"Theist": is a Transitional Form In Human Cultural/Cognitive Evolution

Thank you Daley for taking up this confusing Challenge.Though first thing up at your specifying biblical scripture as evidence: Such as your comment: ". At Mark 13:32 Jesus speaks of his God as "the Father." He preached in his Father"s name, and was believed by his disciples to reveal God the Father more fully to us. (John 1:18) If it is one historical fact that about Jesus which no historian denies, its that he was indeed crucified. If indeed, Christ did rise from the dead, it seems that we have a divine miracle on our hands, confirming his claims about the reality, and the revelation of the God who sent him. Now there are the facts which are agreed upon by the majority of New Testament historians, both Christian and non-Christian, which imply the reality of the resurrection. These facts are:"Fact is, there are no FACTS in the Bible!Mark was not created until decades after the death of Jesus Christ, it is not a first hand, on the spot witness account, neither are those women witnessing the tomb of Jesus, if it existed.There is serious doubt that Jesus was ever buried in a tomb as there is no evidence in any Roman journals or chronicles that he was considered as any more than a minor criminal and they either buried minor criminals in unmarked graves or when many are executed as possibly the case, dumped into mass graves.There is nothing in real historical discoveries from archaeology to show this to be incorrect.Citing first wikipedia on the historocity of Jesus Christ.http://en.wikipedia.org...The only 2 historical aspects of Jesus's life that can be considered as near Factual are: Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist. He called disciples. He had a controversy at the Temple. Jesus was crucified by the Romans near Jerusalem. Jesus was a Galilean. His activities were confined to Galilee and Judea. After his death his disciples continued. Some of his disciples were persecuted. The rest of the New Testament including the story of his crucifixion and ressurection can be considered mythical or without any Facts.According to Roman evidence, no documentation of any guards being wasted by posting them to guard a Dead Mans Tomb, as even Pilot did not consider the trial of Jesus had anything to do with Roman authority, thus he wiped his hands of the case. The Romans, including Pilot were not interest in anything Jesus did to upset the Jews, it was strictly between Jesus and the Jewish people. Rome washed itself of the case, thus had no purpose for the guards.Though, those that wrote the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, many years after the death of their beloved hero, could not get anybody interested in a common villian who was thrown into a mass grave.Thus they concocted the story of his being considered as important enough to the Romans to post guards and thus invented the tomb and the resurrection fable.Because the tale painted Jesus as a great Martyr and gave the appearance that he was truly the son of God.Though Romans were very thorough in their documentation of such orders as to guard a dead man's tomb.There is no such evidence in Roman records concerning Jesus being a threat worthy of guarding, nor any guards being so appointed for such duty.Thus, there is no evidence that Jesus even had a tomb, nor that there were guards.http://infidels.org... "Euhemerus himself stated that Zeus had actually been a mortal king who was buried on Crete[34] and Eusebius in the 4th century CE accepted Heracles as a flesh and blood man who by birth was an Egyptian and was a king in Argos [35] This assumption of men becoming mythical gods could have been what Justin Martyr really meant when he wrote "When we say that Jesus Christ was produced without sexual union, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended to heaven, we propound nothing new or different from what you believe regarding those whom you call the sons of Jupiter"from http://rationalwiki.org...So it appears rather likely that the resurrection myth of Jesus Christ may have been an adaption of the much earlier myth of Zeus, thus used to make Jesus appear as God like.Practically all the teachings of Jesus Christ, existed 500 years earlier in the religion of Buddhism, though some also existed in Confucian and Taoism, which all existed hundreds of years before Jesus was born. Buddhism had been known in the region Jesus grew up, as a great Buddhist spiritual leader sent missionaries through that region around 200BC.Thus Jesus would have easily come into contact with Buddhism.The only great thing that Jesus achieved was to make Judaism more humanistic and less punistic by incorporating eastern religious concepts into his version of Judaism and so came Christianity.BTW: You cannot trust any historical knowledge gained from Christian or Biblical archaeologysts, because most are absolute frauds, since science is impartial and true scientists do not try to make findings fit into any preconceived ideological framework. To attempt to make science fit into a Christian or Biblical framework is scientific fraud, thus all Biblical archaeologists are frauds by the very definition of their job.Nothing Biblical historians or archaeologists discover and report is factual!On Language:There was no sudden gift of language from any God, it really did evolve from grunts, groans, archaeological and anthropological evidence shows roughly how language developed in some regions, though it is believed that language in homo sapiens may have evolved differently in different global regions.Some evidence of tool making of approximately 200,000 years ago shows that primitive tool making had existed for hundreds of years, with no conformity, suddenly conformity and common styles acrossa wide region started to appear. showing that Language and Learning had begun.Here's an excerpt from: http://www.csa.com..."The evidence that Homo habilis was probably the first of the hominids to make sturdy, lithic tools strongly suggests that Homo habilis may have had greater cognitive capabilities than his precursors. Because of this, researchers have looked for any signs that the structure of the brain of Homo habilis is different, or more complex than the brain structure of Australopithecus. ince the soft organs have long since biodegraded away, the best current method to evaluate structural neural changes in hominid fossils is by taking cranial endocasts, or plaster casts of the inside of the brain case of fossilized hominid skulls. Botha and GivA533;n both discuss research that suggests that certain cerebral structures started appearing for the first time in Homo habilis that are now known to be necessary for producing language.22 Apparently, according to the cranial endocasts, the parietal, occipital, and temporal lobes of the brain merge for the first time in Homo habilis, creating an area of the brain called the POT, or Wernicke's Area.23 Broca's Area, one of the other highly important areas involved in language production and processing, can supposedly also be observed for the first time in the hominid line from endocasts of Homo habilis skulls. The argument that follows from this evidence is that the Broca's and Wernicke's areas were selected for in Homo habilis in order to make tools (and probably also for gathering food and hunting), but were subsequently exapted by later humans for the purposes of language production and processing.24"Thanks again, hope you find this interesting. You can conclude: Scripture is not evidence of anything but something somebody made up: