For the No-Jesus Camp

[stamenflicker]

Since it seems there are some who would like to say Jesus never existed and the gospels and other New Testament writings were all contrived, I would think you should answer a few questions:

I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

Why record the discord and arguments of Peter and Paul in the early church? How does making up stories about arguments that never happened launch your make believe god into the realm of the unrefutable?

Why bother to include meaningless details about events how many miles so and so walked to town, or where so and so was from? Why create characters that reject the constructed deity? If he was so amazing and you want everyone to follow him, why not make all your characters "wow"-ed by him?

It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.

Otherwise we are dealing with a mind superior to Shakespeare and his creations.

Flick

[FireGarden]

Hi, Flick
I thought from our previous discussion that you don't base your faith on the truth or otherwise of miracles, or God's/Jesus's existence. I wonder why this seems so important to you now. Those parts of your faith that are independant of the historical accuracy of the Bible are the only ones that you can test in your life today. They are the only ones that can have any reality. Why is this so important to you now?

I sense some frustration in your recent posts.
This is a difficult place to find agreement since people tend only to reply when they disagree. This "selection bias" will tend to make us all look argumentative and stubborn. Please forgive. I'm also more interested in a reply to my first paragraph than to the rest of my post (which I send out of habit and reflex :D)

For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

Where did Jesus say he was God? I haven't read the complete Bible (As an Atheist Fundy I only quote the bad bits :D) But there is a bit of a rumour going around that Jesus wasn't believed to be the son of God until around the fourth century. Where is the trinity explained? Which Jesus does the Bible provide evidence for?
If he was so amazing and you want everyone to follow him, why not make all your characters "wow"-ed by him?

How would modern Christians know how to cope with today's doubters? Where would the realism have gone to? (Yes I did ask that ;))
It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was.
I think it's pretty clear that something happened, possible to many men.
Have you watched the Great Escape. That's a film which is based on a real event (comparatively recent). Some of the characters in the film actually represent several real life people. It's just easier to tell the story that way. Don't even get started on the whole Enigma code business and the films that has produced!

I'm disappionted you refer to Shakespeare at the end. I'm sure I've mentioned Frank Herbert to you. If you want Religion manufacture explored there's your man. (Though I don't think he ever tried it for real.)


Cheers
GP :)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

You make it sound like it was one guy who made up Christianity in an afternoon. In reality, the text of the Bible was written by many people across thousands of years -- even Christians acknowledge that. Isn't it possible that errors were introduced because different people had conflicting agendas or were basing their writings on different accounts?

Anyway, that's a silly question. If you suppose the gospels are a valid historical account of real events, then it makes even less sense that they would be self-contradictory.

Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

Why record the discord and arguments of Peter and Paul in the early church? How does making up stories about arguments that never happened launch your make believe god into the realm of the unrefutable?

My answer to these questions is strictly Darwinian. Look at how successful a religion Christianity has been. For whatever reason, that kind of stuff does work -- you only have to look around to see that.

Otherwise we are dealing with a mind superior to Shakespeare and his creations.

Wait, weren't you just saying how the writing contained all kinds of contradictions and meaningless trivia? How does that compare to Shakespeare?

Jeremy

[PotatoStew]

Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth?

[Fade]

It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.

Then please, show me a piece of evidence for Jesus ever having existed.

Oh that's right, there is none.

[ImpyTimpy]

Assuming Jesus did in fact exist please remember that back in those days people were easily fooled and impressed. Please also remember that the truth would've been made more grand than it actually was as it usually happens with historical events being passed from person to person or written down.... Please ALSO note that the bible has been written a very long time ago, constantly changing throughout the ages to suit things better... Finally, why hasn't there being any miracles in today's world? It seems to me God and Jesus were quick to appear thousands of years ago before people, but today.. Well, that's another story... Maybe God is sleeping or something?

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth?

[PotatoStew]

back in those days people were easily fooled and impressed.

Care to support that claim?

the bible has been written a very long time ago, constantly changing throughout the ages to suit things better

How about that one? Any data to support that claim?

It seems to me God and Jesus were quick to appear thousands of years ago before people

"Quick" to appear? I would hardly call the amount of time from human origins up until 0 A.D. "quick"! Even if all the miracles reported in the bible are true, they are still few and far between in the overall scheme of things.

[ImpyTimpy]

Sure thing - if I showed a car to roman citizens, do you think they would say oh yeah, it's just science at work, or would they begin to worship me as a God? People had limited understanding of scientific principles so things like magic were considered quiet valid. Please check your own bible for further proof...

As for the bible itself, please note the huge amounts of different bibles available today. From the King James version to the Good News bible version. Each one is slightly different to the next, the words changing around and sometimes passages left out.

And finally... When I said quick to appear before people, I do not mean appear before people have appeared. I mean to appear in front of somebody.
Also stew, you made a big mistake here... God appears to the people well before 0 A.D. Just check your old testament for that one...

*yawn*

Originally posted by PotatoStew


Care to support that claim?



How about that one? Any data to support that claim?



"Quick" to appear? I would hardly call the amount of time from human origins up until 0 A.D. "quick"! Even if all the miracles reported in the bible are true, they are still few and far between in the overall scheme of things.

[Paradox]

Conflicting interests. Each author wants his/her hero to act a certain way...some of which may contradict each other. Just a thought.

[stamenflicker]

I thought from our previous discussion that you don't base your faith on the truth or otherwise of miracles, or God's/Jesus's existence. I wonder why this seems so important to you now.

It's important because it is an insult to history, logic, and reason. The idea that there was no historical Jesus is ludicrous and held by people who have no knowledge of textual interpretation. Who Jesus was and what he did may be in question, but that he was is not, unless of course you are willing to question every author of the ancient world, so then what good is the analysis? Toss them all out, or use textual criticism to determine accuracy. To toss out Jesus and not Socrates, or Moses, or Shakespeare, or whoever is bigotry. That rubs me the wrong way.

Where did Jesus say he was God?

The book of John is chalked full of these sorts of quotes, starting with the first verse of chapter one. If John is too old for you (penned around 90-100AD) then we can go to the other gospels. I will post the references later.

How would modern Christians know how to cope with today's doubters? Where would the realism have gone to?

I doubt the author(s) of this new faith went through and inserted scores of these sorts of realist bits in an effort to come aross more authentic.

I sense some frustration in your recent posts.

Besides the lack of respect for a historical document, poor philosophy, idiocy, and bigotry, there is another reason: I take the time to study and read the sources presented by most posters in this forum. I weigh the evidence and draw conclusions. This whole Jesus didn't exist bit is lazy philosophy. It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed. It's like saying I don't have to bother raising my child, I'll just beat him while he's an infant and let instinct be his teacher.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

In reality, the text of the Bible was written by many people across thousands of years -- even Christians acknowledge that.

The last book of the current Christian canon (probably John) was written around within 75 years of the crucifixion. One hundred years is a stretch. 1,000 years is showing a lack of doing your homework.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Then please, show me a piece of evidence for Jesus ever having existed.

No one can do that. No one can give you evidence that Julius Ceasar existed either. We do have documents that suggest they both existed. You have determined that all the documents regarding Jesus, collected together in the New Testament suggest nothing. I disagree.

Flick

[PotatoStew]

Impy:

Sure thing - if I showed a car to roman citizens, do you think they would say oh yeah, it's just science at work, or would they begin to worship me as a God?

What does this have to do with anything? No one was bringing cars back in time at any point. Anybody fooling anyone else back then would have had to do it using principles that were commonly known at the time... unless you are suggesting time travel? Furthermore, people are fooled by hucksters today, so I think it's just a kind of cultural bigotry to say that folks were any more gullible back then than they are today.

As for the bible itself, please note the huge amounts of different bibles available today. From the King James version to the Good News bible version. Each one is slightly different to the next, the words changing around and sometimes passages left out.


You're talking about different translations. This is done to keep up with our changing language to enable people to understand what was written. If that's all you're referring to, then what's the big deal? Those kinds of changes don't affect doctrine or the meat of the message at all. This is like if you bought an English translation of a book originally written in Spanish and then complained that the text had been altered!

As far as passages being left out, that's true, but the passages in question are also peripheral issues that don't affect the main thrust of the text, and such passages are only a small percentage of the entire text. Furthermore, the way we know that some passages might be better left out is because we have so many copies of the manuscripts from throughout the ages. This allows textual critics to gain a better understanding of what the originals most likely said, thereby ensuring that we have a more accurate knowledge of the bible.

I mean to appear in front of somebody.

So in what way was the appearance "quick"?

Also stew, you made a big mistake here... God appears to the people well before 0 A.D. Just check your old testament for that one...


No, you said "It seems to me God and Jesus were quick to appear" (emphasis added)... Jesus didn't appear to people until around 0 A.D. Just check your Old Testament.

zzzz....

[toddjh]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
In reality, the text of the Bible was written by many people across thousands of years -- even Christians acknowledge that.

The last book of the current Christian canon (probably John) was written around within 75 years of the crucifixion. One hundred years is a stretch. 1,000 years is showing a lack of doing your homework.

You seem to want to consider the gospels in a vacuum; that seems very odd to me. I was referring to the entire text of what is now considered the Bible, which is necessary to understand the gospels in context.

Jeremy

[Shroud of Akron]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stamenflicker

I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

to control people would be the motivation, and as long as your not the one dying, it would be worth it.

Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

more than one author, the multiple gospels should be evidence enough.

Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

if you are writing a story to teach someone something, you need to have an antagonist. besides, jesus was teaching those people, to make them seem more real, the deity is the only one that is perfect, the rest have to strive to be more like him.

Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

this makes your deity seem more human, therefore more lovable. more good selling tactics.

Why record the discord and arguments of Peter and Paul in the early church? How does making up stories about arguments that never happened launch your make believe god into the realm of the unrefutable?

which one of these guys won the argument and became "the rock"? adds credibility to the victor.

Why bother to include meaningless details about events how many miles so and so walked to town, or where so and so was from?

makes it seem as if there may be some truth to the story if you can state some facts.

Why create characters that reject the constructed deity? If he was so amazing and you want everyone to follow him, why not make all your characters "wow"-ed by him?

if everyone was "wowed" by him, then there would be noone to prove wrong. ever read a story where everyone thought the same way and there was no conflict?

[The Fool]

Stamenflicker
If not being able to prove the existence of your god is not a big deal why get so worked up because there is so little independant evidence of the existence of Jesus? If Its that important to you that he existed just add it to your list of "things I believe" write "Jesus existed" at the bottom of the list and your done...Nobody can disprove it to your satisfaction.....But why oh why is it so important to you that other people have it on thier lists as well?

[ImpyTimpy]

Wow, talk about grasping at straws, but here goes:
Originally posted by PotatoStew
Impy:
What does this have to do with anything? No one was bringing cars back in time at any point. Anybody fooling anyone else back then would have had to do it using principles that were commonly known at the time... unless you are suggesting time travel? Furthermore, people are fooled by hucksters today, so I think it's just a kind of cultural bigotry to say that folks were any more gullible back then than they are today.

Please quote the point I made properly and address it... You're using a straw argument.. I originally said people believed magic(i don't mean trickery/sleight of hand) was real in those days. I also said to check your bible for proof.

You're talking about different translations. This is done to keep up with our changing language to enable people to understand what was written. If that's all you're referring to, then what's the big deal? Those kinds of changes don't affect doctrine or the meat of the message at all. This is like if you bought an English translation of a book originally written in Spanish and then complained that the text had been altered! As far as passages being left out, that's true, but the passages in question are also peripheral issues that don't affect the main thrust of the text, and such passages are only a small percentage of the entire text. Furthermore, the way we know that some passages might be better left out is because we have so many copies of the manuscripts from throughout the ages. This allows textual critics to gain a better understanding of what the originals most likely said, thereby ensuring that we have a more accurate knowledge of the bible.
There you go agreeing that the bible is altered throughout history, yet try to tell me the "gist" is the same. Yes, the main message is the same - if you don't believe in God you're gonna get fried in Hell :p

So in what way was the appearance "quick"?
No, you said "It seems to me God and Jesus were quick to appear" (emphasis added)... Jesus didn't appear to people until around 0 A.D. Just check your Old Testament.

There you go grasping at straws again... God appears well before Jesus. Then Jesus appears after that. Hell, God apparently appears when the first humans walk the earth and so do God's angels! All sorts of weird magical **** happens all throughout the dark ages (saints and so on).. Why don't we see this in the present, learned day?
zzzz....
Didn't realise thinking made you tired? ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Where did Jesus say he was God?

The book of John is chalked full of these sorts of quotes, starting with the first verse of chapter one. If John is too old for you (penned around 90-100AD) then we can go to the other gospels. I will post the references later.


Stamen,

How do you see this fact in relation to the many times Jesus himself and others referred to him as a man and the son of man?

Was Joseph Jesus' father? If so, what happened to virgin birth? If not, what happpened to the line of David?

Why do Jesus' own parents, brothers, and sisters mock him and say he is nothing special? Surely if he was born of a virgin, that would be a pretty big deal. Surely if he were the Son of God, that too would be a pretty big deal. At the very least, Mom would have to know. :P

I doubt the author(s) of this new faith went through and inserted scores of these sorts of realist bits in an effort to come aross more authentic.

I was just reading a concordance last night which mentions several instances of things like this happening. If you'd like me to point out a few examples just to show that it *does* happen, I'd be glad to, but in the meantime, what's your take on the J vs. P documents in Genesis?

This whole Jesus didn't exist bit is lazy philosophy. It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed.

So true. Unfortunately, I have studied the message and in my opinion it's incoherent.

-Chris

[scribble]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Please quote the point I made properly and address it... You're using a straw argument.. I originally said people believed magic(i don't mean trickery/sleight of hand) was real in those days. I also said to check your bible for proof.


Many people today believe in magic, too. And many people today believe in Jesus, for that matter. Impy, if you're trying to show that people were more gullible then than now, you're going to have a tough run of it. If you read non-christian sources, you'll find there were plenty of critical thinkers around at the time, as well.

Anyhow, that people can be fooled is no argument for or against the Bible being truth. :P

-Chris

Edited to add: Why do people keep referring to 0 AD?

That's NOT when Jesus was born.

[Liamo]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

You're talking about different translations. This is done to keep up with our changing language to enable people to understand what was written. If that's all you're referring to, then what's the big deal? Those kinds of changes don't affect doctrine or the meat of the message at all. This is like if you bought an English translation of a book originally written in Spanish and then complained that the text had been altered!

