Joshpantera

Regular Member
  • Content count

    1,061
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Joshpantera last won the day on March 16

Joshpantera had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

373 Excellent

About Joshpantera

  • Rank
    Fire Dragon

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Florida
  • Interests
    surfing, paddle boarding, boating, fishing, musicianship, reading, philosophy, biblical criticism, comparative mythology and religion...
  • More About Me
    I was raised in a fundamentalist setting as a child and then went full atheist in my teens while off @ Christian boarding academy. I was very anti-theistic for years and then took interest in comparative mythology and religion and settled down a bit. I Never regained monotheism, instead I ended up rounding myself out as an agnostic-atheist with a philosophical pantheist leaning. My spiritual side is addressed to naturalism and the unity between man, earth, and cosmos as an interconnected whole. As for science, I support it completely.

Previous Fields

  • Still have any Gods? If so, who or what?
    Not this, not that

Recent Profile Visitors

300 profile views
  1. So I've watched several videos on Esoteric's Detective's channel. It's interesting to consider all of the evidence from the secular world against these KJV issues. The logical answer seems to stay the same. These could be cases of remembering wrong. The weird part is where some historical texts remain as people remembered but others clearly show something different. The only logical answer I have at the moment is that the old articles, biblical commentary books, and awards ceremony statements reflect the same general mis remembering. But I don't know if that really settles each case. More later...
  2. Well, that's an interesting thought that you don't hear everyday! I'd like to see a serious examination myself. This is a different sort of general theological issue than what we usually discuss here. But conspiracy theories and speculation about theological issues seems fair game. First of all the KJV is hugely errant. There's many mistranslated ideas in that version. The end of the world, for instance, being the end of an Aeon or simply a world age. The way that the tetragrammaton is translated as Lord, Lord of Hosts, and generically, disguises the old polytheistic influence where various gods are being referenced but interpreted in the middle ages as referring to one single as many different names all along. So they present it as monotheistic sounding in English as possible. In shorts, there's tons wrong with the KJV which can explain why it's different than other translations, including the 21st century attempt to correct errant content. I think that also speaks to the verses that don't seem to make much sense, where the wording doesn't seem to make much sense. We can consider what a logical explanation may be. Mistranslating ancient writings either accidentally or purposely seems like the simplest explanation at first glance, which others have sought to correct. I wonder if that's good enough to explain some of your examples? In both cases I checked your KJV quotes on Gateway and cross checked them against multiple other translations of the bible. You quoted them correctly and they do seem to only appear that way in the KJV. They're different in the 21 century KJV. It is Jeremiah in every other translation I checked. But rather than posit time travel, I still think we ought to first consider the possibility that the verses seem different to you because your memory is more of a consensus type of memory instead of one strictly based on only the KJV. For instance, when people speak in public and say biblical things you'll often hear them voice out things like, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth..." So even if you only read the KJV all of your life and never read a different translation of the bible, it seems almost certain that you would have at least taken in the sentence of god creating the heavens and earth some where, from someone or several people at some point in your life. There's good cause to assume that you've heard or read it as "Heavens" and are surprised at the KJV when you literally read it as Heaven in the singular sense in the KJV. I was all around surprised when I decided to go and reread the bible. Most of what I had thought of and remembered as "The Bible" while growing up in christian school with bible class for 12 years, wasn't the bible as much as it was people's commentary about the bible. And I realized right away that I didn't really know too much about the bible even having taken 12 years of bible class, mandatory. There's definitely an issue going on where people can be shocked at what is actually written compared to what they think or remember was written. This is as logical an explanation as I have at the moment. But I'm going to follow your youtube request and look into it more and let you know what I come up with...
  3. So then you agree with me that simply believing in the existence of the Celestial Teacup doesn't necessarily make it so? Do you feel that Belief in the CT has no correlation to it's existence in this case?
  4. Jon, here's an informative video about what happens when you ask certain atheists and non-believers about the beginning of the universe and origins in general:
  5. So believing in something (John 3:16) makes it so? I could write a verse saying, 'The Flying Spaghetti Monster so loved the planet earth that he sent down his one and only Celestial Teacup, that whoever believes in his one and only begotten Celestial Teacup will not perish, but have everlasting life.' No matter who or how many people believe the assertion above, that doesn't make it so and certainly not because they blindly accept it and believe it to be so. You can believe something till you're blue in the face and that doesn't necessarily make it so. Especially a supernatural claim with absolutely zero merit backing it up. I could say, 'See, it's really simple. Just believe in the Celestial Teacup and you'll join him in eternal life.' Or I could say, 'All who call on the name of the Celestial Teacup will be saved.' Does that mean that (1) a Celestial Teapot even exists or (2) believing that a Celestial Teapot exists and rose from the grave will give me eternal life, or (3) that eternal life is even possible in the first place in order to believe in?
