My hypothesis about God/gods

[alang1216]

How is a store being closed forcing a religion on you?

Why was it closed on a Sunday and not some other day? Sunday was just a randomly selected day or was it because it was the Christian sabbath?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Believers rightly say there is no proof there is no God. Of course they are unable to prove there is a God.

It has been proven repeatedly for many generations, Nimrod.

Unproven and unproveable.

There are many things we don't know but to attribute our ignorance to God is just compounding our ignorance. We don't know how the universe came to be, there may have been a creator or it may always have existed. Same with natures laws and forces.

Even if you insist there must have been a creator it is a gigantic, unsupportable leap to say it was the God of the Bible. Zero evidence for that and plenty of evidence against it.

You obviously have not even read on the topic.

You are an ignotheist.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Christians vote based on their beliefs like everyone else, so when the public is 80% Christian of one kind or another, that means we will get laws that are in keeping with Christian precepts unless the courts force antithetical laws on us.

They are welcome to vote anyway they chose, that is their right, but if they base their vote on their religion they are forcing their religion on me.

No, because ...

1) not all values are religious

2) when you lose a vote and other's beliefs are 'forced on you' by new laws that is part of the problem with losing.

3) there is no force as you can always LEAVE.

If I lived in a Muslim neighborhood and everyone there voted for Sharia Law they are forcing their religion on me. No difference.

Lol, big difference.

Why don't you read up on the topic before posting a lot of uninformed nonsense?

 

[alang1216]

It has been proven repeatedly for many generations, Nimrod.

Unproven and unproveable.

There are many things we don't know but to attribute our ignorance to God is just compounding our ignorance. We don't know how the universe came to be, there may have been a creator or it may always have existed. Same with natures laws and forces.

Even if you insist there must have been a creator it is a gigantic, unsupportable leap to say it was the God of the Bible. Zero evidence for that and plenty of evidence against it.

You obviously have not even read on the topic.

You are an ignotheist.

Actually I think I'm pretty well read. Dismiss me if you wish but that doesn't convince me you know anything. Just the opposite in fact.

 

[alang1216]

Christians vote based on their beliefs like everyone else, so when the public is 80% Christian of one kind or another, that means we will get laws that are in keeping with Christian precepts unless the courts force antithetical laws on us.

They are welcome to vote anyway they chose, that is their right, but if they base their vote on their religion they are forcing their religion on me.

No, because ...

1) not all values are religious

2) when you lose a vote and other's beliefs are 'forced on you' by new laws that is part of the problem with losing.

3) there is no force as you can always LEAVE.

If I lived in a Muslim neighborhood and everyone there voted for Sharia Law they are forcing their religion on me. No difference.

Lol, big difference.

Why don't you read up on the topic before posting a lot of uninformed nonsense?

Again I think you can't refute so you dismiss. I think I see a pattern.

And forcing me to leave is still coercion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Unproven and unproveable.

There are many things we don't know but to attribute our ignorance to God is just compounding our ignorance. We don't know how the universe came to be, there may have been a creator or it may always have existed. Same with natures laws and forces.

Even if you insist there must have been a creator it is a gigantic, unsupportable leap to say it was the God of the Bible. Zero evidence for that and plenty of evidence against it.

You obviously have not even read on the topic.

You are an ignotheist.

Actually I think I'm pretty well read. Dismiss me if you wish but that doesn't convince me you know anything. Just the opposite in fact.

The impossibility of an infinite regression in time tells us there is a Creating force.

The enormous size of the universe done in such little time, mere fractions of a second, tells me that for all practical purposes the Creating force is omnipotent.

Set Theory tells me that such an infinity of infinities contains all possible sets of qualities that are positive qualities, to include intelligence and a personality. This is affirmed by revelations shared with mankind for eons.

The visible order in the universe tells me this Creative intelligence is moral and orderly.

The sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ tells me the Creator is also a loving Creator that wants us to respond to Him in a positive and voluntary way.

But this is all the subject of debate and discussion for millennia the only difference is that the Big Bang has been proven and hence so has the Creation event itself, thus implying a Creator more than ever.

