This to me is like someone becoming a Dr for Cancer research but that person really feels Cancer is a hoax and dedicates years trying to prove that theory.
What's wrong with that? All theories should be challenged. New evidence will lead to modified theories.
I don't feel threatened at all. Her theories are amusing.
God had a wife, David's Kingdom didn't exsist.
Stajan is going to score 50. Whatever floats her boat.
Did you watch the video's or did you just react to the names of each episode?
Ashrah certainly has a real significance to Yahweh and it certainly seems as if later scholars did away with references to her, in the male dominated religious world of the time.
I agree with you that god never had a wife, but I think we may disagree some on the reasoning why.
that is funny i like that
Sorry i do not know how to quote more than 1 person.
Yes Thor I watched the clips except the last one. It was counter productive based on what I had already watched.
Since someone asked about Ehrman (I'm not TC, but I did an undergrad in Religious Studies with a focus on early/formative Christianity and the Greco-Roman context)...
His stuff isn't bad, and typically fairly well researched, but he certainly has some biases that you have to take into account (as do all authors on the subject, let's be honest). With Ehrman, the biases tend to be that his books are written for the general public. In other words, he's trying to make a splash, so he's not going to couch his terms or present multiple interpretations of the existing data/information. Even when he probably should. You're getting what he's selling, and with these books (especially the later ones), what he's selling is a book intended to get the interest of people who want to disprove the claims of Christianity. In my opinion, he also has a very strong personal belief (as opposed to academic belief) about the things he's advocating for or against, and sometimes that leads him to make strong cases for things that really according to the evidence, aren't that strong.
His stuff is kinda like reading a book which is intended to popularize ... I dunno, neuroscience. There's good stuff in there, yes, but it's typically oversimplified and doesn't necessarily give equal treatment to all of the areas that it should. However, if you pair his stuff with some complementary reading that expresses contrary viewpoints, they're worth a read. And, unlike many academic books, it is an easier read
The Following User Says Thank You to maverickstruth For This Useful Post:
It's no secret that as monothestic religions gained prevalence a lot of female archetypes and gods were removed or naturally given back seats as their roles changed. And it wasn't just in large polythestic religions with many many gods, it happened in other religious paradigms too. I mean look at ancient Egyptian beliefs. Osiris had his Isis, and that seemed to be a loving partnership. Further on the point of religious evolution, he had a brother Set (half brother? cousin? I forget exactly.) and he was a Satan character. Some even say that that's a large part of where Satan evolved from. There are of course other pieces, like the Pagan Horned God. But when you look at the history of religions there are places where they change quite significantly, yet many of them come back to a common branch in philosophy and time.
However that makes it hard to say where one religion or belief ends and the other starts.
Many people feel threatened when looking at theories (or really just historical records of the evolution of beliefs) like this because beliefs are so deeply ingrained and they often don't have a ton of knowledge of the evolution of their own religion or other belief systems.
The common belief that prevails of God in the western world is of a lone male creator. So naturally, any digging into where this belief may have started and if it actually started as a different idea will not be looked as a better understanding of this belief, but rather a completely different belief or religion that is obviously erroneous to those holding the current one.
I don't feel threatened at all. Her theories are amusing.
God had a wife, David's Kingdom didn't exsist.
Stajan is going to score 50. Whatever floats her boat.
Well the difference between her theories and the Stajan prediction is hers are supported by evidence.
You equate the idea of god having a wife to Stajan scoring 50 goals, but it's already well known that Judaism has polytheistic roots so why is god having a wife so far fetched? How would finding out about the history of Judaism be "challenging anything biblical"?
We already know of events mentioned in the Bible which likely (or certainly) didn't happen, so why would the claims about David's kingdom being overstated in the Bible be "challenging anything biblical"?
Like I said unless you are an inerrantist (are you?), seeing the Bible as having things in it that aren't intended to be literal history or understanding that the religions of the Bible have a history before the Bible was written is hardly challenging.
Certainly not on the "Stajan scoring 50" level.
