Sumerian/Assyrians, Hindi, etc...
Evidence 2: Pre-existing fictional writings. Iliad, Odyssey, etc...
Evidence 3: Pre-existing cons, where people perform apparently impossible feats, like illusionism/stage magic... Like the levitating yogi.
What does this tell us?
People already believed in the existence of gods before yahweh came into the picture.
People were already producing written stories of events that didn't happen, often referencing known locations and customs.
People were already conning other people with seemingly magical events.
It is, then, much more likely that the stories in the bible, at least, the parts which involve magic, were literary devices included in the story, to make it more... amazing?... powerful?... power over the pre-believed gods?.... who knows....
Suddenly, the notion that the man depicted in the stories was the actual god incarnate becomes far less reasonable... which god? one of the pre-existing gods?
Quote:Yahweh was eventually hypostatized with El. Several pieces of evidence have led scholars to the conclusion that El was the original "God of Israel"—for example, the word "Israel" is based on the name of El rather than on that of Yahweh.[10]:32 Names of the oldest characters in the Torah further show reverence towards El without similar displays towards Yahweh. Most importantly, Yahweh reveals to Moses that though he was not known previously as El, he has, in fact, been El all along.[39]
El was the head of the Canaanite pantheon, with Asherah as his consort and Baal and other deities making up the pantheon.[10]:33 With his rise, Asherah became Yahweh's consort,[40] and Yahweh and Baal at first co-existed and later competed within the popular religion.[10]:33–34
It's so much easier to make people believe in something they already believe, just with a few details tweaked in, don't you think?
That's how, a few decades ago, the Catholics believed in the notion of Limbo... but now the pope says there's no such thing.... so there's no such thing.... never was.
How could the stories in the bible gain so much traction in the ancient middle-eastern world?
There were probably many factors that went into that... but one is that the stories were relatable... the people saw themselves in that "fight the power" representation of J.C. against the temple merchants and traders.... as people always like to... and went with it.
Some people wrote them down, possibly adding some flourishes which, in time, became canon. Many others must have written other stories which, for several reasons, didn't make it into the canon. Those reasons were anything but divine... again, power over the people... with the people's support.
Eventually (there's that "time god" you keep speaking of), the roman leaders saw the power of this belief. One god to rule them all. Perfect to try to bring the whole roman empire into unity... didn't work out so well for the roman empire... but the institution that was created, the catholic church, that one resisted.... it spread out... the whole of Europe was forced to accept that belief... Europeans then took that belief to the Americas, sub-saharan Africa, Australia... And then we got Ken Ham.
With a history surrounding the stories in the bible so rich in control, gullibility, and evolution of a concept, why should I, now, believe that the stories represent true events?
There's no way my mind can accept them as true. They are on par with the Silmarillion, the Unfinished Tales, the The History of Middle Earth... or, if we can go for single authorship, Harry Potter - both have magic, the latter mentions actual real locations and all, both have the eternal struggle between good and evil, the former has a very awesome depiction of the creation of the Universe.