As far as passages being left out, that's true, but the passages in question are also peripheral issues that don't affect the main thrust of the text, and such passages are only a small percentage of the entire text. Furthermore, the way we know that some passages might be better left out is because we have so many copies of the manuscripts from throughout the ages. This allows textual critics to gain a better understanding of what the originals most likely said, thereby ensuring that we have a more accurate knowledge of the bible.


PotatoStew,

Have you read [url]The Formation of the New Testament Canon (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html) by Richard Carrier?

It will show you clearly how a particular sect's political agenda was more important than accuracy when it came to deciding which texts would become "official".

extract:
Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible._ It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions._ The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents._ Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."

Liam

[BobM]

It's obvious to me that most of you, Stamenflicker, [excluded] haven't done much research into the biblical studies. Why get involved in an arguement from ignorance?

If you aren't interested in the field, don't comment on it.

Anyway, I sincerely believe that anyone who makes the effort to research both sides of the biblical camp, will come to the conclusion that we simply don't have enough evidence for much during that period of time, and one could conclude the issue of Jesus's existence either way.

His godhood is another question entirely. Of course, such an extraordinary claim requires strong evidence for a rational skeptical person to accept, and such evidence does not exist in archeaology. So any evidential arguement for Jesus's godhood is bound for failure.

[oops]

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Since it seems there are some who would like to say Jesus never existed and the gospels and other New Testament writings were all contrived, I would think you should answer a few questions:

I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

Why record the discord and arguments of Peter and Paul in the early church? How does making up stories about arguments that never happened launch your make believe god into the realm of the unrefutable?

Why bother to include meaningless details about events how many miles so and so walked to town, or where so and so was from? Why create characters that reject the constructed deity? If he was so amazing and you want everyone to follow him, why not make all your characters "wow"-ed by him?

It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.

Otherwise we are dealing with a mind superior to Shakespeare and his creations.

Flick

The bible is the most brilliant pieces of political propaganda in history, god himself would be glad to have written it.

[PotatoStew]

Imp:

Please quote the point I made properly and address it... You're using a straw argument.. I originally said people believed magic(i don't mean trickery/sleight of hand) was real in those days. I also said to check your bible for proof.


A strawman? I was using the example you yourself gave about cars and showed why this was irrelevant to your claim. Who's grasping at straws now? Furthermore, my point about hucksters addresses your claim. Even furthermore, scribble brought up an excellent point (thanks scribble) that goes along with what I was saying: people believe in real magic today.

In short, your claim was "back in those days people were easily fooled and impressed" and "things like magic were considered quiet valid". However as scribble and I pointed out, these things are true of people today as well. So you haven't at all shown that people back then were any different than modern man in this respect.

There you go agreeing that the bible is altered throughout history, yet try to tell me the "gist" is the same.

Ah! Now you're getting it. Yes, it's been altered in the sense that it's been translated into languages we can understand, but any changes in content have been innocuous. So what relevance does this have to anything? Why even bring it up?

God appears well before Jesus. Then Jesus appears after that. Hell, God apparently appears when the first humans walk the earth and so do God's angels!

So how much time generally passes between God's visits?

All sorts of weird magical **** happens all throughout the dark ages (saints and so on)

What relevance is this to the matter of the NT accounts of Jesus? You're all over the place here... try to focus!

Didn't realise thinking made you tired?

:p :) Being up at 1 in the morning makes me tired. :)

scribble:

Why do people keep referring to 0 AD?

That's NOT when Jesus was born.

I know, I know... It's a close enough approximation though when I don't remember the exact year.

Liamo:

I haven't read it, but I'll try to take a look at it later.

[scribble]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
addresses your claim. Even furthermore, scribble brought up an excellent point (thanks scribble) that goes along with what I was saying: people believe in real magic today.


Hey, no problem! :)


Ah! Now you're getting it. Yes, it's been altered in the sense that it's been translated into languages we can understand, but any changes in content have been innocuous.

So I'm curious -- what's your take on the J vs. P documents in Genesis?

I know, I know... It's a close enough approximation though when I don't remember the exact year.

Okay, it was nitpicky. :)

-Chris

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Care to support that claim?


Given the number of "miracle workers" that wandered around the countryside in those days, I'd say those people were highly superstitious and prone to believe slight of hand as being the work of divine forces.

Of course, today no one would be dumb enough to fall for that stuff, right?

[Skeptical Greg]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stamenflicker
I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


toddjh says:
I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SF?

This was one of your questions. Toddjh made an interesting counter point.

What is your response?

[FireGarden]

Hi, Flick. I hope you're not angry at me.
This whole Jesus didn't exist bit is lazy philosophy. It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed.
I think you have this wrong - at least as far as I'm concerned. I think the message should be considered regardless. I didn't think that you were one of those that valued the singer and not the song.

In the other thread I provided examples of Archimedes and Buddha as people whose work is undoubtly more important than there existence. I could add more. Euclid, Shakespeare, somebody even mentioned Alexander the Great. Can you imagine? I don't know what the motive was - maybe to show how ridiculus this whole thing can become.

I've studied history only a small amount. Enough to know that it asks the questions that I'm not interested in answering. (One assignment asked "Was Archimedes the greatest Greek Mathematician?" - who cares? I couldn't tell you who's the greatest today let alone 2000 yrs ago.) History has nothing to do with learning the errors of the past, more to do with pop culture for those who don't fancy the Spice Girls. (In 1000 words or less: were they the new Beatles?)

PotatoStew:
You're talking about different translations. This is done to keep up with our changing language to enable people to understand what was written. If that's all you're referring to, then what's the big deal?
The King James version uses "servants" were as the Gideon new International uses "Slaves"
“Slaves [servants], submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, ..."1 Peter 2:18
Yes, I know I'm an atheist fundy.

[BobM]

History has nothing to do with learning the errors of the past, more to do with pop culture for those who don't fancy the Spice Girls. (In 1000 words or less: were they the new Beatles?)History as the pop culture of the past. That's fantastic! I have to remember that.

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by BobM
History as the pop culture of the past. That's fantastic! I have to remember that.
Sorry, I was in sarcasm overdrive when I wrote that. Normally I would have edited that out. But I do think there is too much quibbling over difficult to decide issues that really won't change the world one way or the other. (Not that the existence of Jesus is one such - I can appreciate why that is so important to so many people. It's just that if someone believes Jesus did anything worthwhile then his existence shouldn't be the most important thing)

But this... No that...... But.......
....... Oh This apology is too long! Pretend I was joking!

[chrisjt]

Posted by Potatostew:
Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth

Potatostew, I was just wondering why nobody has responded to this post. Maybe it's because you answered your own question.

;)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by chrisjt
Posted by Potatostew:


Potatostew, I was just wondering why nobody has responded to this post. Maybe it's because you answered your own question.

;)

Maybe it's because no one felt it was worth any attention.;)

If this was so profound, why did the Christian community proceed to degenerate women for the next 2,000 years?

Chew on that.. Wink, wink. Nod, Nod.

[Yahzi]

Impy
Assuming Jesus did in fact exist please remember that back in those days people were easily fooled and impressed.
Back in those days?

In the age of Scientology, magnetic shoes, and FREAKING CROP CIRCLES, you assert our ancestors were guillible?

Potato
Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth
I've actually seen people argue that the contradictions in the Gospels prove their authenticity.

This is just crazy talk. There could be a thousand explanations that have nothing to do with whether or not the story is true.

For example, what if the story was being told by a woman?

These stories were handed down, word of mouth, before they were written. Maybe it was the women who were doing the handing down. And the women you talk about actually means (in most of the Gospels) Mary Magdalene, who was already established as a main character in the story.

This is really specious thinking on your part, Potato. I think nobody responded to it, because no-one wanted to embarrass you.

I, of course, have no such reservations. :D

[Yahzi]

It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed.
The Bible agrees.

1Cr 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.

[wert]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Impy

Back in those days?

In the age of Scientology, magnetic shoes, and FREAKING CROP CIRCLES, you assert our ancestors were guillible?
You left out "Talking with the dead", Dowsing, and "Free" energy machines. ;)

[arcticpenguin]

--------------------------------
Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth
--------------------------------

Let's consider this. You are trying to establish a new religion. Do you try to appeal to

A) The people who have power and are thriving under the current system

or

B) People who are out of power under the current system? i.e. the poor, the downtrodden, and yes, the women.

I read recently of a large group of HIndus that converted en masse to Buddhism because they were sick of the mistreatment they received as the lowest of the low in the caste system.

[headscratcher4]

I had a college professor in a course on religion proffer a theory about why women saw the empty tomb first. His argument is that it is not a factual description of an event – though the author believed the event occurred (i.e. the empty tomb and the risen Jesus). It is a story specifically designed to communicate and describe an event so that it communicates a critical theological message about Jesus and his identity as the Messiah.

Basically, he contended that the story was a literary device (note that the players change depending on which Gospel you are looking at, as does the sequence). The object was twofold. First, to set up the test of faith in a risen Jesus for the men. The women see the empty tomb and speak with the angle, go back and tell the men. The men don’t believe the women – as women were considered un-reliable sources – and had to see the empty tomb for themselves.

Second, it was also a story about belief and the capacity to believe in a supernatural event, and the challenge that a dead Jesus (vs. a risen Christ) posed to the followers of Jesus the man. In this professors estimation, the point wasn’t so much that the story was seeking to convey a fact – i.e. a fact about a particular sequence of events rather than the risen Jesus (for clearly the author believed in a risen Jesus) – but rather as a way of helping to explain the translation of faith from that placed in a man, to that placed in the risen Jesus and the fulfillment of God’s promise of salvation and life after death through the sacrifice of the Messiah.

Further, the empty tomb was a device specifically to demonstrate that faith is the key, not fact or event. I.e. Jesus body isn’t what makes him important as god’s instrument for man’s salvation – rather it is the lack of a body – sort of anti-evidence. Faith is in the empty tomb and the promise, it isn’t in the man or the facts of his life.

I found it an interesting interpretation, though I am sure that many a believer in the Gospels as descriptions of factual events would take issue with the theory.

Just a thought….

[PotatoStew]

I think nobody responded to it, because no-one wanted to embarrass you.


:rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:

As if anyone is ever concerned with things like that around here. Give me a break!

I'll have responses to everything else later on (possibly towards the end of the weekend), but I just had to give that an eyeroll.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I had a college professor in a course on religion proffer a theory about why women ......

Snip, snip, snip....


Just a thought….

Sheesh headscratcher4,

Where do you get the idea that anyone is looking for a rational critique on this matter?


--------------------------------------------------------
Enjoyed it very much. Thanks for sharing..

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Sheesh headscratcher4,

Where do you get the idea that anyone is looking for a rational critique on this matter?


I actually thought headscratcher's post gave a far better theory for answering my question than the others that were offered.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by PotatoStew


I actually thought headscratcher's post gave a far better theory for answering my question than the others that were offered.





I hope you perceived I was joking, I had intended for my final comments to convey the intention that I was complementing headscratcher on the rationality of his comments. Something that some of us do not always manage so well.

[headscratcher4]

rationality ... Something that some of us do not always manage so well

I usually live in this neighborhood, so thanks :)

[PotatoStew]

I hope you perceived I was joking,

I did.

I had intended for my final comments to convey the intention that I was complementing headscratcher on the rationality of his comments.

They did.

:)

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Diogenes
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stamenflicker
I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


toddjh says:
I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SF?

This was one of your questions. Toddjh made an interesting counter point.

What is your response? YES!!! I, too, was eagerly awaiting the answer to that question, but none has been forthcoming.

This one, too:

Originally posted by scribble
Why do Jesus' own parents, brothers, and sisters mock him and say he is nothing special? Surely if he was born of a virgin, that would be a pretty big deal. Surely if he were the Son of God, that too would be a pretty big deal. At the very least, Mom would have to know.Anyone? Anyone? (Is there an echo in here?)

[stamenflicker]

I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception.

[stamenflicker]

You seem to want to consider the gospels in a vacuum; that seems very odd to me. I was referring to the entire text of what is now considered the Bible, which is necessary to understand the gospels in context.

While it is true the bible was translated into other languages (and continues to be) since it was written, as a person who has read the work in Greek (which was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine, or commoner dialect, splashed with Attic morphology) and can say with authority the work was finished within a century or so of "Jesus" life. So this 1,000 year talk is meaningless.

Furthermore, the Koine uses (as opposed to classical as in Plato's works) indicates not only the dating, but the voice, which was undoubtably that of less educated writers.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

If not being able to prove the existence of your god is not a big deal why get so worked up because there is so little independant evidence of the existence of Jesus?

Like I've always maintained, whether Jesus really existed or not, I could care less. I've made my choice based on the message. BUT to use a lazy approach to existing texts and ignore a host of very intelligent people who have studied this sort of thing is offensive.

It's like me telling a molecular biologist he has no idea what he is talking about just because I don't believe in molecular biology. That would be about stupid, as is anyone who neglects textual criticism of the New Testament because they are not Christian.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

what's your take on the J vs. P documents in Genesis?

To answer this and your other questions, yes, it is very clear that many parts of the Bible are later insertions. Not excluding the references of Jesus to earlier prophecy. I've actually had the priveledge of translating parts of Genesis from photographs of the earliest known parchements, and it is very clear to me that portions of the work are insertions from latter authors, perhaps even 500 years later than the original work.

But most insertions are trivial and play little part in theology formation.

Flick

[NoDeity]

If you are not already aware of it, some of you may be interested to know that a criminal trial regarding the Church's claims about the reality of Jesus Christ is beginning in Italy.

Luigi Cascioli has filed a criminal complaint "to denounce the abuse the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige, to inculcate, as being real and historical, facts that are really just inventions".

Cascioli is of the view that he has sufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that Jesus Christ did not exist.

More info here: http://www.anti-religions.org/english/cascioli_denonciation.htm

Brad

[stamenflicker]

Cascioli is of the view that he has sufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that Jesus Christ did not exist.

That's hilarious. Let's go ahead and put the ancient world on trial while we are at it.

[scribble]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
what's your take on the J vs. P documents in Genesis?

To answer this and your other questions, yes, it is very clear that many parts of the Bible are later insertions. Not excluding the references of Jesus to earlier prophecy. I've actually had the priveledge of translating parts of Genesis from photographs of the earliest known parchements, and it is very clear to me that portions of the work are insertions from latter authors, perhaps even 500 years later than the original work.