  6. It's untrue, plain and simple. It sucks to discover that what you were told is true, absolutely true, really isn't. If you hang with me and answer the questions I've posed in other threads we can move forward taking steps to expose what exactly is untrue about christianity, point by point starting with Genesis 1:1
  7. Let's stick with your topic, Jon. This is called the "No True Scotsman" fallacy. We had a good laugh toying around with this fallacy among ourselves a couple weeks ago. So now here you are giving readers a real time perspective of a christian resorting to the very common (and well known to us) No True Scotsman fallacy. To begin, I'll point out that if you want the bible credited with this assertion then you automatically put the bible in the position of making a logical fallacy. And I have to wonder why the writer(s) of the that verse couldn't do better than to make a logically fallacious assertion? Is the answer not clear yet? What does it mean to make a logically fallacious assertion or to pose one in the form of a question?
  8. I would ask you to kindly leave the proselytizing alone for a minute and just think about the answer that has already been given to you. Neither you nor anyone else in this world knows exactly the answer to the question of origins. Is the above statement wrong? And if so, can you show me what's wrong with the assertion? Thanks
  9. The answer is that the anti-semetism in the gospels comes from the Greek writing people who wrote them. They seemed unfamiliar with the land in question. The Nazareth problem outlines that. And the possibility of second century composition furthers the issue. These are far removed from the claimed source of the belief system. These things were written down in other parts of the world. And during a time when people blamed the Jewish religious authorities for war. It was anti-semetic in that way. Those "Jews." If you read through the NT keeping in mind every instance where you find some description of "the Jews" as if other, this becomes more apparent. Atwill seems to have taken this grain of truth and attempted a possible explanation for why it's written that way. But the explanation has been torn up in peer review by other mythicists. So it seems the answers to these hard questions are still out there awaiting discovery....
  10. Excellent selection of videos. Well informed and concise. This speaks to the question I put to ironhorse. Everyone starts off with the same question in terms of taking the bible at face value, looking at the suggestion of one god creating the universe and then going through a series of hid and seek with humanity thereafter. The blunt assertion here seems to be that the god of the bible, taken to be YHWH, was the god of creation in Genesis and was the only true god throughout the entire biblical tale. The other gods of the OT are taken to be devils or pure imagination on the part of post fall society. But that isn't the case. Academics have learned otherwise. And this is very damming towards christianity. Now ironhorse, you're very quick to wave of hand dismiss academic and scientific analysis of Genesis and the creation accounts. But for those willing to look into academic studies with an unbiased perspective, there's a lot of valuable information at play. How do you propose to address your beliefs if you have no idea what playing field you're stepping onto while trying to discuss them? For instance, would you say Psalm 82 was written post the story of Abraham? Obviously, Abraham leaves Ur and it's idols to migrate east to Canaan. Much later after his descendants go off to Egypt and eventually return to Canaan do we find the story of King David and Solomon, the writing of Psalms and so forth. (Abraham)------------------------------------------------>------------------------------------------------------(Psalms) (Polytheism)---------------------------------------------->------------------------------------------------------(Polytheism) So Abraham didn't stop polytheistic reasoning where an entire pantheon of gods was known and believed by the people. This is still the state of affairs as of Psalms. And the god of Abraham was El Elyon, which is the most high god of the Elohim pantheon of gods. Abraham didn't turn away from a pantheon by worshiping the most high god of the said pantheon. That same pantheon of gods is what Psalms 82 is addressed to. And academic scholars have gone back and put together a comprehensive understanding of how monotheism actually evolved over time with it's many details. What they've found is that it's completely human minded reasoning behind the evolution from polytheism to monotheism. See below: Any thought's?
  11. The first time I went to the world pantheism movement website I remember getting a weird feeling like you're talking about. It's mainly because I had no real idea of what pantheism even meant. It had a dark sense of christian stereotype feel about it. I'd probably heard the term before while growing up, but thought of it as the belief that a literal deity inhabits the world. To my surprise I found that pantheism was nothing of the sort and that it makes a lot of sense. But those old indoctrination feelings were there. These are like threshold guardians. If you read up on Joseph Campbell you'll find a lot to do with the hero myths of the world. In your own Heros Journey, you're passing threshold guardians. These scary mythological images of guardians at the gate that you must pass at different points. Guardians at the gate of reading and learning about other peoples religious beliefs. If you push through those gates you'll have gained more personal depth and the journey will continue...
