View Full Version : Crumbling the Foundations of Christianity
Emerald
02-12-01, 10:23 PM
I have a hypothetical question. What do you think would happen if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the New Testament, at least, was a complete forgery? In other words, what if it was conclusively determined that the books of the New Testament were written much later than originally thought, by authors who were not even alive during the time of Christ's alleged ministry? What if it was shown that Christ started off as nothing but a concept - a spiritual "Son of God", and those NT writers simply came along and filled in some historic facts here and there, and added a few lines and phrases to make it look like Jesus actually lived as a flesh and blood man, and that he was a Jew?
What I mean is, what sort of effect do you think it would have on the world when such a significant percentage of the world really believes that the bible is true and that Jesus was literally God, or the Son of God? What would happen when they realize that he's not coming back because he never existed in the first place (outside of our imaginations)? What sort of havoc and chaos would ensue, if any? Or do you think most people would just take it in stride because deep in their hearts, they were just hedging their bets anyway?
Emerald
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
I don't think any of the faithful would notice.
After all, the last time I heard about the Shroud of Turin, a reclassification of its date of origin had preachers on the Discovery Channel anxiously talking about finding direct descendants of the Christ. Of course, we should really make sure it's his shroud, but I don't think that matters to the faithful.
In the end, any logic you could raise would be defeated by the faithful, as it contradicts the perfect truth of God.
Two cents, or so ....
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)
personally I don't believe in Jesus, but I'd have to agree that the faithfull would go right on believing, the non faithfull would just say "I knew it all along man!" The sorta faithfull I don't think you can be SORTA faithfull you either believe or you don't, you have doubts? explore then and make your choice.
Emerald,
Nice topic, I’d been playing with a similar idea this last week, I think we’ve been reviewing similar material.
From this link where faith is absolutely dependent on the scriptures - http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/about/faith.asp
If the scriptures could be shown to be false then Christianity should crumble. But note the wording in that link – it implies that no matter what evidence someone claims, the scriptures will remain inviolate truth, well at least to the fundamentalists. But I suspect the majority of moderate Christians might start to wakeup and think about it.
The problem still comes down to being able to reason with a group that refuses to follow the same rules. You think the game is soccer and they are think it is basketball. Might be confusing huh? One using reason the other using faith – two different languages with no translators around.
The other problem that we have to surmount is the lack of hard evidence against the scriptures. We can infer a great deal from what is not said, at least by Paul in his letters, he completely avoids talking about the alleged life of Jesus and gives examples of miracles from OT characters instead. I’m currently reviewing Paul as you might guess.
Last week I saw the movie ‘The name of the Rose’ (I think that’s the title), with Sean Connery as a past reasoned inquisitor who is investigating murders at a monastery. What struck me was that a lot of the plot revolved around banned books, or in other words anything that might be seen as criticism of Christianity. I think that we can be quite sure that many books and texts that could have proved the mythology of Jesus was quite indiscriminately destroyed in the early centuries by those early zealots.
I suspect the role of disproving the scriptures will be difficult unless new hidden texts are discovered. The Dead Sea scrolls were good examples of something that would certainly have been destroyed had they been discovered in early times. And the authors must surely have realized the prospect of political plunder and hence found the need for secrecy. I hope that more such texts might be found one day.
Have fun
Cris
[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 12, 2001).]
"What would happen when they realize that he's not coming back because he never existed in the first place (outside of our imaginations)? What sort of havoc and chaos would ensue, if any? Or do you think most people would just take it in stride because deep in their hearts, they were just hedging their bets anyway?"
We would be left with our animal impulses, or it would create a vacuum where devine authority would be replaced by something else...like our government.
------------------
It's all very large.
Bowser,
you animal, you :D
So, is your religion the only thing keeping you in check?
Sincerely curious, in all of my base impulsive mammalian glory, government-worshipping, truly yours ;)
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Boris--
My Freud is slightly rusty, but ....
So, is your religion the only thing keeping you in check?
Isn't this, at its heart, a commonplace device? What we fear in ourselves we project onto others? That because, say, Tipper Gore feared that listening to Prince would make her too hot and bothered to function obviously, therefore, means that nobody else can listen to such music? I mean, I fully admit that one of the reasons I don't carry weapons is that I'm too quick to rely on them. (I find myself in less fights since I stopped carrying four inches of very strong steel on my hip.)
Anyway, you just got me thinking about Freud with that one. And no, there's no dreams of tunnels along lakesides, or giant, fiery swords. ;)
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)
Emerald
02-14-01, 12:15 AM
I don't think any of the faithful would notice.
Tiassa,
I think you're close to being right. I think they'd blame the devil for deceiving the rest of us poor gullible fools, and continue on as normal. :rolleyes: Ah well.
Emerald
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
Emerald
02-14-01, 12:41 AM
Cris,
Thanks for the link! My two favorite quotes from that page are copied below:
2. The final guide to the interpretation of Scripture is Scripture itself.
(vi) By definition, no apparent, perceived, or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.
How very typical! :rolleyes:
Currently I'm reading "The Christ Conspiracy", by Acharya S. Here is a webpage that will provide you a sample of her writing: <a href="http://www.bluehoney.org/Jesus.htm">The Origins of Christianity & the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ</a>.
Emerald http://www.harrythecat.com/graphics/k/gem1.gif
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
Emerald
02-14-01, 12:55 AM
The other problem that we have to surmount is the lack of hard evidence against the scriptures. We can infer a great deal from what is not said...
Cris,
Good point! You mean like the fact that Josephus never mentioned anything about Herod killing all male infants under the age of two? It seems to me that a respected historian like Josephus would have considered something like that to be worthy of mention. But then I suppose he was just another fallible person who didn't possess all the information. :rolleyes:
Emerald
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
Emerald,
Thanks for the link.
Here is another on the Jesus puzzle.
http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm
I've also read The Lost Gospel, otherwise known as The Book of Q, by Burton L.Mack. This describes the very early years and is based on deduced and constructed sayings made by Jesus' contemporaries, who naturally never reference him. But Mack does not go on to conclude that Jesus was purely myth. However, The Jesus Puzzle does use Q in support of its findings.
Good luck.
Cris
Emerald
02-14-01, 01:46 AM
Hi Cris,
Thanks for the link. Did you finish reading "The Jesus Puzzle" yet? It looks like a pretty good one. Actually, I do already have that book, and one of these days I'll probably even get around to reading it. :) But right now I'm thoroughly enjoying Acharya's book - making a big mess of it with my yellow highlighter and all.
Also in the queue are Bertrand Russell's "Why I'm Not a Christian", "When Jesus Became God", by Richard E. Rubenstein, "The Origin of Satan", by Elaine Pagels (thanks, Tiassa!), and Thomas Paine's "Rights of Man" and "Common Sense". The Book of Q looks like it might be a good one to add to my collection as well. I just wish I was an Evelyn Wood graduate - so many books, so little time. *sigh*
Emerald
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
Hi Emerald,
Time to read is definitely a problem. Tiassa seems to have read every book in the world, well maybe it just appears that way to me, just how does that happen?
Not finished the Puzzle yet, but it is a fairly easy read with some good detail. I finished reading the Acharya’s web article a few minutes ago, pretty neat. I like all the references to Sun, which makes it very easy to see the link with ‘son of God’ and ‘sun of God’. And the connection with the winter solstice 21/Dec and death of the sun and the resurrection on 25/Dec, wonderful. But I guess the realization that the Jesus story has been repeated over and over for millennia with almost identical details in so many other mythologies simply gives a superb perspective to the modern day version of the myth. I can’t help feeling how foolish it is to have a modern day president who is as misguided as those leaders who lived thousands of years ago who also followed such myths. We don’t seem to have progressed much do we?
But I think I must buy the Acharya book. Great stuff. But I also have numerous volumes on Robotics and AI that I’m also trying to wade through. Perhaps I should spend less time at Exosci? Nah, must have some fun.
Take care
Cris
Boris,
"So, is your religion the only thing keeping you in check?"
No, I'm all good, but here's a quote from a bumper sticker which I think is true:
'Some people live because the law won't let us kill them.'
'Some people live because the law won't let us kill them.'
Perhaps the best reason to not kill people I've ever heard of.
I must thank kind Bowser for pointing out the exact problem with Americans: we actually think this way from time to time, on various levels.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)
Bowser,
Ahhh, so it's the laws after all. Seems the animals don't need religion to behave then, eh?
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
Boris,
"Ahhh, so it's the laws after all. Seems the animals don't need religion to behave then, eh?"
For many, religious dictates are law. If you dispose your faith to mans law, you will find yourself killing without knowing it is wrong. Hell, you might even think it's righteous.
------------------
It's all very large.
Bowser,
For many, religious dictates are law. If you dispose your faith to mans law, you will find yourself killing without knowing it is wrong. Hell, you might even think it's righteous.
Yeah, I might have expected statements like that from a Hezbollah. Or are you officially representing the Taliban? No, wait, actually you sound more like a Holy Roman...or could it be a Texan? ;)
<hr>
Man's law is only as futile and dysfunctional as the ground under it. Laws laid out and administered according to pragmatic reason and a principle of universal fairness, tend to fare better.
<hr>
Upon further reflection, I notice how you alluded to "man's law" -- as if implying that religion is not man's creation, nor are the laws derived from or dictated by religion. I guess you wouldn't even know the meaning of the word "anthropology", much less command any of the knowledge it stands for. Then again, there is only one religion in the world, and only one set of religious laws -- isn't there? Some religious laws must be less religious than other, I guess?? :rolleyes:
------------------
I am; therefore I think.
[This message has been edited by Boris (edited February 14, 2001).]
Emerald,
Barnes and Noble didn't stock the Christ Conspiracy, so I have ordered it from Amazon. So while I was at Amazon I checked out the related book reviews. The CC had some good reviews, but the Jesus Puzzle was even better.
From what I've seen of the CC extract I believe CC is going to be an easier read, JP becomes quite involved sometimes and it helps to have some background knowledge but I suspect is more accurate than CC. But I will have to wait and read CC before I judge.
Cris
Originally posted by Emerald:
I have a hypothetical question. What do you think would happen if it could be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that the New Testament, at least, was a complete forgery? In other words, what if it was conclusively determined that the books of the New Testament were written much later than originally thought, by authors who were not even alive during the time of Christ's alleged ministry? What if it was shown that Christ started off as nothing but a concept - a spiritual "Son of God", and those NT writers simply came along and filled in some historic facts here and there, and added a few lines and phrases to make it look like Jesus actually lived as a flesh and blood man, and that he was a Jew?
That doesn't sound like a hypothetical question. It sounds like you really mean it.
The problem is that the old and new testaments are not books.