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
The Following User Says Thank You to photon For This Useful Post:
Well the difference between her theories and the Stajan prediction is hers are supported by evidence.
You equate the idea of god having a wife to Stajan scoring 50 goals, but it's already well known that Judaism has polytheistic roots so why is god having a wife so far fetched? How would finding out about the history of Judaism be "challenging anything biblical"?
We already know of events mentioned in the Bible which likely (or certainly) didn't happen, so why would the claims about David's kingdom being overstated in the Bible be "challenging anything biblical"?
Like I said unless you are an inerrantist (are you?), seeing the Bible as having things in it that aren't intended to be literal history or understanding that the religions of the Bible have a history before the Bible was written is hardly challenging.
We are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the Bible and Gods exsistance. An Athiest is not going to convince a Christian that God exsist and likewise a Christian is not going to convince a Athiest God does. One of my very close friends is a Athiest but he is still my friend.
We are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the Bible and Gods exsistance. An Athiest is not going to convince a Christian that God exsist and likewise a Christian is not going to convince a Athiest God does. One of my very close friends is a Athiest but he is still my friend.
Well you are incorrect because I have known people that have changed their minds on the subject of God's existence in both directions at least partially due to input from people that hold a different belief than they do.
But that doesn't have anything to do with your equivocation of some historical research and Stajan scoring 50 goals, or your position that she's "challenging anything biblical".
Most Christians I think have problem (EDIT: no problem I mean) acknowledging that some parts of the Bible are not factually accurate and maintain their faith; there's a lot of room between inerrancy and atheism.
EDIT: And historical research into the past and how religions have formed and changed isn't dependent on one's beliefs. You still haven't supported your claim that her agenda is to "challenge anything biblical".
__________________ Uncertainty is an uncomfortable position.
But certainty is an absurd one.
A critical study of the bible, i.e., biblical criticism? Using critical methods to search for authenticity and truth in the writings, and trying to find rational explanations when none are adequately found? The field has little to do with "denouncing" the religion, although it seems you are ready to believe it as such.
You stumbled across one of the main problems with higher criticism: They are looking for what they reasoned they should find.
If you reason that Jesus was just a man then everything that happened must have an explaination that requires no God like powers. So you come up with theories which fit your beliefs. Another religion with a vaguely similar story becomes a source for the scriptures; You question the date of the book because myth is a lot easier to add over time; You question the faithfulness of the transmission of the books for the same reason; Any historical detail that isn't verified by an independant text(not found in the canon) is proof to you that the text is in error; If you find some text that counterdicts the biblical text it is proclaimed as accurate regardless of its origins;ect...
And of course what you believe about the New Testament effects what you believe about the old Testament. Basically you'll end up being right somewhere with some theory unless of course the Bible turns out to be the inspired Word of God. Then you'll have been horribly wrong.
You stumbled across one of the main problems with higher criticism: They are looking for what they reasoned they should find.
If you reason that Jesus was just a man then everything that happened must have an explaination that requires no God like powers. So you come up with theories which fit your beliefs. Another religion with a vaguely similar story becomes a source for the scriptures; You question the date of the book because myth is a lot easier to add over time; You question the faithfulness of the transmission of the books for the same reason; Any historical detail that isn't verified by an independant text(not found in the canon) is proof to you that the text is in error; If you find some text that counterdicts the biblical text it is proclaimed as accurate regardless of its origins;ect...
And of course what you believe about the New Testament effects what you believe about the old Testament. Basically you'll end up being right somewhere with some theory unless of course the Bible turns out to be the inspired Word of God. Then you'll have been horribly wrong.
You're telling me the problem with "higher criticism" is that it uses reason?
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
As a Christian I watched this documentary and even though this women is extremely intelligent, well spoken and articulate. I do not agree with her veiwpoint.
As for Davids kingdom and exsistance. I would ask "her" to explain all the many many historical artifacts and structures with the Star of David inscribed on them that have been found throughout the middle east and that David has as much reference and importance in Christianity as being the King of Israel, as in Islamic teaching and Muslim David is a primary prophet referred multiple times in the Qur'an and in daily prayer. So is that to just to be all overlooked.
