Evolution and Christianity and Salvation

[Drich]

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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)

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

citation please.

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.

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

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.

And this is where the mental gymnastics come into play -

anything you douche bags do not conclude on you own is mental gymnastics.. in fact in most cases anything to do with a translative error on your part is mental gymnastics.. when any other time you accept the correction and move on.. like pluto is not a planet or world is not flat or the universe does not revolve around the earth..

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..

[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.

[Drich]

God kills in the flood all of the soul less monsters who were combining themselves with rouge demons.

I am absolutely amazed that any human being in the modern era can take such an idea(s) seriously.

Why not believe that human beings were deposited into volcanoes by space faring aliens some 50 million years ago?

who says "God" is not an 'alien.' After all He fits the scientific definition. an why not 50 million because 'science' says 3.5 billion years ago. So God,, an extra trestial (not sentient being not of this planet) seeded or created or terriformed this planet with everything it needed to evolve into what it is today and it only took him/his tech or methods 6 days to do it. 6 of his day? six literal earth day or anyother measure of time called a day is not clear. but 6 days by his count was all it took.

I can think this way because I am not a drone who can only look at science as one thing and faith as another. If we live long enough we will see science and faith come together. our ancestors where not stupid they built cities they mapped the stars they came up with philosphy all sorts of universal mathmatics all under their religious beliefs. Any technology to a person without it would appear as magic to them. Perhaps we will understand why jesus spit in the dirt made clay and rubbed it in the blind man's eye to make him see again, or why he told a leper to dunk himself 7 times in the jordan, or why scales fell from pauls eyes it al speaks to thing they do not understand but is certainly our grasp to explain as we become more aware of how God works in this world.

[The Grand Nudger]

Defending ancient alien mythology by means of scientologists assertions should be a canary in the mines moment.  Why do I get the feeling that it won't be?

[900ft j]

when I was a kid (and catholic) that always got me too. At what point in evolution does the sould come in? The catholic church - and other religious groups - dancing around what they could no longer deny dealt one of the first blows to my faith. If this was god's word or law last week and the church issues a statement modifying it, clearly people had a hand, at least in shaping religion.

[The Grand Nudger]

That's one of the fun things about religions.  Even if we assumed there was a god that wouldn't change anything about the religions on offer.  They'd still be manufactured items, just as they already are, if we lived in a in a universe that actually -did- contain a god....which we don't, lol.

[Drich]

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

going back second read through I'm changing my initial response here.. in 3 paragraphs you will know the truth yet you intellectual dishonestly has you keep your opening onslaught and everything else you have to say with references that ultimately prove yourself wrong. either you have no integrity or you are just a purposed troll.

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

again look at this.. stick with it but you know now this is not true. what apos thing to do is not admit when you are beyond wrong.

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.

It makes sense because asie from my personal 25 years of study nearly every single day in this time period and working under great doctors in and on this time period What i said is the historical proof. Why was koine greek the official language because several hundred years before alexander the great conquored the whole region and greek was the common core language of everyone, meaning they only spoke it as it was a empirial mandate, then after the empire splintered several hundred years errod the greek only mandate, but anyone who is anyone in business government or trade must retain the greek as it united the whole region. again like star wars and it's galactic base language or how english is the world standard. Rome then came along and simply used what the greeks established. yes the closer to rome you got the more who spoke latin, but even to them greek was a majority standard.

Educate yourself fool:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_...man_Empire
Latin and Greek were the official languages of the Roman Empire, but other languages were important regionally. Latin was the original language of the Romans and remained the language of imperial administration, legislation, and the military throughout the classical period.[2] In the West it became the lingua franca and came to be used for even local administration of the cities including the law courts.[3][4] After all freeborn inhabitants of the Empire were universally enfranchised in 212 AD, a great number of Roman citizens would have lacked Latin, though they were expected to acquire at least a token knowledge, and Latin remained a marker of "Romanness".[5][dubious – discuss]

Koine Greek had become a shared language around the eastern Mediterranean and diplomatic communications in the East even beyond the borders of the Empire. The international use of Greek was one condition that enabled the spread of Christianity, as indicated for example by the choice of Greek as the language of the New Testament in the Bible[6] and its use for the ecumenical councils of the Christian Roman Empire rather than Latin. With the dissolution of the Empire in the West, Greek became the dominant language of the Roman Empire in the East, modernly referred to as the Byzantine Empire.