But most insertions are trivial and play little part in theology formation.

Flick

Flick,

Thank you for your reply. I'm confused by your second point. Clearly you have studied this in more depth than I have, but last time I looked into the J vs. P documents, I had the impression that large portions of Genesis were one or the other. How can the insertions be trivial when there are *so freaking many* of them? And again, I just picked Genesis as an easy target. What about the ending of Matthew, or any number of other examples I could look for?

If "most" changes are trivial, do you allow that some may not be?

Also, you mention studying Jesus references to earlier prophecy. What's the current theory for why so many new testament references either badly misquote scripture or refer to scripture that cannot be found at all? This is just a point of curiousity for me, I'm not trying to suggest that it means anything.

-Chris

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Cascioli is of the view that he has sufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that Jesus Christ did not exist.

That's hilarious. Let's go ahead and put the ancient world on trial while we are at it.

That is what will end up happening when the living on trial (religious, psychics, dowsers, etc) have all been eliminated :D

JK

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
While it is true the bible was translated into other languages (and continues to be) since it was written, as a person who has read the work in Greek (which was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine, or commoner dialect, splashed with Attic morphology) and can say with authority the work was finished within a century or so of "Jesus" life. So this 1,000 year talk is meaningless.

Furthermore, the Koine uses (as opposed to classical as in Plato's works) indicates not only the dating, but the voice, which was undoubtably that of less educated writers.

Flick most of the books that i have read concerning the history of the bible claim that the individual books were not even commited to paper until 300 c.e.

furthermore, what of the alternate texts? why not accept books written by the gnostics? what about the books the catholics chose to not include in the bible? the pseudopigripha? there are more than that, but why not accept all the contradictions?

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception.

The 'aware of' part is an acceptable out.
Question dissmissed.


So all you have done is ignore the question.

You say: " Chritstianity is valid because people are willing to die for it."

toddjh says: " Why, since you wouldn't consider that as validation for any other religion."


So you say: " Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception. "


This is otherwise known as " changing the subject ".




To restate what can be deduced here:

1. Martyrdom is evidence of the validity of the Christian religion.

2. Martyrdom is not acceptable evidence for the validity of any other religion.



Gee, stamenflicker, for someone who was all twisted up by the 'double standard' of the 'Jesus Mythers'.. Wasn't that the reason you started this thread?

[stamenflicker]

Diogenes,

I didn't change the subject at all. If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing. Maybe you'll hit a homer, because as I stated, I'm not 100% sure. Toddjh's argument is not consistent with the facts however. The fact that I would die for my faith 2,000 years later says nothing of the followers who made immediate choices in the face of what many on this board deem "known fabrications." That is unreasonable. Would you like to try defend Toddjh's response in the light of this information?

Flick

[stamenflicker]

most of the books that i have read concerning the history of the bible claim that the individual books were not even commited to paper until 300 c.e.

Since the latter half of the N.T. is mostly letters, they were for sure existing in written form. Since most of them were penned by Paul, they were probably written before 50 AD. The earliest known manuscripts (believed to be copies and variations of an original source "Q" have been dated back as far as 180 AD.

furthermore, what of the alternate texts? why not accept books written by the gnostics? what about the books the catholics chose to not include in the bible? the pseudopigripha? there are more than that, but why not accept all the contradictions?

We can rule out contradictions since the New Testament is chalked full of them. Most of the books were rejected because their authorship or authenticity could not be established, or was in question. Additionally, the majority of the gnostic gospels were written down between 200-300 AD.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

I had the impression that large portions of Genesis were one or the other.

Actually most of the O.T. is written this way, not just Genesis. For example the book of Job is likely from the J camp. In Genesis for example, chapter 1 is a J author, but chapter 2 is a P author, hence the contradictions.

Whether J or P, the central message is the same:

1) God is.
2) Man is a mess.
3) God longs to establish a relationship with man.

Flick

[toddjh]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing.

How about the Branch Davidians? They weren't all murdered, of course, but a significant number of them chose to die for their beliefs at Waco. Does that legitimize their "religion?"

The fact that I would die for my faith 2,000 years later says nothing of the followers who made immediate choices in the face of what many on this board deem "known fabrications."

Perhaps they were deluded, as David Koresh and his followers were. Perhaps they were simply unable to avoid being killed (if you try to start a socially disobedient cult, you might end up paying the consequences, especially in ancient Rome -- or Waco), and their deaths were recorded as martyrdoms by their sincere followers who didn't want to trivialize those they saw as holy figures.

Or, perhaps, a real person was at the core of the Jesus stories, and they were sincere in their beliefs. I'm not in the "Jesus definitely did not exist" camp; I think it's possible that much of the gospels are based on events that happened to one or more real people -- I just don't think it's reasonable to assume that every word is true, especially with all the supernatural hocus-pocus. To be honest, I see many parallels between Jesus and David Koresh. Christianity really wasn't much more than a Branch Davidian-style cult until Constantine gave it the backing of the Roman Empire.

Jeremy

[chrisjt]

Posted by PotatoStew:
Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth
My response:

Potatostew, I was just wondering why nobody has responded to this post. Maybe it's because you answered your own question.

Posted by Diogenes:
Maybe it's because no one felt it was worth any attention.
If this was so profound, why did the Christian community proceed to denegrate women for the next 2,000 years?
Chew on that.. Wink, wink. Nod, Nod.

Diogenes, it seems that my last post was a little ambiguous(I didn't think my tag-line was though). What I meant was, that by asking that question, PotatoStew demonstrated that including witnesses who lack credibility can, to some people, add credibility to the story.

Of course, now that you've implicated me as a Christian, I'll have to sue for libel.:D

[Yahzi]

Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception.
Mormons.

IIRC, several them actually died from persecution.

BTW, a moment's thought would show that virtually every new religion is persecuted by the establishment at its inception.

Amazing how much easier it is to defend Christianity when you are ignorant.

[homunculus]

> I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

With respect, all of your questions are very niave, indicative of a flimsy grasp of anything beyond the revisionist, Christian take on history which strives to paint the rise of the Church as the major civilizing force behind Western society (a view which virtually no mainstream, non-Christian scholar now regards as tenable). This is just self-aggrandizing nonsense, flimsy but seductive propaganda, of the kind that anyone who has studied the rise of "Uncle Joe" Stalin will be all too familiar.

Throughout history, religion has been a major cohesive force in society, with religious myth being the principal way in which ethical systems, conventions, traditions, alliances and emnities, forms of social organisation, rituals etc. etc. were encoded, and passed down through generations as unsullied truth. Religion has been the toehold by which the power-hungry manipulate the needy, a powerful tool for social engineering. Millions upon millions have died for countless different (and equally misguided) faiths, inculcated into them from birth, convictions in mysterious, invisible intelligences of one kind or another - in this respect no different from your Jesus or Jehovah.

Only recently, Muhammed Atta lead a group of religious fanatics - adherents of a corrupted form of Islam influenced by the Marxian revolutionist thinking of Europe - into flying jumbo jets into non-civilian targets across the United States. What was HIS motivation, do you think? - and if this is too extreme an example, how do you explain the rise of Islam among the many millions of ordinary, peace-loving people of the Middle East and beyond (a faith which, you simply MUST concede, is based on a Holy Book very simular to yours, a book which WAS fabricated, and which WAS successfully propagated, DESPITE the total lack of evidence to support it)?

> Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

Perhaps you should read your Qu'uran. Come to think of it, read The Book of Mormon. Or study the ancient pagan cults of Mithra, or Dionysus, or Horus, or any of countless suffering-saviour myths of the ancient world in which miracle-mongering plays a part. Turning water into wine is not new - Horus did that. Walking on water is not new either - Bhudda did that (he also fed 500 people from a basket of cakes). Raising mummies from the dead? Horus did that too - and the mummy was called El-Laz-Eros (sound a bit like "Lazurus", does it?)

There is nothing new in the Bible.

> Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

The Saviour ALWAYS suffered, and was ignored and persecuted in the ancient Pagan cults. Your Church just forgot to tell you that part.

> Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

A moment ago you said Jesus WAS a god - THE god, in fact...so who is he talking to here?!

> It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.

Whatever. What characterized Greek culture was a desire to question the mythical view of the world - it was the birth of criticism, and marked the beginning of the slow trawl out of religious dogma and authoritarianism (which is happenning DESPITE, not because of the oppression and ignorance of the Church) which even now threatens to swallow up parts of America, great swathes of the Middle East, and much of the developing world. Science is characterised by a desire to embrace uncertainty, to weed out and learn from our errors, to correct and modify and revise existing knowledge, so that we might grow, and make progress; whereas religion in general is characterised by the childish fear of uncertainty, the need to return to the womb-like security of Absolutes, a desire to bolster, and to strengthen existing dogmas, and to surpress new ideas, and to stiffle creativity and liberal enquiry wherever it finds it.

But I've run out of time now...

Paul Hayward.

[homunculus]

I just realised that you cited the presence of contradictions in the Bible as STRENGTHENING your case that it is the work of a omniscient being?!

For goodness sake, man, surely this is a transparently idiotic claim?

The reason there are such violent contradictions in the Bible is that it is a work of HUMAN INVENTION, like all the other "holy" books and scriptures people place their unquestioning faith in...

Paul Hayward.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by chrisjt
Posted by PotatoStew:

My response:



Posted by Diogenes:


Diogenes, it seems that my last post was a little ambiguous(I didn't think my tag-line was though). What I meant was, that by asking that question, PotatoStew demonstrated that including witnesses who lack credibility can, to some people, add credibility to the story.

Of course, now that you've implicated me as a Christian, I'll have to sue for libel.:D

Wasn't sure which camp you were in. While we must be prepared to give PotatoStew proper credit, where deserved, we must be clear when it comes to " for" or "against". :D

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Diogenes,
snip..
If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing.
Flick

....all? Do you ever bother to read what you have written?

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[Gregor]

First, what's with the J vs. P documents from the OT?

OT contradiction analysis reached the conclusion that the contradictions represent a narrative history of two communities. They are referred to as E vs. J for Elohim vs. Jehovah (Yahweh). The names arose because the texts have different names for God.

I assume from the context of your discussion, that this is what you were referring to - but correct me if I am wrong.


Second, stop using martyrdom as proof of anything. Initial christians were not persecuted because of their beliefs - they were simply other Jews. The Romans did not bother them any more than they bothered other Jews. Until Pliny wrote to Trajan in 112 CE, wherein he indicated that he suggested killing those people called Christians if they would not offer incense to the emperor, there were no real martyrs.

[Gregor]

One interesting theory (Crossan, Birth of Christianity) is that women in the ancient middle east (especially jews) kept up a mourning narrative for their dead. So it was natural that women would have repeated the story of the works and death of Jesus.

It would have not been a great leap to invent the story of running into angels at the tomb.

[Liamo]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Since the latter half of the N.T. is mostly letters, they were for sure existing in written form. Since most of them were penned by Paul, they were probably written before 50 AD. The earliest known manuscripts (believed to be copies and variations of an original source "Q" have been dated back as far as 180 AD.

We can rule out contradictions since the New Testament is chalked full of them. Most of the books were rejected because their authorship or authenticity could not be established, or was in question. Additionally, the majority of the gnostic gospels were written down between 200-300 AD.

Flick

Stamenflicker,

What are your sources?

Liam

[scribble]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I had the impression that large portions of Genesis were one or the other.

Actually most of the O.T. is written this way, not just Genesis. For example the book of Job is likely from the J camp. In Genesis for example, chapter 1 is a J author, but chapter 2 is a P author, hence the contradictions.

Whether J or P, the central message is the same:

1) God is.
2) Man is a mess.
3) God longs to establish a relationship with man.

Flick

Well, I thought the point in question here was whether anyone had practiced Biblical revisionism. IT seems to me if large portions of the Bible were written by someone else at a later date, that's the very definition of revisionism.

On another point entirerly, you've done something here I've never seen done before: You['ve outlined a basic premise for religion that I think can actually be clearly supported by the Bible. I wonder if you could go from the three points you made above to Christianity as it's preached and practiced without losing that "clearly supported by the Bible" part -- I've not been able to figure out hos the Bible supports Christianity the way it's taught today -- at all.

-Chris

[scribble]

Originally posted by Gregor
OT contradiction analysis reached the conclusion that the contradictions represent a narrative history of two communities. They are referred to as E vs. J for Elohim vs. Jehovah (Yahweh). The names arose because the texts have different names for God.

Er. I assume you're correct. I was going from memory and it's been a long time since I've looked this stuff up. :)


I assume from the context of your discussion, that this is what you were referring to - but correct me if I am wrong

Absolutely..


Second, stop using martyrdom as proof of anything. Initial christians were not persecuted because of their beliefs - they were simply other Jews. The Romans did not bother them any more than they bothered other Jews. Until Pliny wrote to Trajan in 112 CE, wherein he indicated that he suggested killing those people called Christians if they would not offer incense to the emperor, there were no real martyrs.

Well, the letters written by the apostles seem to see martyrdom everywhere. Plus, John the Baptist and Jesus Christ might disagree with you here...

But I could see it being true that the early Christians in general were not persecuted. Just a few important ones in specific? Is this what you're saying?

-Chris


-Chris

[homunculus]

> I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

With respect, your questions are very niave, and indicative of a tenuous grasp of anything beyond the revisionist, Christian take on history, which seeks to paint the Church as the main civilizing thrust behind the growth of Western civilization (a view which virtually no mainstream, non-Christian scholar now regards as tenable). This is just self-aggrandising nonsense, flimsy propaganda of the kind which anyone who has studied the rise of "Uncle Joe" Stalin will be all too familiar.

Throughout history, religion has provided social cohesion, and religious myth has been the principal way in which ethical systems, forms of social organisation, traditions, rituals, alliances and emnities etc. have been encoded, and passed on through generations as unsullied truth by some centralised authority. Religion has been the toehold by which the power-hungry manipulate the needy, a powerful force for social engineering. Millions upon millions have died for numerous (equally misguided) faiths, inculcated into them from birth, unshakeable convictions in mysterious, invisible intelligences of one kind or another, in this respect no different from your Jesus or Jehovah.

Only recently, Mohamed Atta lead a group of religious fanatics - adherents of a corrupted form of Islam influenced by the socialist revolutionist thinking of Europe - into flying jumbo jets into non-military targets across the US. What was HIS motivation? If this example is too extreme for you, then perhaps you could explain the spread of traditional Islam among the many millions of ordinary, peace-loving people of the Middle East - a faith which, you simply MUST concede, is based on a Holy Book very simular in character to yours, which WAS fabricated, and which WAS successfully propagated, DESPITE the total lack of evidence to support it?

