# Paul..some stuff from the guy I told you about



## ReformedWretch (Aug 5, 2004)

Actually, I have also talked about the overall accuracy of the Bible with regard to its message. What Christians call the Old Testament and the New Testament each have very conflicting messages for Christians, when viewed as an overall document. A careful comparison will also show you how Paul revised much of what the Gospels allege Christ to have said himself, and as a result, you get a very inaccurate view of what the Gospels allege Jesus to have taught, and thus an inaccurate view of the intent of Jesus' message. You get Jesus reinterpreted by Paul, who also reinterprets the Old Testament to fit his views. I have also discussed with you the inaccuracy of The Bibles when compared to history, to science, to experience, and to common sense.

There is a fascinating history of how Christ evolved from the early Christian concepts of him as a great teacher, to the Son of God, and finally to God himself. The emergence of the Trinity as doctrine was part of this evolution and distortion. The destruction of the works of the Gnostics and their being accused of heresy is worth studying as well. They had a very different perspective on Christ. Furthermore, many early Christians who had converted from pagan beliefs, identified him with Mithras, and many were also sun worshippers. This affected the theology/mythology that grew up around him.

The history of Constantine and how he became converted to and a champion of Christianity, and changed its tenets fundamentally, is also worth learning. He had his own agenda, and in some ways it was worse than King James'. Christianity in may ways became Paulinity, then Constantinity, then Protestantinity -- an unholy trinity.

It's also not hard to discover that the writers of each of the Gospels had separate agendas as well, and their works were aimed at fulfilling them, which causes many of the contradictions between them. Bottom line, it's not just the KJV that one must cast a skeptical eye towards.


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 5, 2004)

Here is another one;

Hypothesis: The flood myth in Genesis borrows heavily from an earlier Babylonian flood myth contained in Tablet XI of the Gilgamesh myth [the Gilgamesh myth is believed to be the oldest recorded narrative], and thus any claim it is the literal word of God is spurious.

Some evidence: In the Gilgamesh story, a character named Utnapushtim relates to Gilgamesh how when the gods were going to destroy the world with a flood, he is warned by the voice of the god Ea to have a ship built and "Aboard the ship take thou the seed of all living things."

Now compare some descriptions in Genesis and Gilgamesh that relate to the ending of the flood:

Genesis:
And the ark rested in the seventh month, on the seventeenth day of the month, upon the mountains of Ararat.
Gilgamesh:
On Mount Nimush the boat lodged firm,
Mount Nimush held the boat, allowing no sway.


Genesis:
And he sent forth a raven, which went forth to and fro, until the waters were dried up from off the earth.
Also he sent forth a dove from him, to see if the waters were abated from off the face of the ground;
But the dove found no rest for the sole of her foot, and she returned unto him into the ark, for the waters were on the face of the whole earth: then he put forth his hand, and took her, and pulled her in unto him into the ark.
And he stayed yet other seven days; and again he sent forth the dove out of the ark;
And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.
And he stayed yet other seven days; and sent forth the dove; which returned not again unto him any more.
Gilgamesh:
I sent forth a dove and released it.
The dove went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a swallow and released it.
The swallow went off, but came back to me;
no perch was visible so it circled back to me.
I sent forth a raven and released it.
The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back.
It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me.

Genesis:
And Noah builded an altar unto the LORD; and took of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl, and offered burnt offerings on the altar.
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour;
Gilgamesh:
Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed a sheep.
I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat.
Seven and seven cult vessels I put in place, and into the fire underneath I poured reeds, cedar, and myrtle.
The gods smelled the savor,
the gods smelled the sweet savor,

I'd say that is quite a 'mesh...


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 5, 2004)

Last one (for now)

the Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are considered by some Bible translators as reliable sources, and by others as corrupt. They omit such passages (causing many scholars to question their legitimacy) as Mark 16:9-20, which contains the statement: "He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned"; Luke 6:1; John 9:38; John 19:33-34; John 21:25; Revelation 20:1-6; etc. Even missing from the Codex Sinaiticus is the famous quote from Luke 23:34: "Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do."


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 5, 2004)

[quote:01e69568c9]"Well, if Christianity were not true then the babylonian flood accounts would be evidence agaisnt Christainity." How uninteresting![/quote:01e69568c9]

LOL!