In addition to which millions of people have direct perceptions of God themselves in mystical fashion, while anyone can see the transcendent qualities of God were they not mislabeling it like a blind drunk feeling an elephant and becoming convinced its a tree, a vine and a low hanging rock instead of one large animal. You see God ever day and think it simple kindness, a display of integrity, a mere star, or forest of birds.

God is everywhere. Seeing Him only requires you to recognize what it is that you see.

 

[JimBowie1958]

They are welcome to vote anyway they chose, that is their right, but if they base their vote on their religion they are forcing their religion on me.

No, because ...

1) not all values are religious

2) when you lose a vote and other's beliefs are 'forced on you' by new laws that is part of the problem with losing.

3) there is no force as you can always LEAVE.

If I lived in a Muslim neighborhood and everyone there voted for Sharia Law they are forcing their religion on me. No difference.

Lol, big difference.

Why don't you read up on the topic before posting a lot of uninformed nonsense?

Again I think you can't refute so you dismiss. I think I see a pattern.

And forcing me to leave is still coercion.

Allowing you to leave your prison is coercion?

Nah, you're just a whiney little person, determined to be unhappy and miserable.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

How is a store being closed forcing a religion on you?

Why was it closed on a Sunday and not some other day? Sunday was just a randomly selected day or was it because it was the Christian sabbath?

Again, how does the store being closed force religion on you?

 

[alang1216]

The impossibility of an infinite regression in time tells us there is a Creating force. - logical fallacy, hardly a proof

The enormous size of the universe done in such little time, mere fractions of a second, tells me that for all practical purposes the Creating force is omnipotent. - if you're talking about inflation, it has been going on for billions of years, our universe wasn't always this large

Set Theory tells me that such an infinity of infinities contains all possible sets of qualities that are positive qualities, to include intelligence and a personality. This is affirmed by revelations shared with mankind for eons. - An infinity of infinities contains everything, many gods, evil, etc.

The visible order in the universe tells me this Creative intelligence is moral and orderly. - the universe is filled the chaos and randomness too

The sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ tells me the Creator is also a loving Creator that wants us to respond to Him in a positive and voluntary way - theology not univserally accepted

But this is all the subject of debate and discussion for millennia the only difference is that the Big Bang has been proven and hence so has the Creation event itself, thus implying a Creator more than ever. - has there been only one big bang or an infinite number in an eternal universe?

In addition to which millions of people have direct perceptions of God themselves in mystical fashion, while anyone can see the transcendent qualities of God were they not mislabeling it like a blind drunk feeling an elephant and becoming convinced its a tree, a vine and a low hanging rock instead of one large animal. You see God ever day and think it simple kindness, a display of integrity, a mere star, or forest of birds. God is everywhere. Seeing Him only requires you to recognize what it is that you see. - Humanity is certainly everywhere and we are capable of finding whatever we look for, be it God, Jesus, Satan, Zeus, conspiracies, ghosts, leprechans, aliens, or Elvis.

 

[JimBowie1958]

You are an ignotheist.

The impossibility of an infinite regression in time tells us there is a Creating force. - logical fallacy, hardly a proof

That it is a logical fallacy proves that time had to have a starting point, dude.

The enormous size of the universe done in such little time, mere fractions of a second, tells me that for all practical purposes the Creating force is omnipotent. - if you're talking about inflation, it has been going on for billions of years, our universe wasn't always this large

The universe at Big Bang + 1 second was still extremely large.

You make a huge quibble.

Set Theory tells me that such an infinity of infinities contains all possible sets of qualities that are positive qualities, to include intelligence and a personality. This is affirmed by revelations shared with mankind for eons. - An infinity of infinities contains everything, many gods, evil, etc.

No, I said all possible sets of positive qualities. That excludes evil, and other nondeific personalities. Any evil would introduce the likelihood of termination, a thing an eternal entity cannot have or they would terminate. Polytheistic gods by definition are products of the flow of time and thus not eternal.

The visible order in the universe tells me this Creative intelligence is moral and orderly. - the universe is filled the chaos and randomness too

Even that chaos and randomness has order.

The sacrifice and resurrection of Jesus Christ tells me the Creator is also a loving Creator that wants us to respond to Him in a positive and voluntary way - theology not univserally accepted

Not universally accepted but the evidence is strong enough that it has been Christianity's chief selling point for 2000+ years.