There are collections of books that happen to be called the old and the new testaments.
The old testament is a verbal covenant made between God and man dedicated by the blood of animals. The new testament is a verbal covenant made between God and man dedicated by the blood of Jesus Christ.
As such, they can't be forged.
Your point may be that we get our knowledge of such things from forgeable books, but so what?
Forgeries simply prove the existence of the real.
Who can forge something which doesn't exist?
When is the last time someone tried to pass off a forged, or counterfeit, 27 1/2 dollar bill, for example?
Emerald
02-17-01, 04:04 PM
Tony,
That doesn't sound like a hypothetical question. It sounds like you really mean it.
Not much gets by you, does it? ;)
The problem is that the old and new testaments are not books. There are collections of books that happen to be called the old and the new testaments.
Apparently you need to read my words a bit more carefully, as I clearly used the phrase, "the books of the New Testament". So what's your point?
The old testament is a verbal covenant made between God and man dedicated by the blood of animals. The new testament is a verbal covenant made between God and man dedicated by the blood of Jesus Christ.
As such, they can't be forged.
Yes, blood does seem to be a central theme of both the Old and New Testaments. I might also point out that the god of the Old Testament also purportedly demanded human sacrifices, as well as animal sacrifices. But the reasoning behind your statement, "As such, they can't be forged" completely escapes me. Please explain your position.
Your point may be that we get our knowledge of such things from forgeable books, but so what?
My point is that all biblical writings came from human, not divine, sources. Don't underestimate the ability of the human mind to create any sort of fantasy imaginable whenever the perceived need arises.
Forgeries simply prove the existence of the real. Who can forge something which doesn't exist? When is the last time someone tried to pass off a forged, or counterfeit, 27 1/2 dollar bill, for example?
You're only focusing on one possible definition of the word - the one that best suits your purposes, of course. Please check out definition #2 of "<a href="http://work.ucsd.edu:5141/cgi-bin/http_webster?forgery&method=exact">forgery</a>" at the Webster's Gateway site. I think you'll find that I've used the word appropriately.
Semantics aside, what makes you think the books of the bible are anything other than bad fiction?
Emerald
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
Emerald,
I don't think Acharya highlights this jewel, but the word Jesus in Hebrew is itself a title and not the name that would be given to a person. The word means savior. No Jews of 2000 years ago would have called their offspring 'Savior'; they would have been ridiculed.
But the term 'christ' is Greek and means messiah, again the equivalent of a savior.
So those who used Hebrew were looking for a jesus (a savior), while those who used Greek were looking for a christ (a messiah).
So as the decades past and the mythologies became intermixed we ended up with a merger of Greek and Hebrew and the notion of a messianic savior. And in the early decades this was simply a concept, a ‘wished for’ spiritual being.
And then those opportunists, the type of which that have existed since man could think, saw their chance of power over the ignorant and invented a fictional character who could fill the role of this messianic savior. And from that point we have the Nazarene stories heavily plagiarized from earlier mythologies in the hope of giving credibility to familiar (at the time) desires.
That is a very condensed summary of what seems to have occurred some 2000 years ago. We now need to piece together some details and flesh out what looks to me like a very credible explanation for the birth of Christianity. And there appear limited, but possibly, adequate sources to show how the Nazarene stories were simply regurgitations of older mythologies that also include, sacrifice, resurrection, virgin birth, and all the familiar stories we see in the bible.
Fundamentalist Christians are unlikely to buy any story other than their own, they would die first I think. But the bulk of Christians, or those that say they are Christians because that is the current fashion, are quite likely to de-convert if the myths are accurately portrayed and made easily available. I’d love to see that occur.
Take care
Cris
Emerald:
Not much gets by you, does it?
Hey, thanks for the compliment.
Apparently you need to read my words a bit more carefully, as I clearly used the phrase, "the books of the New Testament". So what's your point?
Maybe you didn't notice, but you had two sentences in a row referencing the NT.
One was not using the term "books" and the other was.
My statements simply answered yours in the same order.
Yes, blood does seem to be a central theme of both the Old and New Testaments. I might also point out that the god of the Old Testament also purportedly demanded human sacrifices, as well as animal sacrifices. But the reasoning behind your statement, "As such, they can't be forged" completely escapes me. Please explain your position.
How can you forge a blood covenant?
Written words might be forged, erased and replaced, misspelled, etc.
But how can you forge a verbal commitment based on actions?
My point is that all biblical writings came from human, not divine, sources. Don't underestimate the ability of the human mind to create any sort of fantasy imaginable whenever the perceived need arises.
That's why the Bible was written down.
You're only focusing on one possible definition of the word - the one that best suits your purposes, of course. Please check out definition #2 of "forgery" at the Webster's Gateway site. I think you'll find that I've used the word appropriately.
Oh, I could see no reason to question your use of the word.
But, since you suggested it, I checked your link and here's what I found.
2. The act of forging, fabricating, or producing falsely; esp., the crime of fraudulently making or altering a writing or signature purporting to be made by another; the false making or material alteration of or addition to a written instrument for the purpose of deceit and fraud; as, the forgery of a bond.
Again, I say, based on this definition, a forgery is still based on some reality.
If it is purported to be by or about another, who is this other?
If it is for the purpose of deceit or fraud, then who would be fooled by the presentation of a God if no gods existed?
Semantics aside, what makes you think the books of the bible are anything other than bad fiction?
Oddly enough, they are bad fiction.
(John 6:51, KJV)
51 I am the living bread which came down from heaven: if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever: and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world.
This is either true, or completely insane.
It certainly isn't good fiction.
[This message has been edited by tony1 (edited February 17, 2001).]
Tony,
The reality is the original story, or the original mythology on which Christianity is based.
The Sun was seen as a god, or was seen as the Sun of God. People would worship the Sun becuase it literally gave life to the world and all humans. It brought light into the world, and banished the darkness which was a fearsome time. You see how these phrases have been passed down and are now attributed to the new Son of God, the light of the world, etc. etc.
I hope you can see how these original and understandable beliefs have become twisted and distorted over time, and have undergone many contortions to eventually end up almost unrecognizable as Christianity. A very bad forgery of the original myth.
Cris
[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 17, 2001).]
Originally posted by Cris:
The Sun was seen as a god, or was seen as the Sun of God. People would worship the Sun becuase it literally gave life to the world and all humans.
That might be remotely plausible in English, since 'sun' and 'son' sound similar, but other languages don't share that similarity.
It brought light into the world, and banished the darkness which was a fearsome time.
I'm pretty sure that you don't think of the night as a fearsome time, so why would others?
You see how these phrases have been passed down and are now attributed to the new Son of God, the light of the world, etc. etc.
You'd think that after a few thousand years, people would notice that the night only lasts a few hours.
I hope you can see how these original and understandable beliefs have become twisted and distorted over time, and have undergone many contortions to eventually end up almost unrecognizable as Christianity.
How are these beliefs understandable?
Today's historians claim that yesterday's idiots were afraid of the dark, but that's been going on since historians were invented. The other guy is always clueless. So much the better if the other guy is dead and can't say what he actually believed.
A very bad forgery of the original myth.
This is a very interesting position to take.
It is a myth that the sun comes up?
Tony,
That might be remotely plausible in English, since 'sun' and 'son' sound similar, but other languages don't share that similarity.
But of course especially since English has only been around for a few centuries, I’d overlooked that similarity again. The connection is concept based and not language based.
Here is a short extract from the link above, I couldn’t think of an easier way to make my point since you hadn’t read the article for yourself.
Taken from - http://www.bluehoney.org/Jesus.htm
For instance, many of the world's crucified godmen have their traditional birthday on December 25th ("Christmas"). This is because the ancients recognized that (from an earthcentric perspective) the sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th. The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if the sun continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "sun of God's" birthday on December 25th. The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God":
The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
The sun is the "Light of the World."
The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
The sun "walks on water."
The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.
I'm pretty sure that you don't think of the night as a fearsome time, so why would others?
Not in our modern enlightened (pun intended) times when electric lights are abundant and very few of us believe in the primitive superstitions from thousands of years ago. Put yourself way back when dark shadows were potential attackers or evil spirits. Darkness was to be avoided and feared.
You'd think that after a few thousand years, people would notice that the night only lasts a few hours.
But only if they knew the mechanism involved. If they thought the sun only arose because a god controlled it and that if they believed that if the god had been made angry then he might not allow the sun to rise the next day.
How are these beliefs understandable?
Today's historians claim that yesterday's idiots were afraid of the dark, but that's been going on since historians were invented. The other guy is always clueless. So much the better if the other guy is dead and can't say what he actually believed.
To be able to accurately understand the early centuries and those times BCE you must make an attempt to understand what life was like in those times. Politics and economics were very different. Illiteracy was typical which drove ignorance and the power of the religious shaman. Superstitions and evil spirits surrounded almost every aspect of everyday life. I assume you don’t believe that TV has always existed and that ancient journalists maintained independent objectivity, heck we don’t even trust present day journalists. There is no prospect that allows the Christian writings and the bible stories to be based on objective facts and truth, they were undoubtedly based on earlier myths and are themselves more complex mythologies.
It is a myth that the sun comes up?
You seem to have missed (deliberately?) the point.
The myth is that Jesus existed. Can you show me otherwise? This should be important for you since his existence is fundamental to your beliefs. As Emerald states in the opening post, if Jesus can be shown to not exist then where does that leave you and your beliefs.
Cris
Originally posted by Cris:
Here is a short extract from the link above...etc.the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.
I guess I have to admit I didn't follow the link.
Reason being, I spent 16 years as an astrologer so I didn't think I'd really see anything new.
Not in our modern enlightened (pun intended) times when electric lights are abundant and very few of us believe in the primitive superstitions from thousands of years ago. Put yourself way back when dark shadows were potential attackers or evil spirits. Darkness was to be avoided and feared.
This kind of backs my point that the other guy is a complete idiot whereas we are the enlightened ones.
But only if they knew the mechanism involved. If they thought the sun only arose because a god controlled it and that if they believed that if the god had been made angry then he might not allow the sun to rise the next day.
Few people know the exact mechanism by which their car starts, yet few people think some god controls it.
Hmm.
Priests............mechanics
Temples.........garages
Huge sums....huge sums
Hey, I'm starting to see your point.
To be able to accurately understand the early centuries and those times BCE you must make an attempt to understand what life was like in those times. Politics and economics were very different. Illiteracy was typical which drove ignorance and the power of the religious shaman. Superstitions and evil spirits surrounded almost every aspect of everyday life. I assume you don’t believe that TV
No TV? Ack!
has always existed and that ancient journalists maintained independent objectivity, heck we don’t even trust present day journalists. There is no prospect that allows the Christian writings and the bible stories to be based on objective facts and truth, they were undoubtedly based on earlier myths and are themselves more complex mythologies.
