Who believes that Abraham was a real person?

[Archaea]

Or do we believe that he is a symbol for some other patriarch, later reaching the title of Abraham?

[ute4ever]

Hey I'm not even convinced Seattle Ute is a real person. I've never met him in person, and all of the theories attributed to him have some form of doubt to their validity. He is probably an entity created by "his little brother" mark to sway the favor of the ladies in thinking he has a rich attorney brother, and thereby gain personal favor.

I mean seriously. The Ute tribe was not in the pacific northwest. I can't believe how many he's led astray with his very Sassurean title.

[creekster]

I couldn't tell you what "we" believe, but I believe he was real. Note, this is a matter of faith and not archeology, not that those are necessarily inconcisitent.

[tooblue]

Originally Posted by creekster

I couldn't tell you what "we" believe, but I believe he was real. Note, this is a matter of faith and not archeology, not that those are necessarily inconcisitent.

Archeology is merely a different kind of faith.

I believe that science and religion are the same thing. Discuss ...

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I couldn't tell you what "we" believe, but I believe he was real. Note, this is a matter of faith and not archeology, not that those are necessarily inconcisitent.

Where outside of the OT and the B of A do you see evidence of Abraham per se (as opposed to generic prototypes)?

BTW, as I'm sure you know there's a mountain of evidnece that their was a Trojan war, or like wars between Greeks and Minoans, etc. Do you believe Achilles et al. really existed?

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

Where outside of the OT and the B of A do you see evidence of Abraham per se (as opposed to generic prototypes)?

BTW, as I'm sure you know there's a mountain of evidnece that their was a Trojan war, or like wars between Greeks and Minoans, etc. Do you believe Achilles et al. really existed?

I don't, although I haven't looked. Do you think Achilles has been proven not to exist?

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by tooblue

Archeology is merely a different kind of faith.

I believe that science and religion are the same thing. Discuss ...

Science and faith are not the same at all. This is a common canard purveyed by religious folks. Were this view widely accepted we'd still be in the so-called Middle Ages.

Science is all about suspending belief until a hypothesis can be supported with empirical evidence--i.e., tangible evidence perceived by the senses in a variety of ways (not just through experiminatiob, btw). Even then, vigorous and rigorous empirical investigation continues unabated. For example, science may conclude it more likely than not that Abraham existed based on the solitary evidence of the OT, but science must also forthrightly acknowledge that the OT has a credibility problem relating many fanciful events that can't possibly be true based--again--on human experience received by the senses.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I don't, although I haven't looked. Do you think Achilles has been proven not to exist?

No. But I beleive barbarian long haired Greeks conquered the Minoans and became heirs to their culture. Not unlike what happened to Greece and then Rome. A big circle.

[SeattleUte]

Originally Posted by creekster

I don't, although I haven't looked. Do you think Achilles has been proven not to exist?

The OT is the sole source. On the other hand, we believe there was such a thing as Thermopylae based on Herodotus' account only. And he has a ton of credibility problems.

[creekster]

Originally Posted by SeattleUte

No. But I beleive barbarian long haired Greeks conquered the Minoans and became heirs to their culture. Not unlike what happened to Greece and then Rome. A big circle.

So is this scientific belief or faith belief? Are you pining for the middle ages here?