But this is all the subject of debate and discussion for millennia the only difference is that the Big Bang has been proven and hence so has the Creation event itself, thus implying a Creator more than ever. - has there been only one big bang or an infinite number in an eternal universe?

Well only one since THIS universe began. I think there have been an infinite number of them, all instigated by the same eternal Creator.

In addition to which millions of people have direct perceptions of God themselves in mystical fashion, while anyone can see the transcendent qualities of God were they not mislabeling it like a blind drunk feeling an elephant and becoming convinced its a tree, a vine and a low hanging rock instead of one large animal. You see God ever day and think it simple kindness, a display of integrity, a mere star, or forest of birds. God is everywhere. Seeing Him only requires you to recognize what it is that you see. - Humanity is certainly everywhere and we are capable of finding whatever we look for, be it God, Jesus, Satan, Zeus, conspiracies, ghosts, leprechans, aliens, or Elvis.

The twelve apostles went to their deaths insisting that they saw what they saw, and touched what they claimed to have touched.

St Paul alone made huge sacrifices in his personal life, abandoning an entire life time of persecuting Christians internationally, thinking he served God by doing so. He said Christ appeared to him and taught him many things.

In addition to them there are hundreds if not thousands of disciples that also saw Jesus resurrected after His crucifixion.

There were not universally deluded, though that is a rather small fish for an atheist to swallow in order to persist in his unbelief against all odds, reason and evidence.

 

[alang1216]

The impossibility of an infinite regression in time tells us there is a Creating force. - logical fallacy, hardly a proof

That it is a logical fallacy proves that time had to have a starting point, dude.

You argue from ignorance, you don't know the BB was a unique event or not. If you are in a windowless room with a closed door you can't know if there are one or any number of other rooms. Logic is useless.

The universe at Big Bang + 1 second was still extremely large.
You make a huge quibble.

“extremely large” and “enormous” are relative terms. The universe had a radius of exactly 186,000 miles at +1 second. The universe would have neatly fit between the earth and the moon.

No, I said all possible sets of positive qualities. That excludes evil, and other nondeific personalities. Any evil would introduce the likelihood of termination, a thing an eternal entity cannot have or they would terminate. Polytheistic gods by definition are products of the flow of time and thus not eternal.

You cannot limit a set and still say it is infinite.

Even that chaos and randomness has order.

I don't see a lot of creative intelligence if there is no distinction between chaos and order. It's like everything got thrown into the mix.

Not universally accepted but the evidence is strong enough that it has been Christianity's chief selling point for 2000+ years.

Accepted by only a minority of the people of the earth.


Almost 2000 years. There should be a hell of an Easter that year if Christians can agree on exactly when it happened.

In addition to which millions of people have direct perceptions of God themselves in mystical fashion, while anyone can see the transcendent qualities of God were they not mislabeling it like a blind drunk feeling an elephant and becoming convinced its a tree, a vine and a low hanging rock instead of one large animal. You see God ever day and think it simple kindness, a display of integrity, a mere star, or forest of birds. God is everywhere. Seeing Him only requires you to recognize what it is that you see. - Humanity is certainly everywhere and we are capable of finding whatever we look for, be it God, Jesus, Satan, Zeus, conspiracies, ghosts, leprechans, aliens, or Elvis.

The twelve apostles went to their deaths insisting that they saw what they saw, and touched what they claimed to have touched.

St Paul alone made huge sacrifices in his personal life, abandoning an entire life time of persecuting Christians internationally, thinking he served God by doing so. He said Christ appeared to him and taught him many things.

In addition to them there are hundreds if not thousands of disciples that also saw Jesus resurrected after His crucifixion.

There were not universally deluded, though that is a rather small fish for an atheist to swallow in order to persist in his unbelief against all odds, reason and evidence.

Having strong faith is not unique to Christianity, how many Muslims have gone willingly to their death recently?


As to the resurrection, sorry, I don't buy it. I believe Jesus lived, preached, and was crucified but that's all. If so many thousands of Jews saw a resurrected Jesus why did Christianity fail among Jews and why were there no contemporary reports?

 

[JimBowie1958]

The impossibility of an infinite regression in time tells us there is a Creating force. - logical fallacy, hardly a proof

That it is a logical fallacy proves that time had to have a starting point, dude.