This might be true, or not.
The grapevine is pretty effective even today.
The myth is that Jesus existed. Can you show me otherwise? This should be important for you since his existence is fundamental to your beliefs. As Emerald states in the opening post, if Jesus can be shown to not exist then where does that leave you and your beliefs.
Up an unnamed creek without a paddle.
However, the thing that puzzles me is this.
Why is it that at the same time that atheists and antichristians claim to have the truth, they (you) base their entire existence on that which they (you) deny?
To be an atheist, one has to be a theist, but opposite.
To be an antichristian, you have to be a christian, but opposite.
Christians, and theists in general, can say that their beliefs are based on what they believe.
But, antichristians and atheists have to say that their beliefs are based on the opposite of what they believe.
This is peculiar.
How do you deal with such a strange paradox?
Tony,
You do not seem to have a clear grasp of the meaning of atheism.
There are several threads here that have discussed the meaning of atheism at great length and most of us have come to accept what is meant by the term, at least I hope so. Since you have not had the benefit of those discussions and since I would not expect you to search through all past threads, and if you don’t object I’ll try to explain very briefly how most of us see atheism. Without some agreement on terminology we will never make progress.
Theism means belief in a god. Notice that this position is one of a positive BELIEF. The prefix A in Atheism means without. So Atheism literally means without belief in a god. This is the most common and widespread acceptable meaning of atheism among atheists themselves. It is very important to note that atheism is not a belief system, as you would see Christianity. Atheism is not a belief that a god does not exist. This is an unfortunate misunderstanding and one that is often erroneously propagated by popular dictionaries and Christian doctrines.
Simply put: - an atheist does not believe the claim made by a theist that a god exists.
Here are some links that better explain this meaning and the variations.
http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/intro.html
http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/faq1111.htm
Please take time to read these links; they will help you avoid confusion later and making confusing statements.
Oh and BTW, welcome to the debate. And feel free to drop some of the sarcasm; reasoned arguments carry far more weight and respect.
Cris
Emerald
02-19-01, 01:40 AM
Tony,
Your statement that you did not read the link because you were an astrologer for 16 years is a non sequitur, as are many other statements you've made on this board. Perhaps what you really mean to say is that you would prefer not to examine any evidence that might expose the truth about the origins of Christianity?
In my opinion, intellectual honesty requires you to examine the evidence before committing to a belief system, and to always be willing to examine any new evidence presented to you. If you were sitting on a jury, and the defense attorney asked you to disregard the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and acquit the defendant based on faith alone - would you do it? I hope not! Why suspend all reason when it comes to religious beliefs?
Well anyway, since you chose not to read that page, I am pasting the conclusion below, to give you an idea of what you're missing:
Conclusion
As Walker said, "Scholars' efforts to eliminate paganism from the Gospels in order to find a historical Jesus have proved as hopeless as searching for a core in an onion." The "gospel" story of Jesus is not a factual portrayal of a historical "master" who walked the earth 2,000 years ago. It is a myth built upon other myths and godmen, who in turn were personifications of the ubiquitous sungod mythos.
The Christ of the gospels is in no sense an historical personage or a supreme model of humanity, a hero who strove, and suffered, and failed to save the world by his death. It is impossible to establish the existence of an historical character even as an impostor. For such an one the two witnesses, astronomical mythology and gnosticism, completely prove an alibi. The Christ is a popular lay-figure that never lived, and a lay-figure of Pagan origin; a lay-figure that was once the Ram and afterwards the Fish; a lay-figure that in human form was the portrait and image of a dozen different gods. ~Gerald Massey
Oh yes, and I would like to join Cris in welcoming you to the board. :)
Emerald
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
ilgwamh
02-19-01, 03:12 AM
"The Christ of the gospels is in no sense an historical personage or a supreme model of humanity, a hero who strove, and suffered, and failed to save the world by his death. It is impossible to establish the existence of an historical character even as an impostor. For such an one the two witnesses, astronomical mythology and gnosticism, completely prove an alibi. The Christ is a popular lay-figure that never lived, and a lay-figure of Pagan origin; a lay-figure that was once the Ram and afterwards the Fish; a lay-figure that in human form was the portrait and image of a dozen different gods. ~Gerald Massey"
This is copy and pasted from another message board:
"The passage in Josephus purporting to describe the life of Jesus is a later forgery."
Thats not true. There are actually two passages where Josephus mentions Jesus.
__________________________________________________ __
About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one outh to call him a man. For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many Greeks. He was the Messiah. When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. On the third day he appeared to them restored to life, for the phrophets of God had phrophesied these and countless other marvellous things about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared. [Jewish Antiquities 18.63-64
Josephus' account is more detailed than Tacitus', but notice the sentences I have italicized above. They are so patently Christian that some scholars explain the entire section on Jesus as a later Christian insertion. However, even if Christian editors delicately inserted those italicized phrases later to make the description more positive, the basic content of the passage is most likely original. Once the questionalble phrases are omitted, what remains is in a style and language characteristically Josephan. That remaining description is so studiously neutral that I wonder if Josephus wrote with a careful eye on Christians and Jews in his contemporary Rome more than on their predecessors of over sixty-years earlier. That possiblity arises not just from impartiality of his description but from that mention of "many Jews and many Greeks." That surely bespeaks the historical situation of the Roman 90s rather than the Palestinian 20s."
..........................
Later in Jewsish Antiquities 20.200, Josephus tells how,
he [Ananus, the high priest] convened the judges of the Sanhedrin [in 62 C.E. during the interregnum between the prefects Festus and Albinus] and brought before them a man named James, the brother of jesus who was called the Christ, and certain others.
In that text he says that Jesus "was called the Christ." This is neutral, not a credal,statement. It is possible therefore, but not much more, that he had used a similar expression in the opening phrases of his earlier mention of Jesus in 18.63-64 and that Christian interpolation had changed "He was called the Christ" into the confessional assertion "He was the Christ." maybe, at best.
Among thos four earliest outsiders, Pliny and Suetonius tell us about Christians but not about Christ. Only Josephus and Tacitus tell us about Jesus or Christ and the continuation from him to Christianity."
John Dominic Crossan, The Birth of Christianity
__________________________________________________ __
Tacitus in Annals 15.44 (Jackson et al. 4.282-283)
"Christus, the founder of the name had undergone the death penalty in reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, and the pernicious superstition was checked for only a moment, only to break out once more, not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and dind a vogue."
I don't see many pro-Christian elements in there. Its called a pernicious superstition and a disease. it collects where all horrible or shame ful things collect. A shameful, horrible disease, a pernicious superstion is what Chreistianity was according to this account.
Tacitus as well as Josephus tell us the four things mentioned above. Movement, exocution, continuation and expansion.
Tacitus
"[movement] Christus, the founder of the name [exocution] had undergone the death penalty in reign of Tiberius, by sentence of the procurator Pontius Pilate, [continuation] and the pernicious superstition was checked for only a moment, only to break out once more, [expansion] not merely in Judea, the home of the disease, but in the capital itself, where all things horrible or shameful in the world collect and dind a vogue."
Josephus with pro-Christian elements removed.
[movement] About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, For he was one who wrought surprising feats and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many Greeks. [exocution] When Pilate, upon hearing him accused by men of the highest standing amongst us, had condemned him to be crucified, [continuation] those who had in the first place come to love him did not give up their affection for him. [expansion] And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.
Commenting on the adultered version of Josephus mentione above in "Jesus: The Evidence, Ian Wilson had this to say,
_______________________________________________
"Since Josephus was, judging by the rest of his writings, quite obviously not a Christian Professor Wells is convinced that this passage was the interpolaion of a later Christian copyist. That someone has certainly adulterated the passage, very clumsily, in a pro-Christian way has long been undeniable. But is it a complete invention? It so happens that there occurs later in Josephus' Antiquities a reference to the unjust exocution in 62 A.D. of James "the brother of Jesus called the Christ." professor Wells has dismissed this too as just another interpolation. But it does not sound like one, for the simple reason that it refers to Jesus merely as "called the Christ", inconsistent with the earlier passage, and just the sort of remark Josephus might well have made. given his religious standpoint. Furthermore we know this passage existed in a very early version of his text, together with a passage casting doubt on Jesus' messiahship. In the third century A.D. the Christian writer Origen had epressed his astonishment that Josephus, while disbelieving jesus was the messiah, should have spoken so warmly about his brother. This information from Origen is incontrovertable evidence that Josephus referred to Jesus before any Christian copyist would have had a chance to make alterations.
Returning to the quoted passage from Antiquities, perhaps it was, after all, written by Josephus and merely adulterated with with a pro-Christian gloss. An indication that this may may be so is to be found in the opening descriptions of Jesus as 'a wise man', a comment quite untypical of any Christian writer but characteristic of Josephus. Jewish scholars such as Dr. Geza Vermes have tried removing all pro-Christian elements from the passage., recovering what they believe to be at least an approximation, if incomplete of what Josephus orginally wrote:
About this time lived jesus, a wise man . . . he performed astonishing feats (and was a teacher of such people as are eager for novelties?) He attracted many Jews and many of the Greeks . . . Upon an indictment brought by leading members of our society, Pilate sentenced him to the cross, but those who had loved him from the very first did not cease to be attached to him . . . The brotherhood of the Christians named after hi,, is still in existence.
There is excellent justification for such a restoration. The words 'astonishing feats', or more literally 'paradoxical deeds', are precisely the same as those used by Josephus to describe the healings of Elisha. The reconstructed text corresponds closely with a possibly unadulterated version preserved in the writings of the tenth-century Arabic Christian Agapius, which also includes the following:
. . . his disciples. . . . reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive; accordingly he was perhap the Messiah, concerning whom the phrophets have recounted wonders.
If Josephus originally wrote something approximating to these words, and Jewish as well as Christian scholars have been prepared to affirm that he did, then we have a positive and authoritative confirmation of jesus' existence from very nearly the best possible independent source, a man who actually lived in Galilee well within the lifetimes of the individuals who would have known Jesus first hand.
________________________________________
There are also some early Jewish sources that affirm Jesus' existence while saying nothing favourable about them. A lot of soucres have been lost as well due to Christian persecution which destroyed Jewish religious books during the Middle Ages.
The Mishnah doesn't make any direct reference ot Jesus but its supplements the Braitha and Tosefta do at least 5 times.
American rabbi Morris Goldstein and others say the man in the next 4 examples may be positively identified as Jesus:
1 It has been taught: on the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu . . . because he practised sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray . . .
2. our Rabbis taught: yueshu had 5 displicles - mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni and Todah.