  12. Ironhorse, thanks for giving this a go. Now I predicted earlier that one direction an apologist could take would be similar to the path you'e chosen in the above. In the absence of any apologetic takers we had to improvise and project a likely response. So you're saying that the bible taken at face value, via the story of Abraham in the bible, is the answer to the question of polytheism in ancient Israel and not simply the starting point for questioning the real presence of polytheism found by archaeologists and textual critics?
  13. There's so much wrong with this statement. How does this idiot suppose he's going to reconcile the notion of a transcendent god, the god of the bible who's conceptualized as infinite, eternal and omnipresent with having a fixed image, the human image to be exact which is necessarily a FINITE image? How can he propose we take this literally, in the literal sense of the terms and suggested biblical nature of the claim being made? The hole get's deeper and deeper the more the apologist struggles along...
  14. Trinitarians, why doesn't everyone believe in the trinity? That's not too different than the after the fact rapture ideas. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nontrinitarianism Scriptural support[edit] Critics argue that the Trinity, for a teaching described as fundamental, lacks direct scriptural support. Upholders of the doctrine declare that the doctrine is not stated directly in the New Testament, but is instead an interpretation of elements contained in it that are seen as implying the doctrine that was formulated only in the 4th century. Thus William Barclay, a Church of Scotland minister, says: "It is important and helpful to remember that the word Trinity is not itself a New Testament word. It is even true in at least one sense to say that the doctrine of the Trinity is not directly New Testament doctrine. It is rather a deduction from and an interpretation of the thought and the language of the New Testament."[52] And the New Catholic Encyclopedia says: "The doctrine of the Holy Trinity is not taught [explicitly] in the [Old Testament]", "The formulation 'one God in three Persons' was not solidly established [by a council]...prior to the end of the 4th century".[5
  15. Here's a good example of quote mining. What I'm thinking is that this sounds a lot like John 10:30 and forward. We were going over this elsewhere on this sub forum. The writer has Jesus saying, "I and the Father are one!" and then double backing and trying to outwit the Jewish religious leaders by lifting a verse from Psalm 82 completely out of context. "Isn't it written in your law, 'I said your are gods?'" So the writer looks back to a verse when taken out of context sounds like god calling the people of Israel gods. He reasons that if god told those forefathers they were sons of god (El Elyon the most high) then why can't Jesus say that he's the son of god without committing blasphemy? So in the event that John is trying to retell something that happened, he's doing so in such a way as to spread the idea that everyone can be sons of god, via the cherry picked quote mine of Psalms 82. It looks like more of the same in Galatians 3:26, but that was written earlier than John 10:30. And is probably an earlier hint at the same general belief that John eventually fed into as well with his own writing. All in all I think you have a good basis for suggesting that either Jesus or the writer of John giving his own opinions as if from Jesus, wanted to express the idea of pretty much everyone being sons of god, through their faith in Jesus who is credited as the first person going out on a limb and saying it to the religious leaders. Then the leaders kill him for blasphemy. It's an example figure, whether or not historical. Claim oneness with the god and find yourself persecuted by the local Jewish religious authorities. It would appear that they were looking at it as an example of what they all must do, find oneness with the father as sons of god. Saying, "I and the Father are one" and then going to Palms 82 in order to try and justify the claim shows something in the way of intent. John wasn't necessarily claiming Jesus was god any more than anyone else could also be a son of god too, in the same sense of using Psalm 82. So a lot of commentary claiming John as the beginning of the claim that Jesus was god may be a little off, with all of this in mind. But of course the whole sons of god belief is itself based on an out of context quote mine of Psalm 82. The actual context was about the old pantheons of gods in pre-monotheistic Israel, where El Elyon the most high god was telling the lesser gods of the pantheon, who were called the sons of El or sons of god, "I have said you are gods, you are sons of the most high, but you'll die like men." So the writer clearly had this preconceived notion of everyone being "sons of El" based on his misunderstanding of the content of Psalm 82 and it's polytheistic presentation. He thought that the dialogue of Psalm 82 was of god telling the people of Israel or the old rulers of Israel that they are gods, that they are sons of El. So he used it to try and push his own, or Jesus' idea that we're all sons of god and the religious leaders are wrong for calling that blasphemy. It wasn't actually an idea found in Jewish scripture, but the christians pretended that it was and ran with it. They must have wanted something in the way of an enlightenment idea infused into a Jewish framework. And they jumped through hoops to try and get there. But of course the Jew's never bought the gospel story or it's quote mined conclusions.