The critical tradition began in ancient Greece, and marked the beginning of the slow trawl out of religious dogma and political authoritarianism (which continued DESPITE, not because of, the oppression and censorship of the Church) which culminates in natural philosophy, modern science, democracy, and the free market. This new tradition is characterised by a desire to embrace uncertainty, to recognise that no authority has the infallible truth, to weed out and learn from our errors, to challenge, and to revise, and to extend our knowledge, and by this method to grow, and to make progress, and to be responsible for ourselves, and critical of our rulers. This is in sharp contrast to most (although not all) religious traditions, which embody the wish to return to the womb-like security of childhood, and hold to the comforting belief that Absolute Truth is accessible to some Earthly authority, a view which inevitably paves the way for authoritarian systems which seek to surpress creativity, criticism and free enquiry wherever they find it.

Paul Hayward.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Diogenes,

I didn't change the subject at all. If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing.

Christianity's first followers were not murdered. Wayne Meeks, professor of Biblical Studies at Yale, tells us:

After a long period in which the persecutions of Christianity were really spasmodic, local, [and] involved very few people, suddenly in the middle of the 3rd century, the year 250, the Emperor Decius decides that Christians are a real enemy of the Roman order, that they must be dealt with empire-wide, with all the police power that the emperor can bring to bear upon them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/martyrs.html


Thus, Christianity had about 200 years to take root before any serious attempt was made to destroy it.

However, to answer your other question, Zoroastrians were also heavily persecuted by Alexander the Great and the Arab Muslims. Followers were killed, temples destroyed, and sacred texts burned.

[ReasonableDoubt]

stamenflicker wrote:
[I] can say with authority the work was finished within a century or so of "Jesus" life.
What "work" and whose "authority" based on what scholarship?

[PotatoStew]

christjt:

What I meant was, that by asking that question, PotatoStew demonstrated that including witnesses who lack credibility can, to some people, add credibility to the story.

While the inclusion of those witnesses may add credibility to the story *now* -- since we now know that women can be credible witnesses -- I don't think we can expect that anyone *then* would have thought that an inclusion of such witnesses would add credibility. For instance, if you want someone to believe a story you are telling, do you include the made-up testimony of someone that you and others believe to be unreliable? How would that help your case? It might help it later when it is found that the person thought to be generally unreliable turns out to be generally reliable after all, but having no way to know that it would turn out that way it's doubtful you would invent that person's testimony to try to bolster your case. In my opinion.

scribble:

I think you asked me earlier what I thought of the J vs P (E vs J?) issue.... I actually don't know much about it, so I don't have an opinion on it. I'll have to look into it sometime. Just didn't want you to think I was avoiding the question.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
While the inclusion of those witnesses may add credibility to the story *now* -- since we now know that women can be credible witnesses -- I don't think we can expect that anyone *then* would have thought that an inclusion of such witnesses would add credibility. For instance, if you want someone to believe a story you are telling, do you include the made-up testimony of someone that you and others believe to be unreliable? How would that help your case?

As we all know, Mark's is the earliest Gospel. However, his version originally ended with the women going to the tomb and discovering that it was empty -- period, that was the end of the story. There was nothing about angels, Christ appearances, or anything else. That stuff was added later.

It's entirely possible that women did play an important role and this role is reflected in the gospel stories, but so what? There can be many aspects of a fictional story that are factually true, while the story itself is largely fiction. It's true that a Dust Bowl and a Great Depression really happened in the 1930s, but this doesn't make the Grapes of Wrath a true story.

[Gregor]

Take Genesis 7 - 9 (Noah's flood story).

Take a sheet of paper and bisect it.

In one column write one sentence about some particular act (e.g. Noah was 600 when the flood came).

In the other column, write the other sentence that says a similar - but not exactly the same thing (e.g. In the 600th year, 2nd month, 17th day, the rains came).

Do that for every substantive feature of the story, and you'll see that these are two stories cobbled together.

Further examples:

earth was wicked earth was violent

2 of each animal 7 of clean animals

sent out raven sent out dove

promised no more promised & sent a rainbow

[headscratcher4]

However, to answer your other question, Zoroastrians were also heavily persecuted by Alexander the Great and the Arab Muslims. Followers were killed, temples destroyed, and sacred texts burned.

As an aside, many Mezo-Americans (Aztecs, Mayans, Inca, etc.) were murdered by the Spanish with the active help of the Catholic church because they refused to bow-down to the Spanish and their god and church. Some refused to be slaves. Some refused the new religion. As a result and in my estimation, would and could be considered martyrs for their religion -- dying in Auto De'Fes, as it were, and bruning at the stake because they refused to bow before the Christian God. I am not sure why their martyrdom or sacrifice for their gods, beliefs and life style is any less than those of early Christian martyrs. Of course, they were brown people, saveges and heathens and their religion and gods were barbaric, so the fact that they were murdered for their bliefs doesn't count I guess.

Oh yes, I also seem to remeber that when Christianity came to Russia -- actualy the Kingdom of Kiev -- that prince Vladimir (I think that was his name), the converting soverign, purged his nobility of those who would not convert to Christianity. Were not these martyrs for the paganism of pre-christian Kiev? Just a thought...

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by headscratcher4



Oh yes, I also seem to remeber that when Christianity came to Russia -- actualy the Kingdom of Kiev -- that prince Vladimir (I think that was his name), the converting soverign, purged his nobility of those who would not convert to Christianity. Were not these martyrs for the paganism of pre-christian Kiev? Just a thought...


It was my understanding these martyrs were stuffed with butter and herbs, rolled in bread crumbs then deep fried until golden brown.:D

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Diogenes



It was my understanding these martyrs were stuffed with butter and herbs, rolled in bread crumbs then deep fried until golden brown.:D

Nice...:)

[wolfgirl]

It seems quite blatantly obvious to me that there have been people willing to die for all kinds of beliefs. I don't understand it, but it happens all the time. Any wacko with any kind of idea seems to be able to get some other people, equally wacko most likely, to believe their idea and be willing to give up their lives for it. Koresh, Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, those are just a few cases that anyone today should be quite familiar with. There must be tons more in every culture in every time. I hardly see how saying people are willing to martyr themselves for a belief proves that belief is true.

In biblical times, people were looking for a messiah, expecting one any day in fact, and along comes Jesus. Gets a few followers who believe he is that true messiah, dies on a cross, and soon those followers are spreading the word to other gullible folk, with the added bonus that "he rose from the dead."

As for when the stories were first written down, even if it was just a handful of years later, do you have any idea how a story can be distorted in just a short period of time? Ask a group of people who saw a car accident and you'll get as many stories as there are people. But say twenty years later (even five or ten years later), do you think you'd get anything even approaching the real story? I hardly think that's likely.

[stamenflicker]

As we continue to weigh only one of the body of questions I threw out, I think its important to note that again, none of the religions anyone has mentioned has its first followers being martyred.

What I meant by all the first followers is simply that Jesus "The Fabricator" and his 12 "Co-Conspirators," and Paul the "Great Liar," and Stephen the "Idiot," and scores of others are murdered during the alleged fabrication of this grand tale unlike ANY of the religions you have mentioned-- all for what reason? If marytdom was alone the reason to accept any faith, I'd conceed it's not much evidence. But given this within the body of other unlikely "fabrications" I'd say it makes a strong case.

Again, I'm asking to be shown where the alleged "fabricators" and the first followers "revisionists" were executed for the beliefs and somehow, unlike say Waco Texas, maintained a high degree of credibility.

Flick

[Loki]

Flick,

Again, I'm asking to be shown where the alleged "fabricators" and the first followers "revisionists" were executed for the beliefs and somehow, unlike say Waco Texas, maintained a high degree of credibility.
Oh, you mean like groups of Germans believing that the Holocaust didn't happen, and despite legal and social sanctions against them for holding this belief, they are still being willing to parade and declare this? You're right - would never happen!

Really, I don't see why this seems such a strong point for you - history shows us time and again that humans can be get very passionate (yes, to their death) about something very quickly. For me, the interesting thing is not "why did christians from 70 CE hold their faith in the face of persecution", but rather why did this particular faith grow so rapidly. But then that question always feels like asking "why were the Beatles so big?" - the most likely answer seems to be "someone had to be".

[evildave]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
As we continue to weigh only one of the body of questions I threw out, I think its important to note that again, none of the religions anyone has mentioned has its first followers being martyred.

What I meant by all the first followers is simply that Jesus "The Fabricator" and his 12 "Co-Conspirators," and Paul the "Great Liar," and Stephen the "Idiot," and scores of others are murdered during the alleged fabrication of this grand tale unlike ANY of the religions you have mentioned-- all for what reason? If marytdom was alone the reason to accept any faith, I'd conceed it's not much evidence. But given this within the body of other unlikely "fabrications" I'd say it makes a strong case.

Again, I'm asking to be shown where the alleged "fabricators" and the first followers "revisionists" were executed for the beliefs and somehow, unlike say Waco Texas, maintained a high degree of credibility.

Flick

Exceptions:
Judas killed himself.
John The Apostle died of old age as Bishop of Ephesus.

I hope you appreciate how much Christian gibberish I had to dig through to get you this.

Judas just popped off the top of my head.

As for martyring, I think you'll find this is a common occurence.

Islam is chock *full* of martyrs.
"All the envoys of God endured hardship and suffering when they were faced with denial and rejection, but they remained steadfast until the aid of God secured them their triumph. "

Sikh Holidays include
Martyrdom of Guru Arjun Dev, the 5th Guru, recalls the first martyr of Sikhism. The Mughal emperor Jehangir executed Guru Arjun Dev in mid-May of 1606 CE. He built the Amritsar temple.

Martyrdom of Guru Teg Bahadur, the 9th Guru, was another martyr executed by the Mughal emperor. His death occurred in late November. He promoted religious freedom.

That's two of the nine incarnations of their founder, Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji. He died NINE times, and was martyred TWICE! If martyrdom makes you holy, this guy's WAY holier than that Jesus guy.

Many religions have early martyrs in early adopters. I would assign this as an occupational hazard for those seeking to establish new religions in ancient times, especially where there were already state recognized "official" religions.

Hinduism's beginning starts somewhere between 4000 and 2200 BCE. There just aren't records about their early adopters. I imagine many have died over the (up to) 6000 years they've been at this. They focus more on martyrs in modern times, but *SEEKING* martyrdom doesn't seem to be a core part of the belief system, like in Christianity and Islam.

[stamenflicker]

What "work" and whose "authority" based on what scholarship?

The work of the New Testament (Revelation and perhaps John in question, but I'd still date them at around 90AD).

The authority is mine admittedly, and I have every right to claim it because of my studies. O yeah, and scores of people smarter than me too who have written extensively on the textual criticism of the NT.

Flick

[Gregor]

You'll excuse me if I don't accept you as an authority - based upon what you've posted in this thread and otherwise.

(e.g. "J v. P"; "dozens of [NT] authors"; & etc.)

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
As we continue to weigh only one of the body of questions I threw out, I think its important to note that again, none of the religions anyone has mentioned has its first followers being martyred.



Irrelevent. Christianity's first followers were NOT murdered.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
The authority is mine admittedly, and I have every right to claim it because of my studies. Claim what you will, but your understanding of textual criticism is an obvious joke. All that remains to be explained is why you insist on exposing such incompetence. :)

[headscratcher4]

SF:
You completelly ignored my point...hundreds, maybe thousands of Mayan, Inca, Aztec and other Mezo-Americans were murdered because of their religion and their unwillingness to be enslaved by the Spanish.

Why doesn't their martyrdom -- for their beliefs, their way of life, etc. measure up in your estimation? Is dying because you reject a religion, economic system and colonialism being forced on you somehow different than martyrdom because you are preaching a "new" religion? Are not the victems just as dead, and for thier beliefs? Or, is it because they are "savages" and you reject the logic, quality, spirituality of thier "religion" that leads you to ignore them? I would only point out that even the Pope has been making excuses and apologies for the way that American-indian populations were treated.

[Fade]

Been mostly ignoring this forum, but here goes:
No one can do that. No one can give you evidence that Julius Ceasar existed either. We do have documents that suggest they both existed. You have determined that all the documents regarding Jesus, collected together in the New Testament suggest nothing. I disagree.

Flick

I can give you plenty of evidence Julias Ceasar existed. His existence is independantly (key word) verified by documents outside of his home land, written by people who have nothing to gain by writing about him. Also, his visage appears on coins of the time. Also, he was spoken about afterwards up to the present day.

Jesus, however, doesn't appear on a single document. The bible is a story book, unverified and meaningless outside of itself. Your argument was destroyed years and years before either of us were born. Don't make ******** comparisons.

A strawman? I was using the example you yourself gave about cars and showed why this was irrelevant to your claim. Who's grasping at straws now?

Potato, you did make a strawman, and from the third sentence you seem to not understand that that is exactly.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Bible agrees.

1Cr 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.

That pretty much nails it Yahzi.

Well that, and "jesus christ" didn't have a message of any import that hadn't already existed for thousands of years previous.

Like I've always maintained, whether Jesus really existed or not, I could care less. I've made my choice based on the message. BUT to use a lazy approach to existing texts and ignore a host of very intelligent people who have studied this sort of thing is offensive.

Being a christian is about nothing but being a follower of Jesus Christ.

You are an idiot, stamenflicker. You don't even understand what your own god is telling you in the book he wrote. Come on.

See, this is why I do not respect hippydippy christianty. I can look to people like Falwell and understand that although he is in all senses of the word an evil human being with a sinister agenda, he at least has the gall to follow his holy book in it's entirety, without resorting to rationalizing away the things he doesn't like.

most of the books that i have read concerning the history of the bible claim that the individual books were not even commited to paper until 300 c.e.

The bible as we currently know it was assembled hundreds of years after the "death of jesus"

It's literally impossible to know how accurate the new testament we have now is :) Far, far too much time passed before it was assembled.

Also, the average lifespan of somebody living in those times was around 40 to 50 years.

I didn't change the subject at all. If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing.

Buddhists in Tibet? "Pagans" in Ireland? Indians in the Americas? How about Ahkenatens (Amenhotep) religion being erased after he died? Religious persecution is nothing new. In fact, Christians are some of the greatest perpetrators.