3. It happened with Rabbi Elazer ben Damah, whom a serpent bit that jacob a mna of Kefar Soma, came to heal him in the name of Yeshu[a] ben pantera; but Rabbi Ishmael did not let him. He said, "You are not permitted, Ben Dama'. He answered, "I will bring you proof that he ma heal me.' But he had no opportunity to bring proof, for he died.
4. Once, I was walking on the upper street of Spphoris, and found one of the disciples of yeshu the Nazarene, by the name Jacob, a man of Kefar Sechanya. he said to me, "It is written in your Torah: "Thou shalt not bring the hire of a harlot, etc." How about making with it a privy for the high preist?" But I did not answer him at all. He told me, 'Thus did Yeshu the Nazarene teach me: "For the hire of a harlot hath she gathered them, And unto the hire of a harlot shall they return", from the place of filth they come, and unto the place of filth the shall go.' And the utterance pleased me . . .
Notice number three where Jesus is called Yeshu ben Pantera. There was a widespread early story that Jesus was the Son of an illegitimate union between Mary and a Roman soldier called Pandera, Pantera or Panthera. Origen tells us he heard it from the second century pagan philospher Celsus who in turn claimsto have heard it from a Jew. One line of evidence used against the virgin birth is Matthew's genealogy. All four of the women were fallen women. Tamar was a temple Prostitue. Rahab was the madam of a brothel, Ruth indulged in shameless sexual exploitation and bathsheba commited adultery with King David. So the line of evidence goes.
As you can see a lot of these references to Jesus do not say anything postitve about him. We have even more reasons to believe he existed because of this.
"If Jesus had been a mere fabrication by early Christians, we should surely expect those Jews hostile to Christianity to have produced a hostile rumour to this effect. From the fact that thet concentrated instead on smearing his legitimacy, we may deduce that htye had no grounds whatsoever for doubing his historical existence." (Wilson, Jesus: The Evidence, page 64-65.)
Lets move on and see what Josh Mcdowell reports on the issue in his book 'New Evidence That Demandsa A Verdict. THe material below and quotes from other sources were found in NETDAV.
Lucian of Amosata
A greek satirist of the latter half of the second century, Lucian spoke scornfully of Christ and the Christians never assuming or arguing they were unreal. As Lucian said, "The Christians, you know, worshop a man to this day--the distinguished personage who introduced thir novel rites, and was crucified on that account. . . . You see, these misguided creatures start with the general conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all brothers, from the moment they are converted, and deny the gods of Greece, and worshop the crucified sage, and live after his laws. All this they take quite on faith, with the result that they despise all the worldly goods alike, regarding them merely as common property." (Lucian, The Death or Peregrine, 11-13)
Suetonius in the Life of Claudiuse 25.
As the jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of Chrestus, he [Cladius] expelled them from Rome. Luke refers to this event in Acts 18:2 which took place in A.D. 49.
Suetonius in Lives of the Caesars, 26.2
Punuishment by Nero was inflicted on the hristians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.
"Assuming Jesus was crucified in the aearly thirties, Suetonius--no friend of Christianity--places Christians in the imperial city less than twenty years later, and he reports that they were suffering and dying for their conviction that Jesus Christ had really lived, dies, and risen from the dead." Mcdowell NETDAV
Pliny talks about killling Christians, boys girls, men women et cetera. In his letters he expresses doubts as to whether he should keep killing them. He made some curse the Christ which no genuine Christian can do in order to show those that didn't die for their faith really weren't Christians. This is too long for me to type up his letters now.
Along with Pliny we have Thallus, Phlegon, Mara Bar Serapion, et cetera.
I do not think any sewrious scholar can deny the existence of Jesus on a historical basis.
As recoded in NETDAV
"Some writers may fancy with the toy of the 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the grounds of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-myth' theories." (F.F. BRUCE, NTDATR, 72, 119)
Otto Betz is right, "No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (Betz, WDWKAJ, 9)
Yeah, welcome Tony ;)
Peace,
Vinnie
Originally posted by Emerald:
Your statement that you did not read the link because you were an astrologer for 16 years is a non sequitur, as are many other statements you've made on this board. Perhaps what you really mean to say is that you would prefer not to examine any evidence that might expose the truth about the origins of Christianity?
I used to do what you are doing now.
The astrology thing might look like a non-sequitur to you, but one of the things I used to do during that 16 years is dismiss Christianity as a myth. I probably read all or most of the same books, thought the same thoughts, ridiculed Christians, etc.
In my opinion, intellectual honesty requires you to examine the evidence before committing to a belief system, and to always be willing to examine any new evidence presented to you.
True enough.
If you were sitting on a jury, and the defense attorney asked you to disregard the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt and acquit the defendant based on faith alone - would you do it?
Interesting legal analogy. No.
I hope not! Why suspend all reason when it comes to religious beliefs?
Since I don't know what you mean by "religious," I'll answer that question as though the word weren't there.
I also don't know what you mean by "beliefs," but I'll answer using my definition.
Answer: There is no reason to suspend any, let alone all, reason to hold a belief.
If that doesn't suffice as an answer, I will give you what belief means to me.
Belief, according to one dictionary is "any cognitive content held as true."
From your question, it is apparent that, for you, belief is like this.
First, you use your cognitive abilities to reach a conclusion. Then, you hold that conclusion to be true.
There are a number of problems with that approach.
First, there is the problem of ensuring that your cognitive faculties are in good working order. There is no internal check that you can perform that will verify the accuracy of your conclusions. Any internal check uses the same cognitive faculties that are being verified, therefore if your reason is accurate, so is the check, but if your reason has failed, the check fails also. Either way, the result of the verification will be, "all systems OK."
Second, you have no way of knowing whether you have considered all the evidence bearing on any particular conclusion. Since the only way to know whether you have considered all the evidence is to know all the evidence in advance, you can see the difficulty with this.
Not only that, if you are already aware of all the evidence, you wouldn't need to consider it. And, if you didn't know it all, you would never know if you had considered it.
Some deal with these problems by including more people in the reasoning process. This doesn't solve the problem at all. In fact, it makes the problem worse.
Now you have to solve your own problems, plus those of the others.
One pseudosolution is "peer review."
The problem here is much the same as talking to a person on the other side of the fence at a mental institution. You need to make sure which side of the fence you are on.
Another pseudosolution is "name-dropping", otherwise known as "citing references." Worse yet, since all of the problems mentioned above increase exponentially with the number of references.
Thus, the only way that belief makes sense is to find out what is true and then believe that.
The alternative is obviously nonsensical, i.e. believing what is false.
A simple statistical analysis of the situation should easily demonstrate that, given the problems with trying to find answers by reason alone, the reasoning process has a negligible probabiltiy of success.
So, my definition of belief is, "anything true held as cognitive content."
Well anyway, since you chose not to read that page, I am pasting the conclusion below, to give you an idea of what you're missing:
So, am I correct in assuming that you agree with the conclusion you presented?
I have no problem admitting that, when I was doing what you are doing, I would have agreed with it.
Onions do have cores though.
Oh yes, and I would like to join Cris in welcoming you to the board.
Well, thank you.
Ariadne2525
02-19-01, 05:31 AM
Originally posted by Cris:
Oh and BTW, welcome to the debate. And feel free to drop some of the sarcasm; reasoned arguments carry far more weight and respect.
Cris
Yeah, but without the sarcasm noone gets pissed off! What fun would that be? Let me put it into words you scientists will understand.
No sarcasm equals no PO'd homo sapiens
No PO'd homo sapiens equals no friction
No friction equals not interesting
Not interesting equals no popularity
No popularity equals boring
and boring equals the textbooks you peeps like to imitate.
(Excuse me, but it's 2:30 AM, I'm cranky, and reading stuff that belongs in a schoolbook isn't helping. I'm going to bed.)
Goodnight A, sorry for being boring. :D
Ariadne2525
02-19-01, 03:53 PM
:D Thanks, Chris, and I'm sorry. Like I said in my previous post, I was cranky. But I've had a good 9 hours of sleep now. :) So I'm in a good mood.
Stretch
02-21-01, 06:41 AM
Here you go Vinnie
"Amazingly, the question of an actual historical Jesus rarely confronts the religious believer. The power of faith has so forcefully driven the minds of most believers, and even apologetic scholars, that the question of reliable evidence has been obscured and bogged down with tradition, religious subterfuge, and outrageous claims. The following gives a brief outlook about the claims of a historical Jesus and why the evidence the Christians present us cannot serve as justification for reliable evidence for a historical Jesus."
Read all about it here - http://www.gate.net/~zardoz/exist.htm
Take care
Stretch,
Keep it coming. Do you realize that you started me off on the Jesus Puzzle from one of your earlier posts. Up until that time I had just been part of the crowd that had bought into the Christian propaganda.
Thanks :cool:
Cris
First a question for Chris.
Did you convert as a direct result of this message board?
for tony1:
The problems presented in this message board still apply to your definition, how can you believe in a Christ that has no evidence of his existence?
As the first stings in this board say, christens would simply dismiss the evidence that christ does not exist, as tony1 has demonstrated.
"I used to do what you are doing now.
The astrology thing might look like a non-sequitur to you, but one of the things I used to do during that 16 years is dismiss Christianity as a myth. I probably read all or most of the same books, thought the same thoughts, ridiculed Christians, etc."
This is interesting. I believe that the observations would prove differently. Perhaps you can give us some references as to what changed your perspective and tell us why. What insurmountable evidence swayed your belief? This might help us better understand you position.
And please do not play word games. I do not come here to debate the meaning of words. Many a good strings have turned bad over this.
------------------
If the theory does not fit reality then reality MUST be changed.
Hi FA_Q2,
First a question for Chris.
Did you convert as a direct result of this message board?
I guess you mean me (Cris). I prefer to think of the process as deconversion, a return to normality. Oh but I wish such a message board and the Internet had existed when I was 18, but that was 1970. So no I gave up on Christianity in my late teens and have been an atheist ever since. But my convictions have been enormously strengthened in these last 14 months while reading and learning to debate on this message board.
So do you have a purpose to your question?
Cris
[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 21, 2001).]
Vinnie,
I do not think any serious scholar can deny the existence of Jesus on a historical basis.
As recoded in NETDAV
"Some writers may fancy with the toy of the 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the grounds of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-myth' theories." (F.F. BRUCE, NTDATR, 72, 119)
Otto Betz is right, "No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (Betz, WDWKAJ, 9)
Here are some quotes from a few serious scholars who seem to question the historicity of a Jesus, despite your claims that no such scholars exist.