But... Care to tell me which empire that was?

started with the greeks and alexander the great and and with rome.

Last I checked, the Roman Empire's official language was Latin:

"" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empire#Languages

FROM YOU OWN SOURCE THE VERY FIRST PARAGRAPH!!!!
The Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Rōmānum, Classical Latin: [ɪmˈpɛ.ri.ũː roːˈmaː.nũː]; Koine and Medieval Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn; Italian: Impero romano) was the post-Roman Republic period of the ancient Roman civilization. It had a government headed by emperors and large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean Sea in Europe, North Africa, and West Asia. From the constitutional reforms of Augustus to the military anarchy of the third century, the Empire was a principate ruled from the city of Rome (27 BC - 285 AD).
Stupid moron Your buddies use to argue this point with me when I first came to this web site but it quickly all died off because after just one or two points I cleared things up... but not with you.. you are such a intellectual void of dishonesty you will not even acknoweledge the information that supports my assertions even in your own selected reference material!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_Empi...tic_legacy

again from the very first paragraph of your own selected reference material.
The Roman Empire (Latin: Imperium Rōmānum, Classical Latin: [ɪmˈpɛ.ri.ũː roːˈmaː.nũː]; Koine and Medieval Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, tr. Basileia tōn Rhōmaiōn; Italian: Impero romano) was the post-Roman Republic period of the ancient Roman civilization. It had a government headed by emperors and large territorial holdings around the Mediterranean Sea in Europe, North Africa, and West Asia. From the constitutional reforms of Augustus to the military anarchy of the third century, the Empire was a principate ruled from the city of Rome (27 BC - 285 AD).

Do you see it? in my refrence and in your very own 3 times total latain was a offical language but in the medertrainian it was koine and medevil greek again the closer to rome you get the more people use latian but koine greek is the universal standard.

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

you are a joke or a troll. i honestly don't think your smart enough to be a troll as nothing you've ever written was not heart on your sleeve stuff.

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.

just read the first paragraph in any of the three above references it gives the offical langages.
douche..

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.

25+ years of study... yeah quite the accident..

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.

I know you are from spain I am mocking you.. you speak and think as an isolationist. you have the mind set that your culture your langage is the world and time bench mark and everything should be easily understood and accessible to you. You are the picture of the fat lazy westerner/american the rest of the world hates!!!

And it's still relatively easy to mistranslate things.

maybe to a 40 year old learning a second langage but when you are tauht the two side by side the only difference is accent depending on which is the primary.
I speak a second language as well and can to a degree read /comprehend in a third, don't try and sell me otherwise.

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.

they would probably just look like mind with grammar and spelling errors. once you get past the rules of the language you can see who is and who is not what they say they are.

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.

Hey-sus.. this is what I am talking about being single minded.. You said the jesus story or christianity was compiled from other popular stories at the time... I simply took a modern examples of what that would look like I did not mean to blow all the fuses in your little mind.

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?

again how f-ing stupid do you think people were back then? according to you they were luck to be out of caves. I guess that is the downside of electing to believe you are part monkey relative. in that everyone who came before you is a dumb ass. Here's the thing sport o.. mark twain is about 200 years ago do you think anyone would notice if I took tom sawyer's life and adopted for my own that anyone would notice? do you think If I told about me meeting up with an exslave to have an adventure down a river on a raft that anyone would believe that to be my story? Again lazy writing lazy thinking sport. maybe if you could produce one of those stories that Jesus supposedly spawned from... but you can't can you but nothing stps you from making the slanderous charge except personal intergrity which if you look at the first three things you had to say here is out the window.