I just realised that you cited the presence of contradictions in the Bible as STRENGTHENING your case that it is the work of a omniscient being?!

For goodness sake, man, surely this is a transparently idiotic claim?

As time has passed, both Stamenflicker and PotatoStew have been exposed as having the same retarded agendas every other religionist on this board does. Neither has presented reasonable cases for their religiosity, despite bringing it up at every conceivable junction.

[Fade]

but rather why did this particular faith grow so rapidly.

Actually, you can answer that:

Constantine.

Without him, christianity would have died as a nameless cult.

[Loki]

Fade,

Also, the average lifespan of somebody living in those times was around 40 to 50 years.
A total side track, but you need to be careful here - "average" life span is increasing, but the "maximum" isn't. If you made it past 5 in Judea, you probably made it to 60-70. The average was 40 simply because so many children died.

Actually, you can answer that:

Constantine.

Without him, christianity would have died as a nameless cult.
Yes, and his reasons for embracing Christianity may have been as much political as spiritual. Yet, I still wonder why christianity grew strong enough to attract the attentions of the Roman emperor? He embraced it because it was already 'strong'. Sure, his involvement sealed the deal, but it's interesting (well, to me) to consider how it rose to that level. Perhaps, as I said, it's nothing more that "well, he had to have some sort of religion".

[Loki]

Flick,

Following on from Headscratcher's point :

You completelly ignored my point...hundreds, maybe thousands of Mayan, Inca, Aztec and other Mezo-Americans were murdered because of their religion and their unwillingness to be enslaved by the Spanish.

Why doesn't their martyrdom -- for their beliefs, their way of life, etc. measure up in your estimation?
The martyrs you refer to are not the 'fabricators'. Assuming it's all a big lie, there would have been only a very small number (less than 10?) who knew the truth. Within a year, the number of 'followers' would far exceed the number of 'fabricators' (if they did their selling well enough. Just look at the rise of John Edward - tap into a public that is 'primed' to receive your message, and you can have hundreds of thousands of followers in just a few years.

In fact, there may have been only one 'fabricator' - charismatic leaders can have a powerful influence on many people.

Start a cult. Pick a comet, tell your followers that the aliens are coming in the tail of the comet. In no time at all you'll have 37 people willing to die for your story.

Having said all of that, I still favor the "Jesus was real" theory (but I don't consider it proven at all!). Like you, it seems to me much easier to fabricate and sell the bible if you have a base to start from.

[Gregor]

That's a great mind game.

First, I suspect that Xianity would still be viewed as a subset of Judaism. The antisemitism did not start with Constantine, but by making the "cross" a symbol of the death of Jesus by the Jews he certainly changed the dynamic and made antisemitism job 1.

(The Gospel of Peter said that the Pharisees (I think rather than the Sadducees) did not want it to get out that Jesus arose - since the people (read: Jews) would get mad at them. So, this is mildly antisemitic - but mostly anti-clergy. The "jews" were not the enemy, as they later became).

Second, Xianity would probably have outpaced rabbinic Judaism, since Xianity is evangelical, and converts were wanted. It would probably be much more similar to Judaism with traditions and rituals, since we don't have the Council of Nicea and other counsels to establish orthodoxy and move it away from Judaism.

Third, I find it hard to believe that it would have reached the 1.9 billion members it has now, but the number of Jews would be much greater without the holocaust and pogroms (from Trier to the Inquisition).

My guess?

250 million Jew-xians
100 million regular Jews
200 million nordic worshipers
400 million pagan mesoamericans

[stamenflicker]

RESONABLE DOUBT
Claim what you will, but your understanding of textual criticism is an obvious joke. All that remains to be explained is why you insist on exposing such incompetence.

Care to back your statement up? I'm about tired of the insults.

HEADSCRATCHER
Why doesn't their martyrdom -- for their beliefs, their way of life, etc. measure up in your estimation? Is dying because you reject a religion, economic system and colonialism being forced on you somehow different than martyrdom because you are preaching a "new" religion?

It seems to me if you are accusing Christianity of being fabricated, then you HAVE to account as to why a large group of people were willing to die for their lie AS the lie was being told. It's not that other martyrs don't count. Once a belief takes root, someone will do anything for it, die for it, kill for it, etc. Let me again phrase the question in the context of this post:

What benefit is fabricating a religion that kills you?

This is what the fabrication camp has to answer, and can't. Anyone will die for a belief, but who dies for a lie?


FADE:
I can give you plenty of evidence Julias Ceasar existed. His existence is independantly (key word) verified by documents outside of his home land, written by people who have nothing to gain by writing about him. Also, his visage appears on coins of the time. Also, he was spoken about afterwards up to the present day.

Your sources don't count. Ceasar didn't exist.

The bible is a story book, unverified and meaningless outside of itself. Your argument was destroyed years and years before either of us were born. Don't make ******** comparisons.

The bible is a book with many different authors, and yes stories. But half the NT are letters. Actual letters written around 50AD. I'd say that counts as a touch of history. How many of Ceasar's letters do we have in tact?

You are an idiot, stamenflicker. You don't even understand what your own god is telling you in the book he wrote. Come on.

Nice.

See, this is why I do not respect hippydippy christianty. I can look to people like Falwell and understand that although he is in all senses of the word an evil human being with a sinister agenda, he at least has the gall to follow his holy book in it's entirety, without resorting to rationalizing away the things he doesn't like.

That's great, thanks for sharing. And now, back to the thread.

Buddhists in Tibet? "Pagans" in Ireland? Indians in the Americas? How about Ahkenatens (Amenhotep) religion being erased after he died? Religious persecution is nothing new. In fact, Christians are some of the greatest perpetrators.

You've totally missed my point. Read the above response to headscratcher. It beats me as to why I have to type something out about 8 times before someone finally reads it close enough to understand. Either we are a slow lot here, or lazy. My money is on the latter. I see Loki actually gave my point a prod, which is more than I say for you, HS, or RD. Perhaps you would like to try again, I mean try again again.

As time has passed, both Stamenflicker and PotatoStew have been exposed as having the same retarded agendas every other religionist on this board does. Neither has presented reasonable cases for their religiosity, despite bringing it up at every conceivable junction.

Sorry you feel that way. However after about your third insult in a single post-- both lips right here ( ! )

[stamenflicker]

Loki,

Thanks for actually reading what I posted instead and responding instead of jumping off track.

The martyrs you refer to are not the 'fabricators'. Assuming it's all a big lie, there would have been only a very small number (less than 10?) who knew the truth.

Perhaps... say Jesus and his merry men. Even if only a handful of the disciples new the truth of fabrication. Here are the counter points:

First, we have the problem of Paul. Paul never saw Jesus, never met him in person. Paul wrote about 1/2 of the NT a few years after the crucifixion and is responsible for a large portion of Christain theological construction. Paul was beaten and jailed, and eventually according to tradition, beheaded. Beheading aside, we know he spent a lot of time in jail. Paul is not only believing the previous fabrications, he is extending the fabrications with a new theology he says he has received divinely from the orignial fabricator. What's the odds of two fabricators within 50 years of each other willing to die for the same fabricated theme? Also Paul admits that his own hands are bloody in that he participated in the killing of Christians before conversion-- evidence that indeed there was killing taking place soon after the crucifixion.

Second regarding Paul, we see him fighting with one of the first fabricators in Antioch (Peter) about whether or not the orgininal fabricator (Jesus) meant for his fabrications to extend to non-Jews. So if all this has been fabrication, we have several players extending approximately 25-50 years after Jesus' death.

Third, we have to assume the fabricator (Jesus) never wrote anything down, or that the true fabricators lived in 100AD and thought to themselves they needed to create a religion. That's very problematic in two ways. If if the former is true, then he had a lot of trust in word of mouth. If you are going to create a religion, you'd think you'd need to write something down. Unless of course the Jesus himself had no idea what was to later be fabricated. If the latter statement is true, why create a religion about a guy that lived several years ago and was crucified? The fabricators could go to any point in history and write about any figure, or not create a human figure at all.

Start a cult. Pick a comet, tell your followers that the aliens are coming in the tail of the comet. In no time at all you'll have 37 people willing to die for your story.

Of course you could. But what we are dealing with in the NT is allegedly multiple fabrications, multiple fabricators, all extending for dozens of years past the original fabricator. That's alot different that one charismatic guy swaying one group. And as you pointed out, these "lies" eventually reach a world leader and an educated populace.

Flick

[Gregor]

Stamen, let me respond:
1. Quote: "Paul wrote about 1/2 of the NT a few years after the crucifixion."

Paul wrote many of the letters, several others are accepted as pious forgeries, some (Hebrews) are unknown.

Paul wrote 25 years after the crucifixion.

2. Quote: " Second regarding Paul, we see him fighting with one of the first fabricators in Antioch . . ." Just because two books (Acts and Galatians) record two groups disputing tenets of the religion is not further support for historicity, since Paul acknowledges never knowing Jesus. Historicity is more dependent on the gospels than the epistles.

Finally, as to martyrs, you state:

____________________________________

"What benefit is fabricating a religion that kills you?

This is what the fabrication camp has to answer, and can't. Anyone will die for a belief, but who dies for a lie?"
____________________________________

Ok - in 1098 in Mainz Germany the crusaders attacked the Jewish population charging "convert (and give us your money) or die." (See, the crusaders were too far from Jerusalem to kill Sarasens, so they decided to kill Jews instead).

The hundreds of Jews committed suicide and killed their children because they believed that Jesus was not the Messiah (Carroll, Constantine's Sword, 2001).

Based upon your logic, who was believing the lie?

[ReasonableDoubt]

stamenflicker wrote on 9/20:
The last book of the current Christian canon (probably John) was written around within 75 years of the crucifixion. You do not specify which Canon, you are not sure which is "the last book", but you know that it "was written around within 75 years of the crucifixion". You say nothing about the extent to which this 'probable' book of your unspecified Canon is accurately represented by current textual variants.
stamenflicker wrote on 9/21:
While it is true the bible was translated into other languages (and continues to be) since it was written, as a person who has read the work in Greek (which was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine, or commoner dialect, splashed with Attic morphology) and can say with authority the work was finished within a century or so of "Jesus" life. So this 1,000 year talk is meaningless. Are you referring to the Alexandrian, Byzantine, or Western textual tradition, or do you know? When you speak of an "original form" are you referring to a single textual form, or do you know? When you say Greek "was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine", are you asserting that some 4th century Koine translation of some unspecified portion of some undefined Canon is probative of anything? Is "within a century or so" the same as "around within 75 years?
stamenflicker wrote on 9/21:
Furthermore, the Koine uses (as opposed to classical as in Plato's works) indicates not only the dating, but the voice, which was undoubtably that of less educated writers. On what basis do you assert that Paul, Luke, and the Deuteropauline works were written by "undoubtedly ... less educated writers"?
stamenflicker wrote on 9/25:
I'm about tired of the insults. Be less deserving.

[headscratcher4]

Early Christians held a profound belief that some were willing to die for. The powers of the state -- Rome and its agent -- essentially said renounce your beliefs accept the state religion and conform or die. Some chose martyrdom. Some chose to renounce their faith (the cause of many issues in the church after it was established as the state religion under Constintine).

Many Mezo-Americans chose to die rather than renounce their religion or culture to the newly established Spanish powers.

SF, I am not arguing that Christianity is fabricated -- there may have been a Jesus, and I am inclined to accept that there was such a person. What I am arguing is that the willingness to die for a belief is not an indication of the inherent truth of a religion or whether it merits belief. You suggested that the willingness of Christians to die for their belief not only underscored the profundity of their faith, but was somehow also an indication of the truth of that faith. You challenged, it seems to me, that this was unique and that believers of other faiths were not willing to make the same sacrifice for their beliefs.

I suggested that the Mezo-Americans martyred for their beliefs belie that assertion. In addition, Jews and Moslems martyred during the Spanish Inquisition would, it seem to me, also belie that assertion.

The distinction you seemingly are attempting to draw lies, I think, at the early stage of these alleged martyrdoms. I.e. (please correct me if this is wrong), the Christian martyrs were dying very early on at a time when, according to skeptics of Jesus' existence, the religion was being fabricated. Why, you ask, would someone die for a religion being fabricated (as opposed to a legitimate or real belief in the "history" of Jesus and his message). You conclude, by determining that the belief was real and, because of their position in history and chronology, their knowledge of the "events" of Jesus' life convinced them that this was a cause worth dying for.

Is this essentially correct? Is this the distinction you would draw -- between those martyred for an established religion (e.g. Aztecs, Moslems, etc.) vs. your view of the position of early Christian martyrs?

I am not sure that I buy that the distinction has much merit. My recollection and understanding is that most of the martyrs for christianity occured among people who neither would have or could have known a historical Jesus (yes, I am aware of the claim for martyrdom among the apostles, Jesus' Brother James, and Paul). But in any case, their willingness to die for their beliefs is not unique, even in historic poximity. For example, how is their willingness to die different than that of the Heaven's Gate cult?

Is it because the HG Cult death was not a "martydom" to the state, but suicide?

Further, we have the Christian source for why many "martyrs" met their fate. I suspect the Romans -- who were actually pretty liberal about religion and faith until the empire became shakey in the mid 200s -- would have thought very differently on the topic. These people were executed for "crimes" that pagans would have been executed for -- incitment to rebellion, disturbing the peace, insulting the Emperor, etc. My point is not to suggest that Roman Justice was fair or implemtneted justly or well. Rather, a specific policy of targeting Christians as Christians -- regardless of their location -- developed at a point well after the religion had developed. For example, Nero's persecution it seems to me was a localized Roman affair resulting from a political need for a scape-goat, rather than a empire-wide criminalization of christianity.

Just some thoughts, in an attempt to better understand the distinctions you seek to draw.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
SF, I am not arguing that Christianity is fabricated -- there may have been a Jesus, ... Whether or not there was an historical Jesus, there can be little doubt that Christianity was fabricated and refabricated in the crucible of Roman politics and bloody doctrinal struggles.

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Whether or not there was an historical Jesus, there can be little doubt that Christianity was fabricated and refabricated in the crucible of Roman politics and bloody doctrinal struggles.

I think I agree with you...what I was trying to say is that there may, at the core, have been a historical person "Jesus"... I am inclined to accept that. I do, however, agree that doctrine, writings, history, believers, misinterpretation of events, willful deciets, simple mistakes, etc. all combined to "fabricate" what we call Christianity.