When the Church mythologists established their system, they collected all the writings they could find and managed them as they pleased. It is a matter altogether of uncertainty to us whether such of the writings as now appear under the name of the Old and New Testaments are in the same state in which those collectors say they found them, or whether they added, altered, abridged or dressed them up.
-Thomas Paine (The Age of Reason)
It is only in comparatively modern times that the possibility was considered that Jesus does not belong to history at all.
-J.M. Robertson (Pagan Christs)
Whether considered as the God made human, or as man made divine, this character never existed as a person.
-Gerald Massey, Egyptologist and historical scholar (Gerald Massey's Lectures: Gnostic and Historic Christianity, 1900)
Some hoped to penetrate the various accounts and to discover the "historical Jesus". . . and that sorting out "authentic" material in the gospels was virtually impossible in the absence of independent evidence."
-Elaine Pagels, Professor of Religion at Princeton University
We can recreate dimensions of the world in which he lived, but outside of the Christian scriptures, we cannot locate him historically within that world.
-Gerald A. Larue (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)
The gospels are so anonymous that their titles, all second-century guesses, are all four wrong.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
Mark himself clearly did not know any eyewitnesses of Jesus.
-Randel McCraw Helms (Who Wrote the Gospels?)
All four gospels are anonymous texts. The familiar attributions of the Gospels to Matthew, Mark, Luke and John come from the mid-second century and later and we have no good historical reason to accept these attributions.
-Steve Mason, professor of classics, history and religious studies at York University in Toronto (Bible Review, Feb. 2000, p. 36)
The question must also be raised as to whether we have the actual words of Jesus in any Gospel.
-Bishop John Shelby Spong
Many modern Biblical archaeologists now believe that the village of Nazareth did not exist at the time of the birth and early life of Jesus. There is simply no evidence for it.
-Alan Albert Snow (The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read)
What one believes and what one can demonstrate historically are usually two different things.
-Robert J. Miller, Bible scholar, (Bible Review, Jan. 1994, p. 9)
When it comes to the historical question about the Gospels, I adopt a mediating position-- that is, these are religious records, close to the sources, but they are not in accordance with modern historiographic requirements or professional standards.
-David Noel Freedman, Bible scholar and general editor of the Anchor Bible series (in Bible Review magazine, Jan. 1994, p.34)
It is said that the last recourse of the Bible apologist is to fall back upon allegory. After all, when confronted with the many hundreds of biblical problems, allegory permits one to interpret anything however one might please.
-Gene Kasmar, Minnesota Atheists
James Dunn says that the Sermon on the Mount, mentioned only by Matthew, "is in fact not historical."
How historical can the Gospels be? Are Murphy-O-Conner's speculations concerning Jesus' baptism by John simply wrong-headed? How can we really know if the baptism, or any other event written about in the Gospels, is historical?
-Daniel P. Sullivan (Bible Review, July 16, 1996, p. 5)
David Friedrich Strauss (The Life of Jesus, 1836), had argued that the Gospels could not be read as straightforward accounts of what Jesus actually did and said; rather, the evangelists and later redactors and commentators, influenced by their religious beliefs, had made use of myths and legends that rendered the gospel narratives, and traditional accounts of Jesus' life, unreliable as sources of historical information.
-Dale Allison (Bible Review, Nov. 15, 1996, p. 39)
The Gospel authors were Jews writing within the midrashic tradition and intended their stories to be read as interpretive narratives, not historical accounts.
-Bishop Shelby Spong, Liberating the Gospels
Some scholars say so many revisions occurred in the 100 years following Jesus' death that no one can be absolutely sure of the accuracy or authenticity of the Gospels, especially of the words the authors attributed to Jesus himself.
-Jeffery L. Sheler, "The catholic papers," (U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990)
So unreliable were the Gospel accounts that "we can now know almost nothing concerning the life and personality of Jesus."
-Rudolf Bultmann, University of Marburg, the foremost Protestant scholar in the field in 1926
The Synoptic Gospels employ techniques that we today associate with fiction.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997)
The narrative conventions and world outlook of the gospel prohibit our using it as a historical record of that year.
-Paul Q. Beeching, Central Connecticut State University (Bible Review, June 1997)
Jesus is a mythical figure in the tradition of pagan mythology and almost nothing in all of ancient literature would lead one to believe otherwise. Anyone wanting to believe Jesus lived and walked as a real live human being must do so despite the evidence, not because of it.
-C. Dennis McKinsey, Bible critic (The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy)
The gospels are very peculiar types of literature. They're not biographies.
-Paula Fredriksen, Professor and historian of early Christianity, Boston University (in the PBS documentary, From Jesus to Christ, aired in 1998)
The gospels are not eyewitness accounts
-Allen D. Callahan, Associate Professor of New Testament, Harvard Divinity School
We are led to conclude that, in Paul's past, there was no historical Jesus. Rather, the activities of the Son about which God's gospel in scripture told, as interpreted by Paul, had taken place in the spiritual realm and were accessible only through revelation.
-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.83
Before the Gospels were adopted as history, no record exists that he was ever in the city of Jerusalem at all-- or anywhere else on earth.
-Earl Doherty, "The Jesus Puzzle," p.141
Even if there was a historical Jesus lying back of the gospel Christ, he can never be recovered. If there ever was a historical Jesus, there isn't one any more. All attempts to recover him turn out to be just modern remythologizings of Jesus. Every "historical Jesus" is a Christ of faith, of somebody's faith. So the "historical Jesus" of modern scholarship is no less a fiction.
-Robert M. Price, "Jesus: Fact or Fiction, A Dialogue With Dr. Robert Price and Rev. John Rankin,".
Conclusion
Belief and faith substitute as knowledge in many people's minds and nothing, even direct evidence thrust on the feet of their claims, could possibly change their minds. We have many stories, myths and beliefs of a Jesus but if we wish to establish the facts of history, we cannot even begin to put together a knowledgeable account without at least a few reliable eyewitness accounts, and there are none.
We simply do not have a shred of evidence to determine the historicity of a Jesus "the Christ." We only have evidence for the belief of Jesus.
Cris
Few people know the exact mechanism by which their car starts, yet few people think some god controls it.
Few people know the exact mechanism by which their heart beats, their brain thinks, or their lungs breathe. Even fewer know how their toenails grow. More than would admit probably know a good deal about how that lump of processed "waste" they flush down a toilet, but still, it's part of that living process.
Statistics vary at Exosci, but if I recall, our impression is that somewhere between 84 and 98% of all Americans believe in God. Though I feel redundant: The most common link 'twixt all deities is their attribution of having created life in some form which humans cannot. Oh, there is, the common link that none can be demonstrated to exist, but that's extraneous to the debate.
So, while few people know the exact mechanisms by which their bodies operate ...?
A number of people fall into the pantheon of gods if you're a car. Let us, then, take an obvious one: Henry Ford. (Actually, I can't remember Benz's first name, or any other names from that time.)
I am a human. You are a human. Henry Ford was a human. We don't think our cars were made by God because, in this case, God was one of Us.
Now, my mother isn't God. (Specifically, my mother was a prostitute, but that's kinda close, Biblically speaking, eh?) Nor, however, is Joe Franklin, UAW Local ____, Flint, Michigan, generally recognized as God.
What, really, is different about Life in general from the rest of nature? (We might include in nature all of humankind's work; I assert that at the most fundamental natural level, the only difference between you and Proxima Centauri, as separate entities in the Universe, is a simple matter of ratios relative to the whole of the singular Universe.)
So we don't know the answer to, "Who made the first--as such--human?" Should the international scientific team attempting to clone a living human being find success, this whole thing between gods and life will seem even sillier than it does.
Actually, I just figured to chime in on that part I quoted, but as I think about it, I wanted to stick my nose in on one other count.
However, the thing that puzzles me is this.
Why is it that at the same time that atheists and antichristians claim to have the truth, they (you) base their entire existence on that which they (you) deny?
To be an atheist, one has to be a theist, but opposite.
To be an antichristian, you have to be a christian, but opposite.
Christians, and theists in general, can say that their beliefs are based on what they believe.
But, antichristians and atheists have to say that their beliefs are based on the opposite of what they believe.
This is peculiar.
How do you deal with such a strange paradox?
* An atheist refuses to accept what is not there on a specifically fundamental basis. This is not so much the difference between demons and bacteria, but a principle which affects all perspectives on the Universe. A theist accepts God a priori. To illustrate the difference simply: Atheists, to my experience, generally accept the idea that, I can only prove to myself that I exist. I cannot prove this to anyone else. Theists, however, must necessarily avoid this concept until enough theistic assumptions exist a priori to allow this concept to become valid. Why? Because "God" exists, in the theist's perspective. The theist believes in a reality concerning something other than the self that the atheist generally will only acknowledge about his or her own self as a practical necessity. The theist claims for God what an atheist should not (by my particular logical structure) be able to claim publicly for his/her self.
* Were we debating with a Muslim participant, would we be anti-Muslim? Incidentally, there is a principle buried within Sufism that would regard an atheist as put upon such a path by God. Of course, at that point, Islam has become so mystical that I think Cris, even, would have an appreciation of the idea of being "put upon such a path by God". (Essentially, it's a Sufi way of saying, "Because that's the way life is.") The point of that is that one need have nothing against Christianity, per se, but still become anti-Christian by the way you seem to be defining it.
On this note, let me reiterate a point I brought up in another thread. I would love to have known the original Christians, to have watched that thought process. It is a sadness that two-thousand years of intervening history have buried that idea so deeply that it may as well be ashes in Hell. Bearing that in mind ....
For someone like me, the fact that I honor a different set of fundamental standards than Christianity indicates that I will, most likely, have occasion to differ fundamentally with Christianity. In this sense, I have no problem with Christianity. But where you assert, Christians, and theists in general, can say that their beliefs are based on what they believe . . . . But, antichristians and atheists have to say that their beliefs are based on the opposite of what they believe, I believe you are mistaken. This juxtaposition only occurs because an occasion requires it. You're speaking of the difference, essentially, between mastering the Universe, and assuming you already have. More directly, of the atheistic need to learn what's real versus the theistic idea that some reality can only be assumed. A book tells most theistic Americans that God is real. I don't need a book to tell me that gravity is real, or that the Doppler effect is real; I can experience exactly what those words describe personally.
Atheists tend to believe in the reality that they learn; and, yes, some of it is faith. I can read about a team of scientists making metallic hydrogen and frankly, I don't need to go out and build the damn machine just to accept that this is real. This is not a result of my personally being theistic; I'm quite sure that my atheist planetmates aren't really anxious to go out and build a 7-city-bus-long gas gun just to compress packets of hydrogen gas. Actually, I'd bet that a number of them are, but, like me, just for the hell of it.