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?

hey dummy... remember the koine greek arguement? it's kinda important why?? because there is alot of period stuff written in that koine greek by followers of Christ, historians even emperors and governors who discuss how to torture and kill said christians.. Maybe you want to do some research maybe look up flavious pliney the younger and emporer tragen before I slam you nose in that door.

did you know 90% of the 'facts' you guys believe and tell ourselves is out right fake news BS? Do some reseach before i post those written works and make you look stupid--er

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

let me ask you this... If there where real honest to goodness witches who ate children and the only way to kill them was what the church perscribed would you do that? or would you allow them to eat your children?

let's put it in a modern context. lets say ISIS strikes you city, and they keep comming becuse you live in one of those puny european places with o guns and they find no boarder oppostion so they just at will bomb and shoot the place up killing people at will! now one is being hunted by the police who have vowed to start hanging them in the streets after being caned and descrated with pork products so they can't goto heaven.. You you hide them like an ann frank in your home or do you turn them in?

In essence the same thing is happening to both people being persecuted. the only difference is your presume like a f-ing douche bag that you can see 300 to 800 years into the past at will and motivations and assume all thing are equal and there are no real child eating witches... but again these people lived then and there and if you can pause your need to make your ancestors monkies for a minute, you might have insite to thier world and their reasoning even considering that things then are not as they are now. and they may have been witches.. not harry potter BS moron but people who hated cilivlization and knew how to be domestic terrorists and poisin wells live stock and contaimate the ground and spread death... do you get it you dense turd? change the word witch to terrorist which is how your ancestors (mine did not live in the region monkee man) saw these people. so then how better to communicate to those who would be the domestic terrorists of their day than to descreate them so they would be damned not only in this live but for eternity for preying on civilization..

Man what a closed mind you have. everything polarized for you isn't it? it's all good or all bad all the time? you have no compassion nor can bring yourself to see how terrifying it would be to live in a time where people claimed the supernatural as a form of terroristic activity, with you having nothing to combat the onslaught with!

Even today with ISIS if you don't live in a pusy country you can at least shoot back when they shoot up a christmas party or try and blow up a magazine. Imagine how much more frightening if someone came to your town and siad leave or everyone dies and then people start getting sick and nothing you can do helps!!!

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

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



again not morality God's will.

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

yep

Or that which wills you to have faith?

nope. God's expressed or written will or people to do and or follow in mind body and deed.

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

I answer all questions.
The God who wants you to make a choice not feeling the pressure or weight of eternity.. Meaning if I had a gun to you head and just blew off the last guys head who said he did not believe in God, there would be a certain pressure to say and do the right thing is there not? How much more so if you saw the guy before you get cast nt hell while standing at the Gates of eternal bliss and happiness? Wouldn't any decision you make at that point be slightly off what you might actually feel? where as if there is no discernable presence of God it is much easier to make the choice you would in a heart felt way.. And the only point in faith is to show you can place the faith he gives each of us in him rather than the dog and pony show you call science. as both are faith based belief systems

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.

there is a difference the bible is a map to find God in this life. follow the map... stand before God. here and now.

In the absence of any external moral imposition, "we" invented nothing.

that's alie or an admission of little to no self awareness.
every major debate we have in this country before an election is an example of manufactured morality by the left verse the right. immigrents boarder walls gun control abortion socalism redistribution of wealth taxes all of it ties bac to the morality of man and the federal governments role to regulate it.

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.

tomato tamato.. tell me I'm wrong to just repeat me.

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.

what moral guideline moron? once redemption is complete morality ceases. there are no right or wrong actions. it all becomes a matter of love. love of God love for your neighbor. that's it. Have a gun don't have a gun use the n word don't use that word hate a gay are gay, The god of the bible is not in that business. That is religion and tradition you are mixing with the bible.

citation please.

Didn't you say it?

citation please.

citation please.

Isn't that how books work?
just say pass if you can't support your assertions.