Like i said before. Photon it would appear you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the discussion of the Bible's exsistance and Gods exsistance. I can respect that.
As a Christian I watched this documentary and even though this women is extremely intelligent, well spoken and articulate. I do not agree with her veiwpoint.
As for Davids kingdom and exsistance. I would ask "her" to explain all the many many historical artifacts and structures with the Star of David inscribed on them that have been found throughout the middle east and that David has as much reference and importance in Christianity as being the King of Israel, as in Islamic teaching and Muslim David is a primary prophet referred multiple times in the Qur'an and in daily prayer. So is that to just to be all overlooked.
Like i said before. Photon it would appear you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the discussion of the Bible's exsistance and Gods exsistance. I can respect that.
David being referenced and revered in Christianity and Islam has little to do with his historical existence, or possible lack there of, and all to do with their shared Judaic ancestry. Unless you believe, as a Christian, that Muhammad was spoken to by Gabriel and was revealed the true final word of god? Otherwise, what does it matter if the Muslims revere him as a prophet?
As for the Star of David, what historical artifacts and buildings? Its name as the "Star of David" wasn't mentioned until long, long, long after David would have lived, and its importance to Jews nowadays is nothing like the unimportance it was to the ancient ones (it wasn't even used until the Middle Ages.) If you believe in these ancient artifacts and buildings inscribed with the symbol all over the Mid-East, cite some of them. Try to find something from the time period of David, or even remotely close to it
As the woman said, there is very slim, if any, actual evidence for the existence of David and his empire. Lots of conjecture and legend, though. That doesn't mean David didn't exist, or that he didn't have an "empire" (though it was probably puny, if he did), but that it should be thought of with a healthy heaping of skepticism.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
You're telling me the problem with "higher criticism" is that it uses reason?
I'm telling you that at its base is a false premise: That the scriptures are in error. It goes foreward from that assumption to find reasonable hypothesis why it is error. The Bible starts off as guilty.
If you took a look at their various historical theories closely you would find very little merit in them. At best they could have happened that way. The reason why conjecture is so readily accepted is because it fits with their false premise.
As a Christian I watched this documentary and even though this women is extremely intelligent, well spoken and articulate. I do not agree with her veiwpoint. As for Davids kingdom and exsistance. I would ask "her" to explain all the many many historical artifacts and structures with the Star of David inscribed on them that have been found throughout the middle east and that David has as much reference and importance in Christianity as being the King of Israel, as in Islamic teaching and Muslim David is a primary prophet referred multiple times in the Qur'an and in daily prayer. So is that to just to be all overlooked.
Like i said before. Photon it would appear you and I are at opposite ends of the spectrum on the discussion of the Bible's exsistance and Gods exsistance. I can respect that.
King Arthur and his round table are referenced all over the UK in literary sources, they even have a bloody great round table hanging up in Winchester Cathedral, no actual evidence he existed at all none the less.
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 08-25-2011 at 09:20 PM.
You stumbled across one of the main problems with higher criticism: They are looking for what they reasoned they should find.
If you reason that Jesus was just a man then everything that happened must have an explaination that requires no God like powers. So you come up with theories which fit your beliefs. Another religion with a vaguely similar story becomes a source for the scriptures; You question the date of the book because myth is a lot easier to add over time; You question the faithfulness of the transmission of the books for the same reason; Any historical detail that isn't verified by an independant text(not found in the canon) is proof to you that the text is in error; If you find some text that counterdicts the biblical text it is proclaimed as accurate regardless of its origins;ect...
And of course what you believe about the New Testament effects what you believe about the old Testament. Basically you'll end up being right somewhere with some theory unless of course the Bible turns out to be the inspired Word of God. Then you'll have been horribly wrong.
Which bible, out of the effing hundreds that have been writen, would be the one that is the word of god?
I only ask so I know which one to reference when making important moral decisions like whether I should keep a slave or stone my ex wife to death.