Where Christian and antichristian come into play is an area Bowser and I are exploring in the form of a different concept. Dualisms only exist because we can count, at least, to two. As Bowser has wisely pointed out, homosexuality and homophobes is, technically, a smaller concern than the African HIV crisis. But the issue does exist in Oregon and other places because those sides have chosen to square off. I'll leave that part of my politics out of it for the sake of this thread.
But yes, I have fundamental differences of perspective with my Christian neighbors. Unfortunately, many of these differences become tangible realities with which I must cope. More often than not, I find my most treasured rights challenged by ideas derived from Christian principle. Were this to be true of Muslims, for instance, I would probably be much more critical of American Islam. Those parts of American Islam I might find objectionable blow by me; their effect on me is so convoluted by a difference in rhetorical standard that I generally don't see them. Nor do I regularly find myself voting on whether or not to pass a law based solely on Islamic principles.
So, being--by habit or coincidence of principles--politically antichristian, this version of the so-called reality of me becomes a readily identifiable aspect. Nonetheless, my Christian neighbor is merely my neighbor until I am asked to identify myself and stand apart.
If an atheist takes a directly antichristian stand, it is because the issue is fundamentally a Christian issue. It is because the issue concerns a fundamental difference of perspective 'twixt the Christian's theism and the atheist's atheism. If anyone could demonstrate consistent principles of "faith healing", an atheist would accept the process as part of nature and identify the practical "how" of the questions. If it could then be demonstrated that this process was restricted to Christian faith as a statistical phenomenon, then the atheists could, with enough work, identify how that came to be without caving to the temptation of the easy answer that God exists. When the atheists run out of questions to ask, they will be more prone to become theists. But we're the human race, and so long as we don't blow ourselves up or succumb to some Super-Poke-ebola, we won't run out of questions. I guess there lies a true paradox: if the atheist ever runs out of questions, it is because he has disproved himself by becoming God.
As it seems I'm chiming in late on this part of the fun, whoops. But I couldn't resist the part about the car. And then the dualisms. Wow. But do I have rhythm? ;)
thanx all,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)
[This message has been edited by tiassa (edited February 21, 2001).]
Emerald
02-22-01, 12:12 AM
Tony,
Here is the definition of the word "belief" from Webster's:
Belief \Be*lief"\, n. [OE. bileafe, bileve; cf. AS. gele['a]fa. See {Believe}.] 1. Assent to a proposition or affirmation, or the acceptance of a fact, opinion, or assertion as real or true, without immediate personal knowledge; reliance upon word or testimony; partial or full assurance without positive knowledge or absolute certainty; persuasion; conviction; confidence; as, belief of a witness; the belief of our senses.
The way I see it, the followers of the "revealed" religions rely mainly (solely?) upon the word or testimony of the so-called prophets as the basis for their belief, with little or no evidence to back it up.
There is no way you can have positive knowledge or absolute certainity that Jesus ever lived on this earth as a man, much less that he was the "Son of God", born of a virgin. But apparently, that's what you believe (please correct me if I'm wrong). Many people believe this because they were raised in a Christian church, and it was drilled into them from the time they were very young (and their brains as receptive as little sponges). Through the use of such brainwashing techniques, coupled with the threats of eternal hellfire and damnation, they don't dare believe otherwise as they get older. I can sort of understand that, I guess. But what about those who were not brainwashed as little children? What about those who decided to believe as adults? Does the story seem logical in any way, shape or form? What makes the Christian story superior to other myths (at least, in the minds of the believers)? What leads people to say, "Okay, I'll buy that"? And how much comparison shopping does the average Christian do before buying into the Christian mythology?
I could ask similar questions about any of the "revealed" religions, but since Christianity is the one I'm most familiar with, I'll stick to picking on that one. ;)
Oh, and I do agree with the conclusion of that web article, by the way.
Emerald
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
ilgwamh
02-22-01, 02:01 AM
"Some writers may fancy with the toy of the 'Christ-myth,' but they do not do so on the grounds of historical evidence. The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar. It is not historians who propogate the 'Christ-myth' theories." (F.F. BRUCE, NTDATR, 72, 119)
Otto Betz is right, "No serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non-historicity of Jesus." (Betz, WDWKAJ, 9)
The key is "historical evidence." Ranting about some lack of historical details of Jesus' earthly life in Paul's writings or about the egyptian god horus does not constitute "historical evidence." For some not so strange reason (which will become clear in a minute), extra-rigorous standards are applied to the Bible and the historical Jesus. The "Christ-myth" is not posited on historical grounds. Jesus existed according to history. Preconceived notions might cause one to glean otherwise. Thats not good scholarship at all. As F.F. Bruce said, "The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar."
John 3:19-21
"19 This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. 20 everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. 21 But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God."
When all is said and done, its YOUR choice.
Peace,
Vinnie
------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
Vinnie,
The key is "historical evidence."
I agree, and that is my point. What all these researchers are saying is that there is no evidence. What do you want me to show you, a blank space indicating where evidence should be?
All those who did write during the times of the alleged lifetime of Jesus never mention him or his life. Paul, who wrote around 60CE (the oldest known Christian texts) who clearly had a vested interest in Christianity also never mentions him or his life.
What we have is a total lack of credibility.
This lack of evidence is like going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writings on earth until the 20th century. It just isn’t believable.
In every court of law, probably in the world, hearsay is never permitted as evidence, for the very simple reason that it cannot be verified or trusted. And because there are no recorded eyewitness accounts of Jesus or his life then the only possible evidence you can claim is of the hearsay variety. And that simply does not represent credible or believable evidence.
In short you cannot show me any independent or otherwise indisputable proof that Jesus actually existed. This of course does not prove that Jesus didn’t exist but it does mean that all you have is speculation and guesses, and that is a very poor reason on which to base a world religion.
For some not so strange reason (which will become clear in a minute), extra-rigorous standards are applied to the Bible and the historical Jesus.
Nothing became clearer, did you forget to include the clarification?
It doesn’t matter how rigorous the standards, if there are no recorded eyewitness accounts then the standards are irrelevant. All you have is creative fiction and mythology.
Jesus existed according to history. Preconceived notions might cause one to glean otherwise. Thats not good scholarship at all. As F.F. Bruce said, "The historicity of Christ is as axiomatic for an unbiased historian as the historicity of Julius Caesar."
If Jesus existed he didn’t leave any evidence behind for us to find, kind of curious for the son of a god to be so absent-minded. There are clear eyewitness recorded accounts of Julius Caesar, unlike the alleged Jesus. Are you trying to claim that you are unbiased? And F.F. Bruce is hardly unbiased either; he was a significant evangelist author and scholar.
Cris
[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 22, 2001).]
ilgwamh
02-22-01, 02:33 PM
"This lack of evidence is like going through nineteenth century literature looking for an Abraham Lincoln but unable to find a single mention of him in any writings on earth until the 20th century. It just isn’t believable."
Are you saying writing was as commom back in the 1st century as it was in the 19th century or today? You couldn't actually just go to staples and pick up some blank paper and a box of crayola crayons. You know this right? You have some knowledge of how ancient history works right? I hope you did before defending the non-historicity of Jesus? I mentioned a whole bunch of quotes up above from non-Christian sources. Those were the non-Christian sources. Tell me good sir, what is your methodology for throwing away all the Christian source? Was it a embellished myht? I can imagine the apostles drinking Bud and saying, "Yeah dude, lets concoct this myth about some guy. We will even later die for this lie." Is that how it went? Even the notion of an embellished myth does not deny the Historical Jesus. What it would say is that this man was trumped up to be God. Misunderstood or whatever. That sophism is a separate topic though.
"In every court of law, probably in the world, hearsay is never permitted as evidence, for the very simple reason that it cannot be verified or trusted. And because there are no recorded eyewitness accounts of Jesus or his life then the only possible evidence you can claim is of the hearsay variety. And that simply does not represent credible or believable evidence."
The apostles? I know of 4 gospels and Tiassa will tell you there are 8,575,000 other ones :rolleyes: Where do you get your information from? So Josephus' writings are no good? Tacitus' writings are no good because of the infinite billion year time span between their composition and Jesus' alleged earthly life? Early Jewish writings are no good? Your claims are ridiculous when looking at ancient history. Jesus should not be expected to make the nighttime news and be caught on videotape. He is not bigfoot. Your call the evidence hearsay but in doing so you discredit a lot of of ancient history taken for granted by scholars. Why is it this Jesus fellow must get much more rigorous tests than anyone else? Can you say bias? Looking at Jesus as you would any other historical person of that time would lend convidence to an unbiased researcher that He was a man of history.
"In short you cannot show me any independent or otherwise indisputable proof that Jesus actually existed. This of course does not prove that Jesus didn’t exist but it does mean that all you have is speculation and guesses, and that is a very poor reason on which to base a world religion."
I showed you independent proof. Everything is disputable. I can dispute the existence of my bathroom's doorknob. Not well but it can be disputed none the less as can the historical Jesus. Read all those quotes again if you must.
"All those who did write during the times of the alleged lifetime of Jesus never mention him or his life. Paul, who wrote around 60CE (the oldest known Christian texts) who clearly had a vested interest in Christianity also never mentions him or his life."
Do you even know the gospel was spread orally at first???? Paul's earliest letters are probably from the 40s. So you are saying there are 0 references to a historical Jesus or a historical aspect of Jesus' life in Paul's writings??? Zero right? Have you read Paul's writings? Do you understand their evangelical intent? Do you see the difference between that type of Biblical book and between say an orderly account of Jesus' life? A totally different genre. Its like asking why a book on mechanics doesn't have information on how one can make a cappuccino!
""In the New Testament, the "Gospels . . . record the historical manifestation of Christ, the Acts relate the propagation of Christ, the Epistles give the interpretation of Him, and in Revelation is found the consummation of all things in Christ." (Geisler/Nix, GIB '86, 29)
Peace,
Vinnie
------------------
Fred Hoyle (British astrophysicist): "A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that there are no blind forces worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question."
[This message has been edited by ilgwamh (edited February 22, 2001).]
Stretch
02-23-01, 08:39 AM
Vinnie
Let us be logical.
1. Did Jesus make water into wine?
2. Did Jesus raise the dead? (on more than one occasion)
3. Did Jesus heal the sick?
4. Did Jesus make a fish feast out of 7 fish?
5. Did Jesus rise from the dead?
6. Did Jesus perform other assorted miracles?
7. Did Jesus draw large crowds to hear him preach and teach?
8. Did the local government know Jesus well?
9. Was Jesus seen as a potential threat to the political stability of the area?
I could carry on, but if the answers to the above are yes, can we conclude that these are NOTEWORTHY occurrences? Can we conclude that the above occurrences are prodigious?