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.

citation please. Peter is the father of the catholic movement yes.. however paul wrote 2/3's of the bible my question was if peter was the father of the church then why did he contribute so little to it?

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?!

because we do not know who is and who is no till the final judgement. I grew up the first 1/2 of my life thinking I was not 'selected.' Now I know that was not true. I simply fell into believeing the same bs you guys keep hiding behind.

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.

who says you can't find God in islam? what makes you think anything we call ourselves has anything to do with How god identifies us? there are universal truths that span well beyond traditional religious christianity. mainly the two rules of Christian Christ Himself implements.. You can not tell me that only christians know to love god with all their being and don't automatically love our neighbors as ourselves.

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

if that where true then why isn't ever taught as I explained it?

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.

because your an idiot who thinks the religion was based on aramaic writings.
and you have also closed you mind off to anything you can understand with a cursory glance. As with my evolution theory I change nothing not one word, just the understanding of how it is understood. by point out there are no time lines book chapter and verse denotations artificially place on the creation account.

Religion is not knowledge, ok?

I am not a fan of religion either as it is a crutch may depend on rather than pushing through and seeking God.

It's called "belief" and you value your "faith" for a reason! And that reason is that it's NOT knowledge.

faith is but the seed sport not the finished product. Faith is just the starting point for a relationship with the living God.. Do you understand what I am saying? that if you put faith in God and follow through with what he says you yourself can be having this talk with him in this life.

And you need mental gymnastics to glue the belief part with what is actually known of those ancient times.

says the closed minded atheist who think his knowledge exceeds that of a 20+ year student of the word, yet learned something today he is barely able to admit... Which begs a question he will never ask himself.. what else was I wrong about? what else don't I know that I will dismiss as 'mental gymnastics?"

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

the only thing that get twisted is you little perception of a great God and an explaination of a book that has chewed you up and spit you out today.

[The Grand Nudger]

-thus spoke the lord, lol.

[Drich]

when I was a kid (and catholic) that always got me too. At what point in evolution does the sould come in? The catholic church - and other religious groups - dancing around what they could no longer deny dealt one of the first blows to my faith. If this was god's word or law last week and the church issues a statement modifying it, clearly people had a hand, at least in shaping religion.

but again what I have done is not change one iota of what is read in the bible. it read as it always has. I just point out how a none catholic look (they have been reading the bible wrong as the put the book chapter and verse denotation in the bible like 600 years ago and got it wrong causing everyone after to read it wrong.

Again I simply rope off creation into the works of the father and the seven days it took to do the overall chapter 1 broad creation and chapter two Jesus' creation of the garden and everything in it. then point out jesus' completed the whole chapter two by day 4 so chapter three was not day 8= 6000 year old earth. I point out that there is no time line between 4th day completion of chapter 2 and the fall of man chapter 3 which did happen 6000 years ago which means the 3.5 billion years science is looking for could very neatly fit between chapter 2 and chapter 3 which should not be 2 and 3 but is.. That my friend is the only thing that has been changed about the bible which cause a terrible mess of understanding of how creation works in relation to evolution. the addition of book chapter and verse. 

If you read the first three chapters of genesis the natural break is to rope off God the father's creation on day 7. on this time line man was created day 6 (man had no soul) however Jesus created adam day 4 with a soul and put him in the garden which was a separate thing than the rest of the world.

---

That's one of the fun things about religions.  Even if we assumed there was a god that wouldn't change anything about the religions on offer.  They'd still be manufactured items, just as they already are, if we lived in a in a universe that actually -did- contain a god....which we don't, lol.

That is where all of you fail.

God is not religion God is bigger than any one single religious movement. You all look to put God in these tiny little religious boxes of small faith all the while missing out on the bigger simpler truth...

[The Grand Nudger]

Physician, heal thyself, lol. How much time have you spent trying to cram your god into the religion of genesis?  Think you might be missing out on a bigger, simpler truth, perhaps?  Has anyone ever suggested that you were doing so? Who fails, again?