You argue from ignorance, you don't know the BB was a unique event or not.

We know that there was another universe prior to ours, so I would think that universe also had a Big Bang. Why not? I think it unlikely to have been a unique event within all universes, but it created ours and therefore is unique to it.

But the Big Bang does not disprove my statement that the flow of time had to have a start, in fact it supports it.

If you are in a windowless room with a closed door you can't know if there are one or any number of other rooms. Logic is useless.

Logic is never useless, and even in a locked cell one can detect and even communicate with others in other cells whether one can see them or not.

“extremely large” and “enormous” are relative terms. The universe had a radius of exactly 186,000 miles at +1 second. The universe would have neatly fit between the earth and the moon.

The expansion of the universe was not limited to the speed of light and still isnt. Our universe currently expands faster than light.

AT one second after the Big Bang, current theory8 states that the universe was about 1,000 times more voluminous than our solar system and was entirely opaque. It did not have stars but was a single photon mass.

You cannot limit a set and still say it is infinite.

Sure you can. The set of natural numbers is infinite even without the set of negative numbers. A plane that stretches in all directions still has an infinite number of points if you cut it in half or remove a central hole of a trillion miles diameter. You do not understand the concept of infinity, apparently.

I don't see a lot of creative intelligence if there is no distinction between chaos and order. It's like everything got thrown into the mix.

Chaos is illusory. Everything has order and is made of pixel-like minimum sized particles of minimum dimensions, etc. This is part of Quantum physics theory.

Accepted by only a minority of the people of the earth.

And yet millions times more than the number of atheists. The number of Christians and Muslims grows by leaps and bounds and within the next century the Earth will be fairly much divied up between a Catholic America and South Africa, and Islam everywhere else.

Almost 2000 years. There should be a hell of an Easter that year if Christians can agree on exactly when it happened.

ITs not a question of when it actually happened but what is the proper calendar year, but what date it is on the calendar, and the Jews defined that long before the Christian branch of Judaism developed.

In addition to which millions of people have direct perceptions of God themselves in mystical fashion, while anyone can see the transcendent qualities of God were they not mislabeling it like a blind drunk feeling an elephant and becoming convinced its a tree, a vine and a low hanging rock instead of one large animal. You see God ever day and think it simple kindness, a display of integrity, a mere star, or forest of birds. God is everywhere. Seeing Him only requires you to recognize what it is that you see. - Humanity is certainly everywhere and we are capable of finding whatever we look for, be it God, Jesus, Satan, Zeus, conspiracies, ghosts, leprechans, aliens, or Elvis.

The twelve apostles went to their deaths insisting that they saw what they saw, and touched what they claimed to have touched.

St Paul alone made huge sacrifices in his personal life, abandoning an entire life time of persecuting Christians internationally, thinking he served God by doing so. He said Christ appeared to him and taught him many things.

In addition to them there are hundreds if not thousands of disciples that also saw Jesus resurrected after His crucifixion.

There were not universally deluded, though that is a rather small fish for an atheist to swallow in order to persist in his unbelief against all odds, reason and evidence.

Having strong faith is not unique to Christianity, how many Muslims have gone willingly to their death recently?

That isnt the point. A person who chooses to die rather than admit a lie he knows is a lie is bizarrely rare. There is no profit to keeping a lie you cannot live to benefit from. And each and every one of them died insisting their witness is true, and that gives it an undeniable seal of authenticity if there ever was such a thing.

As to the resurrection, sorry, I don't buy it. I believe Jesus lived, preached, and was crucified but that's all. If so many thousands of Jews saw a resurrected Jesus why did Christianity fail among Jews and why were there no contemporary reports?

Well, your ignorance on the circumstances of the resurrection are such that your lack of belief is hardly surprising. Dont be insulted, most people are ignorant on most topics, including myself, despite my obsessiveness with issues.

You dont believe because you dont have the facts and dont bother to give what little you do have any serious contemplation.

I dont know what y9our problem is, and I really dont give a shit. But each post I have made in response to you, you have managed to twist or misinterpret without fail. So who would be surprised you cant grasp something as complex and counter-intuitive as the resurrection?

 

[alang1216]

Having strong faith is not unique to Christianity, how many Muslims have gone willingly to their death recently?

