END NOTE:

I can assume from the silence and the nature of much of the engagement over this and other threads: That West and I are right.

Religionists can't. Simply can't hanle history:

One can debate science and religion in creation/creationism. But, when it comes to known history, sometimes literally set in stone, it is, game, set and rubber, for the historians, against the fabrications of religions. And, its ever set too!

:-) O.
:-) W. (by proxy)

Oliver,
"One can debate science and religion in creation/creationism. But, when it comes to known history, sometimes literally set in stone, it is, game, set and rubber, for the historians, against the fabrications of religions."

It is hard to "debate science and religion" with a scientist who calls religious interpretations of science's findings fabrications. The same if "science" is replaced by "history".

George,

Would you accept confabulation? In Psychology with age-regression hypnosis adult people remember taken back to say their seventh birth, upon emprical investigation tend to actually reporting perhaps the 4, 7 and 8 birthdays. A [false] fabrication is constructed using related facts, unrelated facts and fictions.

Simarily, Paul Hellenised Jesus worship and Nicaea created doctrine and creed. Where an historian might differ from the prieshood might be the influence of the poltical context. Paul wanted to generalise the Jewish religion. The debates between 190 (half council) and 325 (Nicaea) look at various trinities and interpretations of the divinity of Jesus. The fourth century church seems to decided on THE TRUE CONSTRUCTION and set that in concrete.

My dictionary states, "fabrication" means, "construction, manufacture and invention". Herein, the New Testament is an extension of the OT and there are many theocrasic constructions, there. Both Paul and Constantine [and Origen and Augustine], morphed Jesus' teachings from a cult [in the sociologists use of the word which is a category not an insult) into a broader instrutionalised religion. Just like taking bricks and "fabricating" a permanent house. The OT, in particular, is full of invention or at least inventions of allegory. The institionalised Christian church I posit morphs Jesus' teaching with Mystery Cults [Mithras]. I see no reason why these matters cannot be studied.

In the same way an anthopoligist would/does keep revisiting Troy, in the face of new evidence, I assert that Christians should understanding the constructions, especially the effects of Hadrian exiling the Jew from the Holy Land to Pella and the trinity/divinty debates a generation or two before Nicaea. Unlike, pre-Planck phase space, there are records.

“The theologian may indulge the pleasing task of describing Religion as she descended from Heaven., arrayed in her native purity, A more melancholy duty is imposed on the historian. He must discover the inevitable mixture of error and corruption, which she contracted in a long residence upon the earth.” - Edward Gibbon (1776)

Studying Amorite and related histographies (c. 1700 - 1500 BCE) I read, the God Shamash praised the Just and punished “evildoers”, and, gave Hammurabi a code of laws. Here, I am reminded Moses –centuries later—received The Ten Commandments from the OT God.

After the Sargonid Empire (2050-1950 BCE), we enter a period of conflict. Immediately later, when Hammurabi conquered Isin and Larsa, we have [religious] epic poems, The Epic of Gilamesh, the Epic of Creation and The Righteous Suffer: Creation and Destruction [The Flood to later Hebrews/Jews/Christians] are themes.

Further, is it only a coincidence hundreds of years beforehand, [the God of Wisdom] Ahura Mazda, states, “They who at my bidding render him [Zoroaster] obedience shall all attain Welfare and Immorality”? [ Yasna 43:11 in McNeill] --Unlike Muslims, I see parallels with Islam.

… “ In immorality the soul of the righteous be joyful in perpetuity shall be the torments of the Liars. {Yasna 45: 5-7, Trans. Gathas in Moulton, in McNeil]. Unlike, Christians, I see parallels with Christianity. How can Mazadiaism, Zorocasterism, Islam and [OT & NT]Christianity “all” not include theocrasaic building [fabrication]?

A house is fabricated. Clothes are fabricated [from “fabrics”].

I posit one can argue most gods by definition cannot be fabricated. Just the same, religions can be constructed. "Temporal” interpretations become buildings/fabrications of “religious” creed.

Christians, denying the histories: between the Sargonid Empire and Moses, Jesus' death and Paul, c. 190-325 period, is like denying background radiation after the BB. For me, religious scientists readily denying the former [history] and studiously accepting the later [science], is a puzzlement.

I agree with Gibbon, Religion is not pure, having undergone millennia of borrowings, reinterpretations and transformations.

oliver,
well, perhaps you did not mean "fabrication" pejoratively (my dictionary says =deliberately false or improbable account), though I am not so sure.

For the rest of the facts posted I am thankful to you. However, I am neither a historian nor a theologian to appreciate their effect upon the evolvement of various contemporary religious, especially Christian, models of Transcendental Reality.

I might have some insight into the relation between (natural) science and religion, where the dialogue depends essentially on a mutual interpretation of data. You are probably aware of the unprecedented interest that this topic has suddenly attracted in the last decad. That probbaly scared also Richard Dawkins into writing his book about the Delusion.

In my opinion, a parallel, similarly mature, understanding of the relation between history and the evovment of various (Christian), models of Transcendental Reality, i. a. exegesis, hermeneutics, is still in the coming. However, as said before, I am no expert in this field . And, of course, I am aware that all this does not make much sense to him/her who does not believe in the existence of a Transcendental Reality, which I define as that part of reality that is not accessible through (natural) science, and consequently neither by mathematics.

George,

- The Bible is a facbrication [meaning one]. It is a syncretion. Relatedy, Many of posts have been about the cross-relion theocrasis and godheads and borrowings.

- The Roman Catholic Church's until recent teaching on the Shroud of Turin, is a fabrication [Meaning Two]. A deception. The Church knew very well it was a Middle Ages forgery, while its Brothers taught it to be the real thing. Likewise, the churches are happy to sit on the fense, if lay people wrongly believe Gnosis and Pagan is overtly to with the Occult/Devil. The former refers to "knowledge] and teh latter countrymen/civility. If is suits their course, false formulations are allowed to suppurate among the Lay.

So, both "fabrications" apply:

In this Forum, I am more inclined towards "assembly" and "borrowings", which I posit is a perfectly valid use of the word. Paul's Hellenisation of earlier Jesus groups, I feel leans more towards transformation. But can know his motives? Deceit? I don't know. Nicaea, I posit, has political and familial [was not Constantine's mother a Christian?] dimensions.

Many gods subsist in religions which do exist, even if those gods do not exist. This circustance, if true, would be a societal construct of sorts. Gods are fabricated, but suggest it is architecural rather than deceptive in most instance. When curtain aspects of the foundations of a given are protected from scutiny, then, I suggest that is problematic. Deceit, perhaps not, rather, a defence of mechanism around the kernel/nucleus?

Dawkins is at the other pole to Sells, his writing is biased and driven. In some areas, he would have been better to have a topic expert write the chapter. Were I he, I would have taken the course of an anthology. Despite his impressive Oxford creditials, in the popular press, he Liberace not Rubenstein. Karen Armstrong is a far better popular writer and researched on the same topic.