I am going to ask him about logic and such as I really desire to try and reach him rather than just debate.

I appreciate your help!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 7, 2004)

Here we go Paul!

What do you mean by "real"? What do you mean by "logic"? As I understand the terms, the only reality logic has is conceptual, and it's relative.

I can account for logic, but I will remind you that the burden of "proof" is never on someone arguing against something, but on the someone(s) arguing for something to be accepted. When an argument for something is presented, that sets the context by which someone can then argue against that something, by attempting to refute the justification presented. You've heard this before. If one really can't argue against the Christian faith, then I don't see how one can argue against the Muslim [or pick another religion] faith. Or how one can argue against the existence of orange three-headed immortal minotaurs. You've heard this too before.

Any time one is engaged in argument, certain rules, criteria and principles have to be agreed upon and accepted (at least implicitly), else argument becomes impossible, and every assertion has equal validity; and there will always be certain underlying assumptions made. These all need to be reasonable. From your opening statement, you seem to be saying it's reasonable to accept that both "X" and "not X" can be "true." I say that is not okay for pragmatic argument. Otherwise, everything is true. That doesn't seem to be a sane or safe way in which to make decisions upon which to base one's actions.

I think logic is a semantical concept, and as such it has several meanings. One is "the branch of philosophy that deals with the formal principles of reasoning"; or "that branch of philosophy which deals with the theory of inductive and deductive arguments." Another (less formal) definition is "sensible rational thought and argument." The word may refer simply to a specific system of reasoning. Etc.

The term "laws of logic" is relative to the specific system of logic one is referring to. There are many systems of logic, and each has its own laws. They are justified if they are useful for the purpose at hand.

If by material you mean "physical," then no, it's not my opinion that it is only material in nature.

How do I "know" that society is not only material in nature? By definition.

Also, as a reminder, I have said before that one does not only "know" things by sense perception alone. There are other ways to "know" something (e.g., from reports; by inference; by invention; by a value judgment).

----------------------------

Told you this guy was tough...at least I think so!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 8, 2004)

Whoa, ok Paul...disceted that and offering it up to him. I am SURE it will get better. I appreciate the training!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 9, 2004)

Ok Paul!

Desperately need your help now! This guy is making my head spin! Here is what I asked him followed by his replies!

Where do the laws of logic come from?

They are invented by humans, just like the Bibles were.

I mean how do you know them?

Those that I know, I know from memory.

What is your ontology?

About what?

Define knowledge for me

There is no one definition; it depends on the context.

tell me what it takes for someone to say they "know" something.

It depends on what that person means by "know." There's a whole field of philosophy devoted to the study of the nature of knowledge and its grounds (epistemology), so there are no simplistic answers to this type of question. In my previous post, I used the word "know" to mean acquiring a "fact," but in other contexts I use it to mean other things. In the sense I've referred to, when I say someone "knows" something, I am in essence saying they believe that something to be "true"; but that doesn't make it true. To some people, "know" automatically implies certainty, but not to me. I have often said I believe all knowledge should be viewed as provisional.

Burden of proof is determined by ones worldview.

Obviously. So? Interesting that you are now admitting to relativism, something you have always disdained in the past.

If we want to play the he who asserts game

I am not familiar with this game. Is it "a certified" game?

I'm an a-atheist.

What does that mean -- that you stutter when you try to say "atheist"?

If laws of logic are justified by pragmatism how do you know the purpose is the correct one to be looking for.

There is no correct one.

Is this chosen arbitrarilly?

It can be, but generally speaking judgment is a better means of choosing.
-----------------------------------------------------

Whoa....this is trpping me out! He sounds lke he doesn't believe ANYTHING!

Thanks again!

-Adam


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 14, 2004)

THANKS Paul!

I am learning how to pick this guy apart with your help here. I feel foolish having replied some of the ways I have in the past after reading your responses!


----------



## ReformedWretch (Aug 14, 2004)

Well, I tend to get emotional and defensive when arguing with him! I can be a bit "rough" when push comes to shove....something I have to fight the urge to do in an argument.


----------



## BlackCalvinist (Aug 14, 2004)

I smell a fellow presuppositionalist.


----------