That isnt the point. A person who chooses to die rather than admit a lie he knows is a lie is bizarrely rare. There is no profit to keeping a lie you cannot live to benefit from. And each and every one of them died insisting their witness is true, and that gives it an undeniable seal of authenticity if there ever was such a thing.

Every Muslim who dies today dies never having personally met Allah. If you believe strongly enough you might be willing to die. We don't know what the apostles knew, we only have stories written about them hundreds of years after they died. It is said that history is written by the victors.

As to the resurrection, sorry, I don't buy it. I believe Jesus lived, preached, and was crucified but that's all. If so many thousands of Jews saw a resurrected Jesus why did Christianity fail among Jews and why were there no contemporary reports?

Well, your ignorance on the circumstances of the resurrection are such that your lack of belief is hardly surprising. Dont be insulted, most people are ignorant on most topics, including myself, despite my obsessiveness with issues.

You dont believe because you dont have the facts and dont bother to give what little you do have any serious contemplation.

I dont know what y9our problem is, and I really dont give a shit. But each post I have made in response to you, you have managed to twist or misinterpret without fail. So who would be surprised you cant grasp something as complex and counter-intuitive as the resurrection?

First you don't know what I know about any topic so please don't assume you do. (Not that you'd be wrong but that is not the point.) Second, maybe I am just untwisting your misinterpretations.

I actually have read some on the resurrection story. Have you compared it to other resurrection stories from the time? Have you compared any of the other supernatural acts attributed to Jesus to other miraculous stories from the time? Have you studied the history of the resurrection story in the Bible (e.g., when it appeared and how it evolved)?

There is plenty I don't know about God, Jesus, Christianity, etc., I'd be the first to admit it, but it is not for lack of trying.

 

[indiajo]

1. Do you believe human beings are the highest form of intelligence in the universe?

2. If not, explain your belief in a higher intelligence.

Why is it that self-proclaimed Atheists refuse to answer these questions?

3. We don't.

1. No

2. Well, our galaxy consists of about 200 billion stars, the majority of them with planets, we find almost weekly now exoplanets within habitable orbits.
The known universe consists out of about 400 Billion galaxies, which makes the number of stars bigger than 8*10^22.
That is, so to say, quite a lot. Considered the age of the universe, the sheer number of possible habitable planets renders it pretty unlikely that nowhere else life should have developed. Maybe it is alredy extinct, maybe it just begins somewhere.
We may never know.
But the task to be more intelligent than a few naked monkeys, who believe the burn in hell for eternity if they fuck before marriage, is not a real challenge.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Having strong faith is not unique to Christianity, how many Muslims have gone willingly to their death recently?

That isnt the point. A person who chooses to die rather than admit a lie he knows is a lie is bizarrely rare. There is no profit to keeping a lie you cannot live to benefit from. And each and every one of them died insisting their witness is true, and that gives it an undeniable seal of authenticity if there ever was such a thing.

Every Muslim who dies today dies never having personally met Allah. If you believe strongly enough you might be willing to die. We don't know what the apostles knew, we only have stories written about them hundreds of years after they died. It is said that history is written by the victors.

This demonstrates yet again your abysmal ignorance on the topic. The Apostles did not write their Gospels centuries later, dude. The theories that claim such are antiquated presumptive naturalistic bullshit.

As to the resurrection, sorry, I don't buy it. I believe Jesus lived, preached, and was crucified but that's all. If so many thousands of Jews saw a resurrected Jesus why did Christianity fail among Jews and why were there no contemporary reports?

Well, your ignorance on the circumstances of the resurrection are such that your lack of belief is hardly surprising. Dont be insulted, most people are ignorant on most topics, including myself, despite my obsessiveness with issues.

You dont believe because you dont have the facts and dont bother to give what little you do have any serious contemplation.

I dont know what y9our problem is, and I really dont give a shit. But each post I have made in response to you, you have managed to twist or misinterpret without fail. So who would be surprised you cant grasp something as complex and counter-intuitive as the resurrection?

First you don't know what I know about any topic so please don't assume you do. (Not that you'd be wrong but that is not the point.)

Well, working on the assumption that you are not trying to look more ignorant than you are, you don't know jack shit about the early church, the apostles or the resurrection.

Second, maybe I am just untwisting your misinterpretations.