For example, SF states that there are the Pauline letters as proof of not only the historical Jesus but also of the emergence of a coherent doctrine very early after the death of Jesus (by that, he means within 30 years of Jesus' death). However, my reading leads me to numerous NT scholars who believe that many of the letters were doctored, added to, etc. -- to fit later conditions and concerns of the emerging church -- far after their original writing. In other words, the Pauline letters are not pure, unadulterated text -- they are fabrications, in the sense that they have been altered, edited, added to, etc. for a variety of doctrinal, political and conditional reasons.

I think the thing that is missing in SF's assertions is his seemingly core belief that early Christians couldn't believe what they believed unless it were true...and yet early christians lived in a world were people believed in just about everything -- multipul gods, ghosts, witchcraft, emperors that become god, seers, prophets, etc. The fact that a cult, 20 years after the alleged death of the founder (if, in fact Jesus knew he was a founder) believed that the founder had been raised from the dead, fulfilled prophesy, cured disease, raised people from the dead, and herolded a new relationship with "God" doesn't seem that odd in a world where the Emperors were defied because eagles were seen to circle over their funeral fires, or where Jewish fanatics would challenge the greatest military power in the world to face extinction of a people because of a belief in OT prophesy.

[stamenflicker]

RD

You do not specify which Canon, you are not sure which is "the last book", but you know that it "was written around within 75 years of the crucifixion".

Which canon? How about the "current" one, which is what I enclosed in my post? Current, you know, "The one we use today." This was set at the Council of Nicea. And no I'm not sure which was the last book but textual criticism says it was most likely John or Revelation. Either way, they were written fairly close to the event. The remainder of the NT was penned prior to 70AD by all indicators.

You say nothing about the extent to which this 'probable' book of your unspecified Canon is accurately represented by current textual variants.

Because we are discussing dating. I picked John due to the massive textual variants from the Synoptic gospels and the obvious Hellenistic influences in chapter one.

Are you referring to the Alexandrian, Byzantine, or Western textual tradition, or do you know?

I'm referring to the Koine textual tradition as it arose from Attic-Ionic Greek. I have no idea what you are referring to.

When you speak of an "original form" are you referring to a single textual form, or do you know?

The original form was likely oral. But yes "original" in its written form in Koine, a single textual form. Note: there are a few exceptions, yet most of these exceptions point to an earlier dating, not later. Example of conspicous later insertions include references to OT prophecy.


When you say Greek "was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine", are you asserting that some 4th century Koine translation of some unspecified portion of some undefined Canon is probative of anything?

Could you be more specific? :) It is clearly not even 3rd century Koine. Do your homework. Here if you are lazy:

I have 15 or so books on this subject right across the room, but if you’d like to read for yourself:

"The New Testament, except for Luke, was written in about as demotic a language as one could get, and broke rule after rule of the prescriptionist Atticizers, both in vocabulary and grammar (Browning esp. 44-50), but because they were canonized texts, they had to stand "as is." Browning mentions in a footnote (47-48) the following:

"When bishop Triphyllios of Ledra, a learned man and author of a commentary on the Song of Solomon, during a service substituted skimpouV for krabbatoV in the Gospel passage ‘Take up they bed and walk’, his Cypriot colleague St. Spyridon of Trimithus, who had taken part in the Council of Nicæa, rebuked him with the words, ‘Are you so much better than Him who said krabbatoV that you are ashamed to use His words? (Sozomenos, Hist. Eccles. 1.11)."

From http://humanities.byu.edu/classes/ling450ch/reports/greek.html

Clearly, we can see that even before the Council of Nicea, the texts were somewhat canonized by the followers, imperfections and all. The FACT is that the EARLY authors did not give into to scholarly temptations to submerge their work in Attic morphology and dialect indicates a few things: 1) it was written by less educated people, or 2) it was written in a hurry. Probably both. It is most likely not the work of fabricators who would have used a different tone and voice in their writing, and would have taken time to get it right. On top of all that, we have splashes of Aramaic in the text also lending aid to the dating process.

Get over yourself.

Is "within a century or so" the same as "around within 75 years?

Do I need to do your math for you? Let's see. Century = 100 years. I typed around 75 years. What do you think?

On what basis do you assert that Paul, Luke, and the Deuteropauline works were written by "undoubtedly ... less educated writers"?

See the above quote. Luke may have been an exception, as was the author of John and Revelation. The author of Hebrews is an educated Jewish leader, and seemed to have his Greek down pat too. Paul a Roman citizen uses a commoner dialect in his letters, naturally. We can't make a determination as to his intelligence, but supposedly he was an educated in Jewish law. The author of Mark is clearly not educated.

Be less deserving.

Get over yourself.

[stamenflicker]

Whether or not there was an historical Jesus, there can be little doubt that Christianity was fabricated and refabricated in the crucible of Roman politics and bloody doctrinal struggles.

Do you just have a habit of making ridiculous statements without evidence? The texts of the NT clearly demonstrates that your assertion is false.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

However, my reading leads me to numerous NT scholars who believe that many of the letters were doctored, added to, etc. -- to fit later conditions and concerns of the emerging church -- far after their original writing. In other words, the Pauline letters are not pure, unadulterated text -- they are fabrications, in the sense that they have been altered, edited, added to, etc. for a variety of doctrinal, political and conditional reasons.

If you want to talk about later insertions, then lets start a new post. The texts indicate that sure, some areas may very well be later insertions. This is NOT the case for the letters of Paul. The Pauline letters are in fact letters. They contain names of particular people doing particular things. You might make a case for portions of 2 Corinthians, but that is about it. Textual criticism indicated that the Pauline letters mostly pure-- any "doctored" portions you might be able to make a case for are typically liturgical, not historical, or really even theological. It's a mute argument.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

SF, I am not arguing that Christianity is fabricated -- there may have been a Jesus, and I am inclined to accept that there was such a person. What I am arguing is that the willingness to die for a belief is not an indication of the inherent truth of a religion or whether it merits belief. You suggested that the willingness of Christians to die for their belief not only underscored the profundity of their faith, but was somehow also an indication of the truth of that faith. You challenged, it seems to me, that this was unique and that believers of other faiths were not willing to make the same sacrifice for their beliefs.

Then we have a misunderstanding somewhere in the ranks. This post was aimed at anyone who wants to assert that Jesus did not exist and the whole Christianity thing was fabricated. I do not believe that dying for a belief increases its validity. I think for a liar to stare down death, knowing he is lying is not reasonable. You might get 1, or 2, but not a dozen, and not an educated Jewish leader like Paul. They were not fabricating. They were relating their experience. Maybe their interpretations of the experience are false, but the experience was not. A man named Jesus did exist.

Flick

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by stamenflicker

snip, snip...

.... A man named Jesus did exist.

Flick

"Did" ?

[ReasonableDoubt]

stamenflicker wrote:
Which canon? How about the "current" one, which is what I enclosed in my post? Current, you know, "The one we use today." See Differences in Canon (http://www.apostate.com/religion/bible-versions.html#Differences in canon).
stamenflicker wrote:
And no I'm not sure which was the last book but textual criticism says it was most likely John or Revelation.How could textual criticism (as opposed to, e.g., form criticism) say anything of the kind? Textual criticism is an analysis of manuscripts. To the best of my knowledge, the earliest know scrap of gJohn is dated by paleography to the 3rd century CE. For James and Jude there appears to be little in the way of textual evidence earlier that the 4th century P72 and Sinaiticus. The dating of 'original' NT sources is based primarily on content. Language and textual characteristics play little or no role in the process.
stamenflicker wrote:
I picked John due to the massive textual variants from the Synoptic gospels and the obvious Hellenistic influences in chapter one.Please provide a reference for "massive textual variants". Also, please suggest why John is likely to postdate the II Peter pseudepigraph. By the way, do you know what a "textual variant" is? Speaking of which, does your version of John contain the great line about "cast the first stone", or are you using the earlier witnesses which do not? Does your version include the Johannine Comma or does it not?
[i]stamenflicker wrote:
I'm referring to the Koine textual tradition as it arose from Attic-Ionic Greek. I have no idea what you are referring to.That you know nothing about Alexandrian, Byzantine, or Western textual tradition is pathetically clear. It is also a remarkable admission from someone claiming to speak with authority. It seems that you simply don't know what you don't know, and that you are more than willing to make it painfully obvious. See, for example, The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism (http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/)

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I think for a liar to stare down death, knowing he is lying is not reasonable. You might get 1, or 2, but not a dozen, and not an educated Jewish leader like Paul. They were not fabricating. They were relating their experience. Maybe their interpretations of the experience are false, but the experience was not. A man named Jesus did exist.I think this is where most of us come in...Jesus may (or may not) have existed, but there is nothing to prove that he was divine.

For the record, I don't think anybody was "lying." I don't believe that a bunch of people sat around a table one day drinking wine and said,"Let's start a new religion. We'll say there was this guy, let's call him Jesus, and he was the son of God. Um, and he died on a cross and then his body got up and walked away. Yeah, that's it."

I think that perhaps there was this guy who went around thinking himself the Messiah (that everybody had been waiting for), and said a lot of cool and interesting stuff, and some people followed him, believing him to be the Messiah (if you're going to ask why they would do so, please think of Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, Waco, et al). He may or may not have actually believed he was God's son (paranoid schizophrenia?). He may or may not have died on the cross and so on.

Anyway, my feeling is that the people who were his followers could easily have been mistaken about his body or the story got convoluted at some point or whatever, but it's not hard to imagine that stories and letters written after the fact, even 20 years after, could be all wrong, given the fallibility of human memory. If anybody did die for their beliefs, I think they really did believe it, not that they were lying about it. But people die for lots of beliefs that they are mistaken about (again, think Heaven's Gate). None of these things lend any amount of credibility to the man's divine nature.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Whether or not there was an historical Jesus, there can be little doubt that Christianity was fabricated and refabricated in the crucible of Roman politics and bloody doctrinal struggles.

Do you just have a habit of making ridiculous statements without evidence? The texts of the NT clearly demonstrates that your assertion is false.And just how, precisely, do they manage to 'clearly demonstrate' such a thing? Is it 'clearly demonstrated' by the controversy surrounding the Johannine Comma and the Markan appendix? Do you insist that the text was never purged, embellished, and/or harmonized to meet the doctrinal needs of the church fathers?

"The text of the NT clearly demonstrates ..." This will be fun to watch. Go ahead, Flick, clearly demonstrate it for us. :D :D

[PotatoStew]

Fade:

Potato, you did make a strawman, and from the third sentence you seem to not understand that that is exactly.


You saying it is so does not make it so. Explain *how* it is a strawman. Impy himself brought up showing a car to Roman citizens, and my response was to say that doing so would be irrelevant to what was being discussed. That's not a strawman.

Also, the average lifespan of somebody living in those times was around 40 to 50 years.

Here you go again. You said the same thing in the Christ-mythers vs. POM thread, I called you on it, and you would not/could not support its relevance. Right there in that thread I pointed out that several of the historical figures we were discussing lived to their 70s or 80s. As Loki pointed out (thanks Loki) and I mentioned in the other thread, if you're talking about the *average* then that means there would be people who lived beyond that -- quite possibly a lot of people, especially if Loki's point is true about high numbers of deaths before age five. So have some integrity and stop using that statistic as an argument.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Then we have a misunderstanding somewhere in the ranks. This post was aimed at anyone who wants to assert that Jesus did not exist and the whole Christianity thing was fabricated. I do not believe that dying for a belief increases its validity. I think for a liar to stare down death, knowing he is lying is not reasonable. You might get 1, or 2, but not a dozen, and not an educated Jewish leader like Paul. They were not fabricating. They were relating their experience. Maybe their interpretations of the experience are false, but the experience was not. A man named Jesus did exist.Paul was not an eyewitness to anything. As such, his "experience" was no more or less substantive than that of the people at Jonestown or Waco. Nor, by the way, was his experience any more probative than those of the many early Christian 'heretics' who "stared down death" at the hands of their erstwhile brothers.

[Loki]

Flick,

A few quick thoughts.

First, your points :

First, we have the problem of Paul.
...
What's the odds of two fabricators within 50 years of each other willing to die for the same fabricated theme?

Can't see a problem, really. At least two possible explanations for Paul :

(a) he's a believer that embraces the original lie (not knowing it's a lie), and believes he has the knowledge and the duty to continue and extend the teachings. In this sense, he's no different to Martin Luther.
(b) he's a fabricator who embraces the original lie (not knowing it's a lie) and seeks to create his own history for his own purposes.

Go with (a), and Paul is no longer a problem!

Second regarding Paul, we see him fighting with one of the first fabricators in Antioch (Peter) about whether or not the orgininal fabricator (Jesus) meant for his fabrications to extend to non-Jews.
You assume Peter was a fabricator, not a believer. Even if true, then (a) above resolves the problem - Paul was acting genuinely when confronting Peter.

Third, we have to assume the fabricator (Jesus) never wrote anything down or that the true fabricators lived in 100AD and thought to themselves they needed to create a religion.
Well, you're getting confused here - are we discussing "Jesus was a fabrication", or "Jesus was a fabricator"?

It's 30CE, along comes L. Jesus Hubbard - a rather charismatic teacher/carpenter. He's full of himself, but very convincing. Hires "the mount" for his new one man show, and it's a roaring success. A few followers start writing down things before they forget. Before long scientology...er, I mean christianity, is in full swing.

"Jesus was a fabrication"? - Probably not.

"Jesus was a fabricator"? - Certainly!


----------------------------

Second, 'fabricators' versus 'believers'. To even begin to make the case you are working towards, you need to determine who are the fabricators, and who are the believers. Who wrote the gospels - believers, or fabricators? You whole point here is that "fabricators don't die for their lies". But believers sure do. So this argument rests entirely on determining who the fabricators were. Again, just think L. Jesus Hubbard.

But again, I have to wonder why this is important. Surely, for you and Potato, Jesus has to be both (a) not a fabrication and (b) not a fabricator. Even if you establish (a), what purpose does that serve? If you assume that Jesus or the gospel writers were at least partial fabricators, how do you propose to determine which bits are which?

[Fade]

Your sources don't count. Ceasar didn't exist.

My sources are independantly verifiable. Any source alone is just about worthless, it's their totality that makes it evidence.

Do you not understand the most basic concept of cultural anthropology? Do I really need to type up the opening chapter of an anthropology book?

The bible is a book with many different authors, and yes stories.