Can we conclude that the above events were VERY different to the norm? In other words would a chronicler of the era not logically take NOTE of the above occurrences, and record them as absolutely incredible events? The meagre scrapings of disputed mention of Jesus in the existing chronicles you mentioned are totally out of line with the import of the miracle man Jesus. History many thousands of years before and after the alleged era of Jesus is very well documented, and important persons and events are described in detail. We know much about Roman and Greek leaders and philosophers, and they did NOT perform miracles. From the abundant documentation on these ancient men we can assume they were real and lived in the age described. Jesus MUST get a more rigorous test of actual historicity because of the claims made in the Bible and the impact of Christianity on western society over the last 200 years.
Spot the mistake.
Take care
daktaklakpak
02-23-01, 06:21 PM
Is there any written offical record of Jesus from governments of that time period?
Bible couldn't count because it's was not written by officals of that time.
Don't give me the crap that back in the old days people didn't have the paper to write everything down. If Jesus did what the Bible described, it was not just any random event that local offical might or might not want to record.
Originally posted by FA_Q2:
The problems presented in this message board still apply to your definition, how can you believe in a Christ that has no evidence of his existence?
Another definition of faith...
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. -Hebrews 11:1
As the first stings in this board say, christens would simply dismiss the evidence that christ does not exist, as tony1 has demonstrated.
Thanks.
What do you have to offer?
When you die, what chance do you have of getting yourself out of the grave again?
I'm betting you have no better chance than I do.
Since a claim has been made that there is one guy that has gotten himself out of his own grave, I'm placing my bet on that one guy.
If I'm wrong, I'm no worse off than you are.
But if I'm right, I'm infinitely better off than you are.
The odds favor believing in Jesus Christ.
This is interesting. I believe that the observations would prove differently. Perhaps you can give us some references as to what changed your perspective and tell us why. What insurmountable evidence swayed your belief? This might help us better understand you position.
One thing was a swollen, extremely painful liver, which immediately went back to normal when I got baptized.
originally posted by Emerald:
There is no way you can have positive knowledge or absolute certainity that Jesus ever lived on this earth as a man, much less that he was the "Son of God", born of a virgin.
So what?
But apparently, that's what you believe (please correct me if I'm wrong).
Well, in the book that you don't necessarily accept, he referred to himself as "the son of man."
Many people believe this because they were raised in a Christian church, and it was drilled into them from the time they were very young (and their brains as receptive as little sponges).
I wasn't raised in a church environment. Furthermore, if any brainwashing was being done, it was into agnosticism at best and atheism at worst.
Through the use of such brainwashing techniques, coupled with the threats of eternal hellfire and damnation, they don't dare believe otherwise as they get older.
When's the last time you ran into a teenager who didn't rebel against his/her parents in one way or another?
I can sort of understand that, I guess. But what about those who were not brainwashed as little children? What about those who decided to believe as adults? Does the story seem logical in any way, shape or form? What makes the Christian story superior to other myths (at least, in the minds of the believers)? What leads people to say, "Okay, I'll buy that"?
The absence of viable alternatives. (emphasis on viable)
It's the old death thing.
No chance of survival with atheism or the wrong "ism." Infinite chance of survival with an initially-unknown probability of being true with Christianity.
And how much comparison shopping does the average Christian do before buying into the Christian mythology?
Beats me, but I did a lot.
Secondly, I looked at the reality of counterfeiting.
Nobody bothers to counterfeit a rusted-out Pinto, but something of value will have a lot of counterfeits.
Well, guess what?
Obviously, Christianity has a lot of counterfeits. There are few things more common than religions.
originally posted by daktaklakpak:
Bible couldn't count because it's was not written by officals of that time.
Are you actually suggesting that you believe anything written by an official today?
originally posted by tiassa:
An atheist refuses to accept what is not there on a specifically fundamental basis. This is not so much the difference between demons and bacteria, but a principle which affects all perspectives on the Universe. A theist accepts God a priori.
I don't remember being born believing in God, so it is quite possible that it is the atheist who assumes there is no God a priori.
I spent a fair bit of time tossing around a number of different possibilties.
Ultimately, what it boils down to is this...
The atheist is right in one respect, at least. The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim.
As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: so he that eateth me, even he shall live by me.
This is that bread which came down from heaven: not as your fathers did eat manna, and are dead: he that eateth of this bread shall live for ever.- Jesus, as recorded in John 6:57,58
If you believe his words, you live for ever, if he is right. You die for ever, if he is wrong.
OTOH, if you do not believe his words, you die for ever either way.
[This message has been edited by tony1 (edited February 24, 2001).]
Emerald
02-24-01, 04:43 PM
Tony,
How odd that you should talk about counterfeiting! Doesn't the real thing usually come before the counterfeited one? And as one who spent 16 years as an astrologer, you should well know what Christian mythology is based on! If not, here are some clues (just in case it didn't sink in when Cris provided that wonderful summary of Acharya's web page):
<a href="http://www.pulseplanet.com/Dec98/1776.html">Natural Astronomy</a>
<a href="http://www.treasure-troves.com/astro/WinterSolstice.html">Winter Solstice</a>
<a href="http://www.candlegrove.com/solstice.html">Solstice</a>
<a href="http://home.ccil.org/~kmiles/dln/12-95/decsol.html">Winter solstice and Christmas</a>
<a href="http://www.ozemail.com.au/~jjjacq/sundry/astro.html">History of Astronomy</a>
<a href="http://www.neaccess.net/~jbgenest/mirabilibus/gr-ast.html">Inventing the Solar System</a>
And from a Lakota website:
<a href="http://www.kstrom.net/isk/stars/starmenu.html">Aboriginal Star Knowledge: Native American Astronomy</a>
<a href="http://www.kstrom.net/isk/stars/starknow.html">Lakota Star Knowledge</a>
<a href="http://www.kstrom.net/isk/stars/startabs.html">Lakota Star-Earth Maps and Tables</a>
<a href="http://www.kstrom.net/isk/stars/starkno3.html">Time, Sun and the Stars</a>
<a href="http://www.kstrom.net/isk/stars/starkno4.html">Sunpath in the Stars</a>
<a href="http://www.kstrom.net/isk/stars/starwint.html">Lakota Winter Solstice Stars</a>
I see that you have accepted Pascal's wager, as you implied when you stated, "If you believe his words, you live for ever, if he is right. You die for ever, if he is wrong. OTOH, if you do not believe his words, you die for ever either way." In other words, you are asking, "What do I have to lose by believing in Jesus Christ as the savior?" Pascal's wager is hardly a 50-50 proposition, given all the beliefs in the world from which to choose. Why not choose one of the others, "just in case"? And how do you know that your particular choice isn't the worst possible choice of all? After all, if both Jesus Christ and Lucifer have been identified in the bible as the "morning star", then perhaps it is ONLY Christians who have anything to lose? Maybe the rest of us will either be reincarnated or simply cease to exist, while you will live forever as a soul enslaved to "Satan" in the bowels of hell. Wouldn't total annihilation be preferable to eternity spent with "the Devil"? I'm not saying that I believe any of that - I'm just saying that I don't believe you've really thought this thing through very well.
Emerald
------------------
An ye harm none, do what ye will.
Tony1--
Are you actually suggesting that you believe anything written by an official today?
Without attempting to speak on Dak's behalf, I would like to offer what I received from the portion of his post you're questioning in the above quote.
Is there any written offical record of Jesus from governments of that time period?
Bible couldn't count because it's was not written by officals of that time.
What I took from that is the idea of whether there are any Roman tax records, the detail of any provincial arrest records; legal documents regarding any portion of Jesus' life, &c. In this sense, the Bible doesn't count. For instance--and, yes, this is extremely nitpickety, so I don't necessarily expect an affirmative answer .... As the Bible demonstrates that Joseph and Mary were traveling during that stage of pregnancy because of a Roman revenue collection. If, for instance, one could produce from an archaeological library a Roman revenue report that counts a Joseph and Mary at Bethlehem during what I would grant as a ten-year window, I would acknowledge that we now have a severely compelling start on the historical existence of Jesus. This, of course, would then require further exploration into the circumstances of that Joseph and Mary, and where they listed their current residence. Again, I admit this is a sketchy proposition. I have never heard, either, of a preserved document from Pilate's governorship at all, much less indicating Jesus; but then again, one of the fundamental assumptions of the modern era is that in all of this "no evidence" banter, someone at some point would have held this up already. I, personally, have no desire at the present to spend the rest of my life poring through all the source material we have from the Roman empire of that day, all of Judaism from that day (though I will someday absorb a large amount of this, just for the hell of it), and so forth. I understand why it took so long to discover bacteria, or Newtonian mechanics. But a matter of history is a matter of history. Given the library maintained by the Vatican, you would think those Apostolic fathers who first used the word catholic would have made a point of preserving the biographical Jesus. Consider that there was a bone of my high school's patron saint, St Bellarmine ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/02411d.htm ) hidden somewhere inside the altar in its chapel. Well, allegedly. ( http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12734a.htm is an entry on relics ) I mean, I never saw the thing, but the priests spoke of it occasionally, and they can't lie, can they? ;) To the other, when they held a full-blown "required-attendance" mass that spilled outside the chapel (the practical reason for making weekly attendance optional), I always wondered whose job it was to carry the bone to the ... uh ... gymnasium. (But the smell of incense with the polymer floor ... heavenly; one could almost get high on the combination. Usually it was just a mild headache.)
Okay, I must confess that the morning has been a little, uh ... interrupted. I've just stumbled downstairs, in a mild haze, to smoke a cigarette on the porch, and whom do I encounter but ... the Watchtower? This was perhaps the most entertainingly polite five minutes I've ever spent. I didn't even know that one of them was a German import, former Catholic, when I provided as an example that my friend (who was present) and I had been discussing transubstantiation only a short while before their arrival.
But it was quickly evident that there was so little to separate our differences except the words we chose, they left, I think, satisfied.
But there goes my thought train.
Oh, it hasn't left yet.
I don't remember being born believing in God, so it is quite possible that it is the atheist who assumes there is no God a priori.
Tell me, then about when you do first remember God, if you should be so kind. I guarantee you that it is not independent of assumption. The atheist is without a belief in God because the atheist has not yet observed God in any sense which satisfies their empirical standards.
The idea that God is simply "all there is" is a satisfactory definition for me to not cross it off the list of possibilities in this wacky Universe. For others, this definition is not satisfactory, and for reasons I well understand, excepting, of course, the empirical. But I cannot assume that God exists; to the other, God is a belief which my family and culture has heartily encouraged, without ever making sense of it.
If you believe his words, you live for ever, if he is right.