I actually have read some on the resurrection story. Have you compared it to other resurrection stories from the time?

Yes and none of them are like Jesus' resurrection.

Have you compared any of the other supernatural acts attributed to Jesus to other miraculous stories from the time? Have you studied the history of the resurrection story in the Bible (e.g., when it appeared and how it evolved)?

There is plenty I don't know about God, Jesus, Christianity, etc., I'd be the first to admit it, but it is not for lack of trying.

Lol, no it is from lack of trying, apathy and thinking you are right so why bother too much.

 

[alang1216]

That isnt the point. A person who chooses to die rather than admit a lie he knows is a lie is bizarrely rare. There is no profit to keeping a lie you cannot live to benefit from. And each and every one of them died insisting their witness is true, and that gives it an undeniable seal of authenticity if there ever was such a thing.

Every Muslim who dies today dies never having personally met Allah. If you believe strongly enough you might be willing to die. We don't know what the apostles knew, we only have stories written about them hundreds of years after they died. It is said that history is written by the victors.

This demonstrates yet again your abysmal ignorance on the topic. The Apostles did not write their Gospels centuries later, dude. The theories that claim such are antiquated presumptive naturalistic bullshit.

Well, working on the assumption that you are not trying to look more ignorant than you are, you don't know jack shit about the early church, the apostles or the resurrection.

It is not proven or even reasonable that any of the apostles ever wrote any of the works attributed to them. The earliest writings we have from Christianity are copies and likely copies of copies of what was previously in oral circulation. Some works of early Christianity have been lost, likely forever.

Second, maybe I am just untwisting your misinterpretations.

I actually have read some on the resurrection story. Have you compared it to other resurrection stories from the time?

Yes and none of them are like Jesus' resurrection.

The parallel between pagan traditional beliefs and the later resurrection of Jesus was not lost on the early Christians, as Justin Martyr argued: "when we say ... Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus." (1 Apol. 21).

Have you compared any of the other supernatural acts attributed to Jesus to other miraculous stories from the time? Have you studied the history of the resurrection story in the Bible (e.g., when it appeared and how it evolved)?

There is plenty I don't know about God, Jesus, Christianity, etc., I'd be the first to admit it, but it is not for lack of trying.

Lol, no it is from lack of trying, apathy and thinking you are right so why bother too much.

I may be guilty of thinking I'm right but you have to fess up to KNOWING you're right, after all you have been informed by God. When it comes down to it, you accept what you've been taught without question. I have been allowed to review the evidence for myself and come to my own conclusions.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Every Muslim who dies today dies never having personally met Allah. If you believe strongly enough you might be willing to die. We don't know what the apostles knew, we only have stories written about them hundreds of years after they died. It is said that history is written by the victors.

This demonstrates yet again your abysmal ignorance on the topic. The Apostles did not write their Gospels centuries later, dude. The theories that claim such are antiquated presumptive naturalistic bullshit.

Well, working on the assumption that you are not trying to look more ignorant than you are, you don't know jack shit about the early church, the apostles or the resurrection.

It is not proven or even reasonable that any of the apostles ever wrote any of the works attributed to them.

The Authorship And Dating Of The New Testament

Much of the information we have about the authors of the New Testament comes from the church fathers, the leaders of the church in the post-apostolic age. There is an unbroken chain of writers discussing the New Testament that goes back to soon after the Gospels were written. The writings of the church fathers are referred to as "the tradition" or as "patristic sources" in most discussions of this subject. For my purposes I will look at the most relevant information from before A.D. 430. All information from after this time either depends on earlier available sources or is suspect because we are unable to determine what the earlier sources are. ...

Below are the most important church fathers with respect to the authorship and dating of the New Testament. For the most part, I will quote only these unless the record is thin or conflicting.

Papias (late 1st cent. - mid 2nd cent.) was a bishop of Hierapolis. He wrote a five book series, Interpretations of the Sayings of the Lord, which has now been lost except for quotations in later books, which are referred to as the fragments of Papias.

The Muratorian Fragment (ca A.D. 170) is not a church father, exactly, but a document. It is the oldest list of the books of the New Testament. The document itself is in bad shape, so for the most part it is difficult to interpret the absence of a particular book from this list. A book being on the list is a fair indication that it was in widespread use, however. It is dated because the author refers to the recent episcopate of Pius I of Rome, who died in A.D. 157.