So you claim. Where is your evidence? I am willing to accept that they are written by different authors. But, why are they so disparate in the story they tell when they are supposedly talking about the same thing? When you look back on the historians of the past, they don't write about the same event in vastly different ways. You are destroying your own case.

But half the NT are letters. Actual letters written around 50AD.

Evidence?

I'd say that counts as a touch of history. How many of Ceasar's letters do we have in tact?

He was recorded by every single european and african culture of the time, and his image was printed on thousands of coins, and his statues, commissioned in his time and recorded as being him survive to this day.

Scratch taking you through cultural anthropology, we need to put you through a course in logic.

Nice.

Unlike you, I am willing to insult people directly. You hide, and insult from the sidelines.

That's great, thanks for sharing. And now, back to the thread.

Oh, can't take a little derailing? Want to cry about it a little more? Want a tissue? Do you need me to wipe the drool from your chin?

You've totally missed my point
You said no other religions were oppressed. I gave you several instances off the top of my head.

Does your meager intellect not even allow you to recognize the words you wrote?

Read the above response to headscratcher.

I am responding to YOU though :)

It beats me as to why I have to type something out about 8 times before someone finally reads it close enough to understand.

Ho ho, you give us lessons in reading comprehension? Ironic. Really.

Either we are a slow lot here, or lazy. My money is on the latter. I see Loki actually gave my point a prod, which is more than I say for you, HS, or RD. Perhaps you would like to try again, I mean try again again.

Your point was an appeal to ignorance. Several people apparently exposed it. Now, you are getting defensive so as to take attention away from the fact that you know absolutely nothing about which you speak. Your attempt to hide behind a wall of veiled insults doesn't work. You see, I can ignore your verbal diarrhea and cut right to the point. You have been beaten, kiddy.

Sorry you feel that way. However after about your third insult in a single post-- both lips right here ( ! )

And I thought you had a thing against insults. Let us add hypocrisy to the long, damning list of character faults that you seem to be collecting.

I am sorry that you aren't able to grasp things on a higher level, but don't feel bad when poke fun at you. You're like JK, except you apparently believe the horse **** that you spout.

Go on, you can get it all out. We don't oppress freedom of speech here. Hell, you might even get some equally ignorant historical revisionist to agree with you! Then, the pangs in your stomach that you are no doubt feeling due to the level of ignorance this board has exposed you to have will subside, and you can feel vindicated. Because, no matter how wrong you are in every single conceivable way, somebody out there is just as wrong as you are, and you can revel in your stupidity.

K thx bye.

"My God, My God, why have your forsaken me?"

Excuse me for leaping into the third page of this discussion.

I latched onto that forsaken business when I read this topic for the first time today. Using the edit search function, I have read some interesting ideas about that passage in the Bible. All of them incorrect.

Here is an interesting thing. But let me start out by saying I don't claim to be as well read in the bible as some of the more vociferous atheists do. Particulary, I am not as well read as the ones who like to ask questions about verses in the bible which appear contradictory or inhumane or whatever to justify their condemnation of it.

At the same time, some atheists like to talk about the "creative editing" the bible has undergone over the millenia.

Talk about a contradiction! How could all those religious scholars have missed so many seeming contradictions? Why didn't they edit them out? Were they freaking stupid or something?

Or is that a paradox? I don't know.

Maybe "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" is not a contradiction or questionable uttering of a man on a cross. Maybe it has a blindingly simple explanation......

"To make him more lovable?" ROTFLMAO!

I know you can do better than that.

Hey, if you can be wrong about the "forsaken" passage, is it possible you could be wrong about everything else, too?

Here are the applicable passages:

Mathew, Chapter 27, verses 33-49:

33 And when they had come to a place called Golgotha, that is to say, Place of a Skull, 34 they gave Him sour wine mingled with gall to drink. But when He had tasted it, He would not drink. 35 Then they crucified Him, and divided His garments, casting lots, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet: "They divided My garments among them, And for My clothing they cast lots." 36 Sitting down, they kept watch over Him there. 37 And they put up over His head the accusation written against Him: THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS. 38 Then two robbers were crucified with Him, one on the right and another on the left. 39 And those who passed by blasphemed Him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, "You who destroy the temple and build it in three days, save Yourself! If You are the Son of God, come down from the cross." 41 Likewise the chief priests also, mocking with the scribes and elders, said, 42 "He saved others; Himself He cannot save. If He is the King of Israel, let Him now come down from the cross, and we will believe Him. 43 He trusted in God; let Him deliver Him now if He will have Him; for He said, 'I am the Son of God.' " 44 Even the robbers who were crucified with Him reviled Him with the same thing. 45 Now from the sixth hour until the ninth hour there was darkness over all the land. 46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" that is, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" 47 Some of those who stood there, when they heard that, said, "This Man is calling for Elijah!" 48 Immediately one of them ran and took a sponge, filled it with sour wine and put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink. 49 The rest said, "Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to save Him."

and Mark, Chapter 15, verses 33 - 37:


33 Now when the sixth hour had come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour. 34 And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, saying, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which is translated, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" 35 Some of those who stood by, when they heard that, said, "Look, He is calling for Elijah!" 36 Then someone ran and filled a sponge full of sour wine, put it on a reed, and offered it to Him to drink, saying, "Let Him alone; let us see if Elijah will come to take Him down." 37 And Jesus cried out with a loud voice, and breathed His last.

[stamenflicker]

Wolfgirl

I think this is where most of us come in...Jesus may (or may not) have existed, but there is nothing to prove that he was divine.

O my, there is logic in the ranks. I agree with everything you posted. Maybe it didn't happen the way it is conveyed in the NT because people just didn't interpret the events correctly. That's an entirely different thing than saying the NT is not a historical document.

Whether or not Jesus is who he said he was is subject to doubt, the idea that he existed at all is pretty much a mute point. Somebody named Jesus arrived on the spiritual-political landscape and shook things up. The documents pretty much support that.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

My sources are independantly verifiable. Any source alone is just about worthless, it's their totality that makes it evidence.

I disagree. Your sources are meaningless.

Do you not understand the most basic concept of cultural anthropology? Do I really need to type up the opening chapter of an anthropology book?

Your anthropology book is a biased source and has undergone numerous edits in the past 200 years. I reject it too.

When you look back on the historians of the past, they don't write about the same event in vastly different ways.

Exactly. That is evidence that the writers were conveying their experiences or at worst writing the experiences of people they knew. If it had been written like a history book then it would look more like a fabrication-- like the contrived voice of the possible Josephus insertion.

Evidence?

Go back to the top of the thread for a few questions a fabricator-approach should consider. Futhermore, consider the references to Jerusalem which was destroyed in 70 AD. Also see that at least one of the members of the Council of Nicea indicated the dated voice of the gospels as I posted above. Also note the use of Aramaic in Mark. While your at it pick up a book and do your homework.

He was recorded by every single european and african culture of the time, and his image was printed on thousands of coins, and his statues, commissioned in his time and recorded as being him survive to this day.

Even if you could prove that, why would it matter? History is always written by the winners. And Rome was a big winner.

You said no other religions were oppressed.

Cut and paste it, or shut up.

Unlike you, I am willing to insult people directly. You hide, and insult from the sidelines.

How's this? You're an ass.

Oh, can't take a little derailing? Want to cry about it a little more? Want a tissue? Do you need me to wipe the drool from your chin?

Derailing is counter productive. For the record Jerry Falwell is one of my least favorite human beings.

Your point was an appeal to ignorance. Several people apparently exposed it. Now, you are getting defensive so as to take attention away from the fact that you know absolutely nothing about which you speak. Your attempt to hide behind a wall of veiled insults doesn't work. You see, I can ignore your verbal diarrhea and cut right to the point. You have been beaten, kiddy.

You didn't even come close to debating what I posted. Again, I suggest a re-read.

And I thought you had a thing against insults.

As with most of your thinking thus far, it's unsubsantial. I'm not above insults and never claimed to be. So perhaps you'd like to replace hypocricy with another word? Or maybe look up the definition.

Go on, you can get it all out. We don't oppress freedom of speech here. Hell, you might even get some equally ignorant historical revisionist to agree with you!

It's painfully obvious who the revisionists are.

Flick

[Loki]

Flick,

Somebody named Jesus arrived on the spiritual-political landscape and shook things up. The documents pretty much support that.
Last time I hammer this point (well, in this thread) - but you left in no-mans' land with this approach.

Document "Y" tells us "X" existed.
Document "Y" tells us highly questionable, and unverifiable, details about "X".
We conclude that at least some of these details are incorrect.
On balance we conclude that "X" probably existed, but that "Y" cannot be trusted in it's details of "X".

What now? Even if the conclusion for "existed" is "reasonable", it leaves you with a Jesus that you know *nothing* about with any sort of confidence, because you have admitted that the gospels are suspect.

I guess you just want to get to point 'A' - "Jesus existed, in some shape or form". That seems like a low-point to aim for, and I can concede it for the same reason I can concede that Stilpo probably existed - it doesn't really matter if I'm wrong. "Jesus the carpenter" is a low-risk assumption simply because it doesn't really matter!

I think I'd better bow out - I'm not the one to be taking up this argument, 'cos I don't see the relevence (beyond curiosity value) of a mundane Jesus.

[stamenflicker]

he's a believer that embraces the original lie (not knowing it's a lie), and believes he has the knowledge and the duty to continue and extend the teachings. In this sense, he's no different to Martin Luther.

Then the original lie was set prior to 50AD?

he's a fabricator who embraces the original lie (not knowing it's a lie) and seeks to create his own history for his own purposes.

In which case he is another fabricator willing to be beaten and jailed for his own purposes.

You assume Peter was a fabricator, not a believer. Even if true, then (a) above resolves the problem - Paul was acting genuinely when confronting Peter.

If Peter was a believer and not a fabricator, then we are left with some pretty significant happenings by Jesus, or at worst, some very convincing smoke and mirrors.

Well, you're getting confused here - are we discussing "Jesus was a fabrication", or "Jesus was a fabricator"?

You are right, the thread was orginally about Jesus as a fabrication, which is illogical. Jesus could have been the fabricator, we can't know. If he was, then he hardly had good reasons to be such, so then we are left with a question of his sanity.

[stamenflicker]

I guess you just want to get to point 'A' - "Jesus existed, in some shape or form". That seems like a low-point to aim for, and I can concede it for the same reason I can concede that Stilpo probably existed - it doesn't really matter if I'm wrong. "Jesus the carpenter" is a low-risk assumption simply because it doesn't really matter!

I only chose to aim there because it is highly illogical to assert otherwise as some have done. I agree it doesn't matter to anyone at a spiritual level, but it does matter philosophically because to assert otherwise is lazy thinking. I about through with this too, because it is clear that some refuse to acknowledge a very basic premise.

I think too many atheists here think I'm trying to argue that Jesus was who he said he was, I'm not. This wasn't the place for that. Maybe he was maybe he wasn't, we may never know. But the fact that a man named Jesus existed, incited followers, and had a message of reconciliation with god seems hardly debatable.

Perhaps it is time to stop wasting my time.

Flick

[PotatoStew]

Fade:

When you look back on the historians of the past, they don't write about the same event in vastly different ways.

Really? Here are several links from the Ancient History Bulletin that deal with several different historical issues; each one of the articles is at least partially involved with looking at and sorting out discrepancies and differing accounts by multiple authors and source documents speaking of the same event(s):

http://www.trentu.ca/ahb/ahb4/ahb-4-4b.html
http://www.trentu.ca/ahb/ahb5/ahb-5-4d.html
http://www.trentu.ca/ahb/ahb3/ahb-3-1c.html
http://www.trentu.ca/ahb/ahb2/ahb-2-2d.html

Now, can you offer any support for your claim that "historians of the past ... don't write about the same event in vastly different ways"?

[stamenflicker]

That you know nothing about Alexandrian, Byzantine, or Western textual tradition is pathetically clear. It is also a remarkable admission from someone claiming to speak with authority.

What can I say? We didn't study it in detail. A few facts about von Soden's approach:

It is rejected by numerous scholars as it is chalked with error.
He used only 414 of the over 5,000 existing fragments to form his criticism. By his method, we could likely assert that 1 John 5:7 was an latter insertion, even though the verse has the following history:

200 AD Tertullian quoted the verse in his Apology, Against Praxeas
250 AD Cyprian of Carthage, wrote, "And again, of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost it is written: "And the three are One" in his On The Lapsed, On the Novatians, (see note for Old Latin)
350 AD Priscillian referred to it [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. xviii, p. 6.]
350 AD Idacius Clarus referred to it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 62, col. 359.]
350 AD Athanasius referred to it in his De Incarnatione
398 AD Aurelius Augustine used it to defend Trinitarianism in De Trinitate against the heresy of Sabellianism
415 AD Council of Carthage appealed to 1 John 5:7 when debating the Arian belief (Arians didn't believe in the deity of Jesus Christ)
450-530 AD Several orthodox African writers quoted the verse when defending the doctrine of the Trinity against the gainsaying of the Vandals. These writers are:
A) Vigilius Tapensis in "Three Witnesses in Heaven"
B) Victor Vitensis in his Historia persecutionis [Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum Latinorum, Academia Litterarum Vindobonensis, vol. vii, p. 60.]
C) Fulgentius in "The Three Heavenly Witnesses" [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 65, col. 500.]
500 AD Cassiodorus cited it [Patrilogiae Cursus Completus, Series Latina by Migne, vol. 70, col. 1373.]
550 AD Old Latin ms r has it
550 AD The "Speculum" has it [The Speculum is a treatise that contains some good Old Latin scriptures.]
750 AD Wianburgensis referred to it
800 AD Jerome's Vulgate has it [It was not in Jerome's original Vulgate, but was brought in about 800 AD from good Old Latin manuscripts.]
1000s AD miniscule 635 has it
1150 AD minuscule ms 88 in the margin
1300s AD miniscule 629 has it
157-1400 AD Waldensian (that is, Vaudois) Bibles have the verse
1500 AD ms 61 has the verse
Even Nestle's 26th edition Greek New Testament, based upon the corrupt Alexandrian text, admits that these and other important manuscripts have the verse: 221 v.l.; 2318 Vulgate [Claromontanus]; 629; 61; 88; 429 v.l.; 636 v.l.; 918; l; r.

The 414 pieces von Soden worked on were not even all collaborated with each other.

James White asserts, "We were forced to rely on von Soden's work...his presentation of the data leaves much to be desired....The present edition does not cite the testimony of the ancient versions or church fathers."