That idea has caused the world so much trouble in history that I cannot possibly begin to condense the whole of the last two millennia into a cohesive idea. Sure, humanity survived. But frankly I think things would have been a lot better off without some of that stuff. On the other hand, it would have been someone else perhaps at a later point in humanity. Can you imagine an Inquisition conducted with nuclear force? Now that would be the apocalypse of all apocalypses.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
------------------
No, don't seek control, and the milk of heaven will flow. Why would you want to keep it from anyone? (Floater)
Hi Vinnie,
Sorry for the late response, it has been my turn for a busy week and taking time for the opera today didn't aid my attempt to catch up on this debate. So this has to be brief.
Are you saying writing was as commom back in the 1st century as it was in the 19th century or today?
No but we have written records for other historical figures that pre-date Christianity, where most likely written records were even less common. The point here is that of all the alleged activities of Jesus and especially the miracle stories there are no independent records written by eyewitnesses.
And because there are no recorded eyewitness accounts of Jesus or his life then the only possible evidence you can claim is of the hearsay variety.
The apostles? I know of 4 gospels and Tiassa will tell you there are 8,575,000 other ones :rolleyes: Where do you get your information from?
I have assumed for many years that the 4 gospels, Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John were not actually written by apostles, I thought that was common knowledge. The actual writers of the gospels are unknown. Even if apostles wrote the texts, consider that the average life span of humans in the first century was around 30, and very few people lived to 70, heck we only barely manage that today through our advanced medical science. If the apostles were about the same age of Jesus, while he lived, that would put Mark at least 70 years old, and John at over 110. But scholars (see list of references below) know from critical textural research that there simply occurs no evidence that the authors (whoever they were) could have been the apostles described in the Gospel stories.
The consensus of many biblical historians put the dating of the earliest Gospel, that of Mark, at sometime after 70 C.E., and the last Gospel, John after 90 C.E. [Pagels, 1995; Helms]. This would make it some 40 years after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus that we have any Gospel writings that mention him! I am being magnanimous here as I have seen estimates much later than these.
The gospel of Mark describes the first written Bible gospel. And although Mark appears deceptively after the Matthew gospel, the gospel of Mark was written at least a generation before Matthew. From its own words, we can deduce that the author of Mark had neither heard Jesus nor been his personal follower. Whoever he was, he simply accepted the mythology of Jesus without question and wrote a crude an ungrammatical account of the popular story at the time. Any careful reading of the three Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) will reveal that Mark is the common element between Matthew and Luke and was the main source for both of them. Of Mark's 666 verses, some 600 appear in Matthew, some 300 in Luke. According to Randel Helms, the author of Mark, whoever he was, stands at least at a third remove from Jesus and more likely at the fourth remove. [Helms]
John, the last appearing Bible Gospel, presents us with long theological discourses from Jesus and could not possibly have come as literal words from a historical Jesus. The Gospel of John disagrees with events described in Mark, Matthew, and Luke. Moreover the book was written in Greek near the end of the first century, and according to Bishop Shelby Spong, the book "carried within it a very obvious reference to the death of John Zebedee (John 21:23)." [Spong]
It's important to realize that the stories themselves cannot serve as examples of eyewitness accounts since they were products of the minds of the unknown authors, and not from the characters themselves. The Gospels describe narrative stories, written almost virtually in the third person. People who wish to portray themselves, as eyewitnesses will write in the first person, not in the third person. Moreover, many of the passages attributed to Jesus could only have come from the invention of its authors. For example, many of the statements of Jesus are said to have come from him when he is allegedly alone. If so, who heard him? It becomes even more marked when the evangelists report about what Jesus thought. To whom did Jesus confide his thoughts? Clearly, the Gospels employ techniques that fictional writers use. In any case the Gospels can only serve, at best, as hearsay, and at worst, as fictional, mythological, or falsified stories.
For more details on this particular discussion see – http://www.gate.net/~zardoz/exist.htm
For a more extensive coverage of other obvious missing evidence from the NT see - http://www.magi.com/~oblio/jesus/home.htm
And some more references used as partial support for the above conclusions.
Briant, Pierre, "Alexander the Great: Man of Action Man of Spirit," Harry N. Abrams, 1996
Doherty, Earl, "The Jesus Puzzle," Canadian Humanist Publications, 1999
Flavius, Josephus (37 or 38-circa 101 C.E.), Antiquities
Gauvin, Marshall J., "Did Jesus Christ Really Live?" (from: www.infidels.org/) (http://www.infidels.org/))
Gould, Stephen Jay "Dinosaur in a Haystack," (Chapter 2), Harmony Books, New York, 1995
Graham, Henry Grey, Rev., "Where we got the Bible," B. Heder Book Company, 1960
Graves, Kersey "The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors," 1875
Helms, Randel McCraw , "Who Wrote the Gospels?", Millennium Press
Irenaeus of Lyon (140?-202? C.E.), Against the Heresies
Leedom, Tim C. "The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read," Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, 1993
Massey, Gerald, "Gerald Massey's Lectures: The Historical Jesus and Mythical Christ," 1900
McKinsey, C. Dennis "The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy," Prometheus Books, 1995
Metzger, Bruce,"The Text of the New Testament-- Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration," Oxford University Press, 1968
Pagels, Elaine, "The Gnostic Gospels," Vintage Books, New York, 1979
Pagels, Elaine, "Adam, Eve, and the Serpent," Vintage Books, New York, 1888
Pagels, Elaine, "The Origin of Satan," Random House, New York, 1995
Pritchard, John Paul, "A Literary Approach to the New Testament," Norman, University of Oklahoma Press, 1972
Remsberg, John E., "The Christ," Prometheus Books
Robertson, J.M. "Pagan Christs," Barnes & Noble Books, 1966
Romer, John, "Testament : The Bible and History," Henry Holt and Company, New York, 1988
Schonfield, Hugh Joseph, "A History of Biblical Literature," New American Library, 1962
Spong, Bishop Shelby, "Rescuing the Bible from Fundamentalism," HarperSanFrancisco, 1991
Tacitus (55?-117? C.E.), Annals
Wilson, Dorothy Frances, "The Gospel Sources, some results of modern scholarship," London, Student Christian Movement press, 1938
The Revell Bible Dictionary," Wynwood Press, New York, 1990
King James Bible, 1611
U.S. News & World Report, Dec. 10, 1990
Various issues of Bible Review magazine, published by the Biblical Archaeology Society, Washington D.C.
Why is it this Jesus fellow must get much more rigorous tests than anyone else?
You can’t be serious. But just in case. There is a widespread rumor that this person might have been divine and the son of a god who may have created the universe. If true then that knowledge would have an overwhelming impact on the whole of mankind. I would hope that most people would want to know for sure if this is really true. And surely someone so powerful and who wanted the world to know of his teachings and message would have left a written record somewhere. Other historical figures have no significance when compared to that of a potential god. So naturally claims for a god are going to attract the most severe examination possible. You would want that right? There should be no doubt right?
So you are saying there are 0 references to a historical Jesus or a historical aspect of Jesus' life in Paul's writings??? Zero right?
Yes. Those who are looking at this now are reviewing as near as possible the original source texts. All modern translations appear to have been manipulated. There are zero references to any aspect of the life of Jesus in the writings attributed to Paul. There also seems considerable doubt and I have seen outright denial that Paul even wrote those letters. Perhaps he wrote a few but not all and perhaps he did not write any.
Have you read Paul's writings? Do you understand their evangelical intent?
Isn’t evangelism about spreading the message that Jesus allegedly left? If so then why doesn’t Paul mention any of the activities that created that message, a reference to the miracles perhaps would have made sense?
Do you see the difference between that type of Biblical book and between say an orderly account of Jesus' life?
A totally different genre. Its like asking why a book on mechanics doesn't have information on how one can make a cappuccino!
""In the New Testament, the "Gospels . . . record the historical manifestation of Christ, the Acts relate the propagation of Christ, the Epistles give the interpretation of Him, and in Revelation is found the consummation of all things in Christ." (Geisler/Nix, GIB '86, 29)
Here is just one of many incredible omissions: - When Paul attempts to show how a Christ could resurrect a human he quotes the OT rather than the alleged miracle of Lazarus. Why would he miss such an obvious claim of Jesus’ miracles when that is exactly what he was trying to portray? The obvious explanation is that he didn’t know about those miracle stories because they hadn’t been invented when he wrote his letters. He certainly could not have witnessed such events otherwise surely he would have proclaimed them in his letters as examples of the power of the Christ whose message he was trying to spread.
You make it sound as if those descriptions were intentional whereas the texts selected are the least heretical of a great deal more writings that did not support the limited views of the early ‘editors’. What was left was heavily altered and manipulated to reflect the political requirements of the time. It is unlikely those early creators could have foreseen the intense scrutiny of later centuries, otherwise they might have made a more thorough job of ensuring a more credible level of consistency. Any truly complex mythology such as this is always going to breakdown under close scrutiny. Your stated intention of the NT components is simply an after the fact rationalization of inadequate materials designed to capitalize on the beliefs of existing and much older mythologies.
I apologize that this isn’t a precise analytical paper. To be complete would take me far more time than I can give. However, I am suitably convinced of the fiction of the historical Jesus, based on the research I have seen of others, that I do not want to dedicate much more of my life to convince skeptics such as yourself. That is not to say that I do not want to convince, just that it will take too long for the research and I believe those authors I have quoted are doing a good job. I would hope that you would read one or more of them, at least the Jesus Puzzle and the Christ Conspiracy by Acharya S (I have not read all the latter yet and so have not quoted or referenced that text in this post).
Have fun and take care
Cris
[This message has been edited by Cris (edited February 25, 2001).]
Originally posted by Emerald
And as one who spent 16 years as an astrologer, you should well know what Christian mythology is based on! If not, here are some clues (just in case it didn't sink in when Cris provided that wonderful summary of Acharya's web page):
Actually, I have a pretty good idea of what Christian mythology is based on.
I don't believe it myself.
What I believe is Christian reality.
I see that you have accepted Pascal's wager...
In one sense, yes.
In other words, you are asking, "What do I have to lose by believing in Jesus Christ as the savior?" Pascal's wager is hardly a 50-50 proposition, given all the beliefs in the world from which to choose. Why not choose one of the others, "just in case"?
Tried that. Doesn't work.
BTW, I am pretty sure that I've never considered the bet to be a 50-50 proposition.
And, I'm not asking.
The question people should consider asking is, "What do I have to lose by believing any old thing?"
And how do you know that your particular choice isn't the worst possible choice of all? After all, if both Jesus Christ and Lucifer have been identified in the bible as the "morning star", then perhaps it is ONLY Christians who have anything to lose?
The Bible says as much..