Irenaeus (A.D. ca. 130 - ca. 202) was a bishop of Lyons. His preserved writings argue primarily against the Gnostics, a heretical splinter group. Because of the theme of this writing, he spent more time discussing sources than most writers of this era.

Clement of Alexandria (A.D. ca. 150 - ca. 213) was the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria. He should not be confused with Clement of Rome, one of the first popes.

Tertullian (A.D. ca. 160 - ca. 225) was primarily a writer of which many works are preserved. He converted to Christianity in middle life, but split away from the main church late in life largely because the church was not strict enough to suit him.

Origen (A.D. ca. 185 - ca. 253) was the head of the catechetical school in Alexandria after Clement. He left there as a result of a conflict (more political than theological) with the local bishop, and founded a new school in Caesarea.

Eusebius (A.D. 263-339) was bishop of Caesarea and the first true church historian. He preserved much of the tradition that would have been lost otherwise.

Jerome (ca. A.D. 347-419 or 420) was a priest and ascetic who moved frequently and wrote on many topics relevant to the church. He was the primary creator of the Vulgate, a key Latin translation of the Bible from Greek and Hebrew sources.

Augustine (A.D. 354-430) was a convert to Christianity and became bishop of Hippo. He was one of the great theologians of the church, and he also reported on historical details. In this time (and largely under the influence of Jerome and Augustine) there were several councils that ratified the contents of the current Roman Catholic Bible. As such, this is a natural time to end the discussion of the tradition. Practically speaking, the vast majority of the canon was accepted as soon as it was written, but there were several books with more controversial histories that took longer to accept or reject....

Now let us look in more detail at each of the books themselves.

The Synoptic Gospels

The Gospel According to Mark, written by Mark, an associate of Peter (A.D. 55-70).

The Gospel According to Luke, written by Luke, an associate of Paul (A.D. 60-75), and The Acts of the Apostles A.D. 65-85), written by the same person.

The Gospel According to Matthew, written by an anonymous Jewish Christian (A.D. 60-85) and Q, written by Matthew the apostle (A.D. 45-70).

The Writings of John

The Gospel According to John, written by the Johannine community based on the testimony of John the apostle, (A.D. 95-115).

The Letters of John. The first was written by John the apostle, likely with the assistance of an amanuensis, (A.D. 60-100). The second and third were written by the presbyter, which may or may not have been John, (A.D. 45-130).

The Apocalypse, written by John the apostle, (A.D. 90-95).

The Letters of Paul

The Letters of Paul, written by Paul, (A.D. 49-67).

The Other Letters

The Other Letters, written by various persons, some apostles and some not, (A.D. 50-150).

We now know that the entire New Testament was written by first-, second-, and third-hand witnesses, in the range of 20-120 years after the death of Jesus. The majority of the New Testament was written by second-hand witnesses from 30-55 years after the death of Jesus.

Seems as though your ignorance shines through yet again.

The parallel between pagan traditional beliefs and the later resurrection of Jesus was not lost on the early Christians, as Justin Martyr argued: "when we say ... Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus." (1 Apol. 21).

I asked YOU what the similarities were, because I doubt that you are that familiar with them, such as the resurrection of Osiris. Instead you respond with an ambiguous generality from an early Christian author who was trying to show similarities with local polytheistic myths, so that the Christian history did not seem to strange to them. That does not mean that all details are the same, and that none of them are significant

So you duck the question, is it because you cannot answer the question or you are just too bored to?

I may be guilty of thinking I'm right but you have to fess up to KNOWING you're right, after all you have been informed by God. When it comes down to it, you accept what you've been taught without question. I have been allowed to review the evidence for myself and come to my own conclusions.

I know the Magisterium is right, and in so far as I agree with them on these issues then I am also right.

 

[Derideo_Te]

I have my own theory about the origin of religion and the unholy alliance between power and mysticism.

Back in caveman days it was the strongest who assumed power over the rest of the tribe. Being the strongest meant that you got all the females and the best food. But that didn't suit those who were smarter than average. They were being oppressed by sheer physical force.

So in my hypothetical scenario the old tribal leader dies and there is a fight between the next strongest male and the smartest male as to who should be the leader. Needless to say the strongest caveman beats up the smart caveman. So the smart guy is pushed off to the edge of the cave nearest the entrance to brood about being beaten while the strong guy enjoys the spoils.

Then there is this enormous clap of thunder and everyone looks towards the entrance when a bolt of lightning strikes a tree by the entrance to the cave and sets it alight. The smart guy sees his opportunity and points a finger at the strong guy and blames him for making the sky god angry. Of course the strong guy has no idea what this is all about but the smart guy exploits his confusion and tells him that unless he shares out the women and the food the sky gods will be even more angry. There is another clap of thunder and more lightning. The strong guy isn't clever enough to know that the smart guy is bluffing so he opts to share.

And thus was born the alliance between power and religion. The strong need the smart and the smart need the strong. The rest is just window dressing in my opinion.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I have my own theory about the origin of religion and the unholy alliance between power and mysticism.

Back in caveman days it was the strongest who assumed power over the rest of the tribe. Being the strongest meant that you got all the females and the best food. But that didn't suit those who were smarter than average. They were being oppressed by sheer physical force.

So in my hypothetical scenario the old tribal leader dies and there is a fight between the next strongest male and the smartest male as to who should be the leader. Needless to say the strongest caveman beats up the smart caveman. So the smart guy is pushed off to the edge of the cave nearest the entrance to brood about being beaten while the strong guy enjoys the spoils.

Then there is this enormous clap of thunder and everyone looks towards the entrance when a bolt of lightning strikes a tree by the entrance to the cave and sets it alight. The smart guy sees his opportunity and points a finger at the strong guy and blames him for making the sky god angry. Of course the strong guy has no idea what this is all about but the smart guy exploits his confusion and tells him that unless he shares out the women and the food the sky gods will be even more angry. There is another clap of thunder and more lightning. The strong guy isn't clever enough to know that the smart guy is bluffing so he opts to share.

And thus was born the alliance between power and religion. The strong need the smart and the smart need the strong. The rest is just window dressing in my opinion.

lol, are you serious?

Once human beings could speak and pass down knowledge from one generation to the next, and also share with others in the community, lots of data was being passed around in an illiterate society, so finding ways to reliably memorize and recite these stories and techniques became a challenge.

So things like using a ballad of a heroic smith or hero might have been used to time how long metal had to remain in fire to smelt properly without corruption. Use of stories to identify patterns of stars, assigning cosmological events to celebrated past events and all took on a traditional tone that successive generations lost the reason for them.

So the leaders who had a better understanding of the why behind the stories, invented more dramatic stories and assigned them to truly memorable people like Achilles and others. After a while these stories changed from being agricultural oriented to being more urban in nature, and this was recalled as a revolution among the Gods.

And such polytheism was understood to be merely stories, nothing more. Their 'gods' were born within time and space, if they died their friends and family would sometimes go through elaborate Frankensteinish processes to re-animate or resurrect their bodies.

But one day some philosophers realized that time and the universe could not have always been in existence. They realized that various qualities to the universe suggested a Designer, that certain Truths had no rational component and must have come from an Original mind. And many many more logical arguments demonstrated how the Creator was a real God, a genuine super-human, supernatural entity, and the polytheistic gods were merely a joke.

And so monotheism came to completely dominate human intellectual thought ever since.

 

[alang1216]

I actually have read some on the resurrection story. Have you compared it to other resurrection stories from the time?

Yes and none of them are like Jesus' resurrection.

The parallel between pagan traditional beliefs and the later resurrection of Jesus was not lost on the early Christians, as Justin Martyr argued: "when we say ... Jesus Christ, our teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propose nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you consider sons of Zeus." (1 Apol. 21).

I asked YOU what the similarities were, because I doubt that you are that familiar with them, such as the resurrection of Osiris. Instead you respond with an ambiguous generality from an early Christian author who was trying to show similarities with local polytheistic myths, so that the Christian history did not seem to strange to them. That does not mean that all details are the same, and that none of them are significant

So you duck the question, is it because you cannot answer the question or you are just too bored to?

What question did I miss? You can cherry-pick which of the early Christian writers you care to believe and dismiss any that disagree with your dogma but that doesn't show my ignorance.