Flick

[Yahzi]

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
That really is one of the best peices of evidence for a real Jesus - it's the sort of thing a real person would say.

On the other hand, no doubt lots of early Christians felt the same way, when God didn't come through with the touchdown or the A+ test score. So it's also the sort of thing you'd want to inoculate against by having the leader say it first.

[chrisjt]

Posted by Loki:
"Jesus was a fabrication"? - Probably not.
"Jesus was a fabricator"? - Certainly!

There's also a third possibility - Jesus was neither a fabrication or a fabricator. Maybe he was just a preacher who was misrepresented by others.
(BTW, shouldn't that be ""Jesus was a fabricator?" - Probably.")

Posted by Stamenflicker:
Whether or not Jesus is who he said he was is subject to doubt,

Who Jesus said he was is also subject to doubt, in my opinion.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by Yahzi

"My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

That really is one of the best peices of evidence for a real Jesus - it's the sort of thing a real person would say. :p :D Psalm 22:1 :D :p

Your "one of the best peices of evidence for a real Jesus" is nothing more than a poetic reference that would have been known to damn near any Jewish boy. Furthermore, given such verses as Psalm 22:18 - They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.it is clearly yet another attempt by some later interpolator to link "Jesus" to Hebrew scripture. If anything, it is evidence against a messianic Jesus.

By the way, you should be ashamed of yourself. A good Christian would have a much better grasp of the Bible. :rolleyes:

[Gregor]

What have we learned from this thread.

1. Don't hold yourself out as an expert if you are not - you're liable to be proved a light-weight with access to a few reference books.

2. Don't throw out false premises (Jesus was historical because Paul believed) because we waste 75% of the discussion pointing out the errors in your argument.

3. People easily ignore arguments you can't refute (martyr points raised by Headscratcher, me, and others).

Conclusion by example:

Was the Teacher of Righteousness a historical person? We have roughly analygous evidence from the Qumram scrolls as we have of Jesus' existence through the gospels (I'll admit I'm no DSS expert). However, since the Essenes died out, we don't have many later letters from people professing to follow his teachings.

So, if we were to ask a Christian (say SF) whether the Teacher of Righteous existed (and assuming he's heard of the Dead Sea Scrolls), he'd probably say,

"While there are several writings about him, there is no other corroboration outside of the writings of the Essenes. But, since people usually at least base their statements on historical accuracy, I suspect that such a person (at least a model for such a person) existed in 175 BCE."

Now, how can Xians expect us to believe more than this about Jesus?

[ReasonableDoubt]

stamenflicker wrote:
What can I say? We didn't study it in detail. A few facts about von Soden's approach:What a shoddy and disingenuous little tap-dance that was.
The Names and Descriptions of the Various Text-Types

The following list shows the various names that different scholars have used for text-types. The first element in each list is what I consider the "proper" modern name; this is followed by a list of editors and the names they used.

Generally Acknowledged Text Types

ALEXANDRIAN Westcott-Hort -- Neutral+Alexandrian (also a)
Von Soden -- Eta (Hesychian) (H)
Kenyon -- B (b)
Lagrange -- B
Characteristics of the type: Conservative. Relatively free of harmonzation and paraphrase. Short. Willing to accept difficult readings.
Primary witnesses: P75 (gospels), B (except in Paul), , Coptic versions. Also A, C, 33 in Paul; A 33 in the Catholics; A C in the Apocalypse.

BYZANTINE Westcott-Hort -- Syrian (also d)
Von Soden -- Kappa (Koine) (K)
Kenyon -- A (a)
Lagrange -- A
Characteristics of the type: Widespread. Usually regarded as far-removed from the original documents, but worthy of detailed study because of the influence it has had on mixed manuscripts. Marked by smooth and easy readings and by harmonizations, but rarely indulges in paraphrase or the major expansions seemingly found in the "Western" text. Widely regarded as derived from other text-types; it usually preserves the easiest reading. It rarely creates readings.[*43]
Primary witnesses: A E F G H K M S U V Y G P S etc. (gospels); H L P 049 056 0142 (Acts); K L 049 056 0142 (Paul, Catholics); P 046 (Apocalypse). Also found in the mass of minuscules; over 80% of manuscripts are purely Byzantine, over 90% are primarily Byzantine, and not more than 2% can be considered entirely free of Byzantine mixture.

Cæsarean Von Soden -- Iota (Jerusalem) (I), in part (most strong "Cæsarean" witnesses are found in Soden's Ia group, with family 1 being his Ih and family 13 being Ii.)
Kenyon -- Gamma (g)
Lagrange -- C
Characteristics of the type: Mildly paraphrastic, so as to give an appearance of falling between the Alexandrian and "Western" texts. Since no pure manuscripts are known, most other descriptions of the type have been conjectural. To date found only in the gospels (unless family 1739 is Cæsarean, which is unlikely).
Primary witnesses: Q, family 1, family 13, 565, 700, arm, geo (P45 and parts of W claimed by some; however, P45 is a wild text, and W's relationship to the group is questionable)
Note: The existence of the "Cæsarean" text has been questioned by many; see the discussion above.

"WESTERN" Westcott-Hort -- Western (also b)
Kenyon -- D (d)
Von Soden -- Iota (Jerusalem) (I), in part
Lagrange -- D
Characteristics of the type: Marked by paraphrase, occasional expansion, and possible additions from oral sources. Fond of striking and abrupt readings. Reaches its most extreme form in D/05 (Codex Bezae); the "Western" text of Paul (found in D/06, etc.) is a much more restrained text.
Primary witnesses: D/05 (Gospels, Acts), Old Latin, D/06 (Paul) F/010+G/012 (Paul); occasional readings in the versions. Connected by some with family 2138 and with certain fragmentary papyri.

- emphasis added; see Apendix I (http://www.skypoint.com/~waltzmn/TextTypes.html#App3)By the way, your silly little laundry list is a joke and a diversion. Far better material can be found at Kirby's Compiled Allusions to the NT in the Ante-Nicene Fathers (http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/e-catena/). Why don't you, either, go back and attempt an intellectually honest response to the questions or, should that prove beyond you, simply go away and avoid further embarrassing yourself?

[headscratcher4]

Just a couple of thoughts:

Loki: with respect to Paul, you gave two possible motivations...you left out a third. Paul could have been either a deluded believer or an intentional fabricator. Paul could have been seriously mentally ill. The whole blinding on the road to Damascus speaks of a psychotic break and hysterical reaction. It is possible, knowing what we know today, that Paul was completely delusional and projected his delusions on either a real person, Jesus, or on a figment of his imagination. Anyway, schizophrenia is not a modern creation. It has existed for a long time, and it is sometimes difficult to know what role such madness might have played in history.

Indeed, as I write, it occurs that a real person Jesus could also be a sufferer and thus a believer in his own divinity and claimant for divinity. Think about the alleged history of the NT for a moment, Jesus lived most of his life in obscurity and than, as a relatively young adult -- mid to late 20s/early 30's becomes a volatile preacher and healer. The timing of this emergence from obscurity is not inconsistent with the onset of schizophrenia.


SF: somewhere above to make a point you challenged the existence of Julius Caesar. You noted that we have no letters from him, as evidence of the possibility that he didn't exist. I am not sure about letters, we do, however, have a book allegedly written by Julius Caesar -- his Commentaries. It isn't ascribed to people who knew Caesar, or alleged to be a translation, etc. It is stated as by Julius Caesar. My point is that it doesn't prove that Julius Caesar existed, rather that this writing is allegedly by his hand, and unlike Pauline letters it has not been fiddled with....

Just some thoughts...

[PotatoStew]

headscratcher:

Regarding the notion of schizophrenia applied to Paul or Jesus... both men were very "functional". Paul traveled widely and was instrumental in organizing many churches. Jesus regularly confounded the Jewish leadership with his grasp of the issues of his day and showed a great deal of wisdom. He was also very outward looking and concerned with those around him. Do we know of any examples of people who were definitely schizophrenic, yet attracted large groups of followers and functioned at a very high level in their day-to-day and overall lives? My understanding of schizophrenia is that it usually demolishes any possibility of that level of functioning.

[headscratcher4]

Stew: your points are well taken. A couple of thoughts:
First, we only have Jesus' followers word -- the Gospels (part of what is at dispute here regarding the historical person of Jesus) -- that he confounded the religious leadership and teachers he encountered. So, that may or may not have happened and have been a part of Jesus' personality...or it could have been second hand resume inflation (either from error, intentional, misunderstanding, etc.). In any event, there is no eyewitness relating those stories.

Having said that, and second, schizophrenia -- as well as all of the diagnosable forms of what we today consider mental illness -- are not linear. By this I mean, how they manifest themselves, how people function under their delusions, etc. varies from case to case. Indeed, with specific respect to Paul, because I believe -- at the very least -- that Paul existed, it need not be schizophrenia. It could be he was bi-polar, Manic, or any number of mental states where delusions -- consistent delusions -- are manifest.

Suppose he fell off that horse and hit his head? Temporary blindness could result and he could have otherwise damaged his brain -- a'la Oliver Sach's neurological patients, people who, for example can function completely normally in many respects, but are completely deluded in some key fashion as a result of a brain injury.

In other words, there are very high functioning people who are, by today's definition, mentally ill.

My point, actually, is not to denigrate either Jesus or Paul by stigmatizing them as mentally ill. I work on many issues related to mental health and hopefully have a healthy respect for the mentally ill, their challenges and capabilities. We don't understand mental illness very well or all of the ways that it manifests itself.

However, my point rather was that what we today call mental illness offers a logical, reasonable and rational explanation for the stories of Jesus, of Paul or both. I don't know that I even subscribe to that explanation, but it is one that is often overlooked when arguments of this sort are launched.


I come to this merely because I do not believe that what evidence that does exist and how it exists leads to any conclusion about the divinity of Jesus or the divine inspiration of Paul. Indeed, as an agnostic, I think I have to say that it may be possible. Rather, it is that the evidence is weak, and there are explanations, such as the manifestation of one form or another of mental illness that, among dozens of alternative interpretations of the history, could lend a reasonable, rational and logical explanation.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

Jesus regularly confounded the Jewish leadership with his grasp of the issues of his day and showed a great deal of wisdom. He was also very outward looking and concerned with those around him. . And we know this, of course, based on 2nd and 3rd century quotes and manuscript fragments of translated and transcribed stories first elaborated some 3-5 decades after the proposed events by folks heavily invested in doctrine.

Your evidence is as worthless as 2000 demon-infested, suicidal pigs. :D

[PotatoStew]

And we know this, of course, based on 2nd and 3rd century quotes and manuscript fragments of translated and transcribed stories first elaborated some 3-5 decades after the proposed events by folks heavily invested in doctrine.

Yes, the *exact same manuscripts that headscratcher was using to suggest that schizophrenia was a possibility!* So, it's ok to use those manuscripts and say, "oh, this, this and this suggest that X might be a good conclusion" as long as X is a non-traditional conclusion (mental illness), but as soon as we draw a traditional conclusion (Jesus confounded his critics -- is it really that unbelievable?!) from the same sources, those sources suddenly become worthless for drawing conclusions? Who has the agenda here? :rolleyes:

[PotatoStew]

headscratcher:

First, we only have Jesus' followers word -- the Gospels (part of what is at dispute here regarding the historical person of Jesus) -- that he confounded the religious leadership and teachers he encountered.

As I just said to RD, we are working from the exact same sources here. Isn't it kind of disengenuous to even suggest possibilities like mental illness based on those sources and then turn around and question more mundane things that are clearly and repeatedly attested to in those sources? If you are claiming that the sources are extremely unreliable, then you have no evidence for mental illness either, or any other conclusions.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

Yes, the *exact same manuscripts that headscratcher was using to suggest that schizophrenia was a possibility!* So, it's ok to use those manuscripts and say, ... Your issues with headscratcher have absolutely nothing to do with me. In my opinion, headscratcher indulged in worthless, though benign, speculation. This differs significantly from your equally worthless and totally baseless assertion of fact. If you wish to defend such silliness, feel free to do so, but please have the integrity to leave headscratcher out of it.

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
:p :D Psalm 22:1 :D :p

Your "one of the best peices of evidence for a real Jesus" is nothing more than a poetic reference that would have been known to damn near any Jewish boy. Furthermore, given such verses as Psalm 22:18 - They part my garments among them, and cast lots upon my vesture.it is clearly yet another attempt by some later interpolator to link "Jesus" to Hebrew scripture. If anything, it is evidence against a messianic Jesus.

By the way, you should be ashamed of yourself. A good Christian would have a much better grasp of the Bible. :rolleyes:

A+ for knowing the Psalm 22 connection. If you read the entire Psalm, you will see other parts that were fulfilled by the crucifixion. Particularly the line about how Christ should save himself from the cross if he really is divine.

I disagree it is any kind of evidence against a messianic Jesus. It could just as easily be interpreted as a prophecy fulfilled and noted down.

Headscratcher, your interpretation of Paul as a schizophrenic cracks me up. As some of you know, I had a very similar "road to Damascus" experience nine and a half years ago which converted me from atheism to a belief in God. I do not subscribe to any particular religion, though. As I like to say, "I didn't get the Jesus option."

The founder of Alcholics Anonymous had a "white light" experience as well which caused him to quit drinking for good and begin A.A. Look what happened from there. Hardly something a schizoid would be able to accomplish.

A chemical misfire in an alcohol soaked brain? Something more? If it was a misfire, it sure was powerful. Enough to cause the man to work his butt off for the rest of his life to help other people get sober. An amazing achievement for a momentary lapse of reason.

Many people have reported these white light experiences which changed their lives.

As for the bible, if you look at as written and cared for by people who believe every word of it, then it is easy to understand that they would take great pains to ensure it is copied and translated into modern language as accurately as possible. After all, it is the inspired Word of God. If a person believes in God, are they really going to risk eternal damnation by screwing with the text? Or are they going to do their best to translate it accurately?

And isn't it understandable that a believer would intuitively understand or believe that a falsehood does not survive for very long, whereas the Truth goes on. And since the Church has survived for thousands of years, it must be based on Truth?

To change or alter or deliberately fictionalize the bible would risk the end of their religion, as it would be based on lies.

I think some atheists are too quick to assign malevolent motives to those who wrote the bible, and to those who care for it.

Don't you see? These people believe it.

Interpretation of the text is a whole nother story and is why we have so many variations of Christianity.

And then there are those who use the bible to decieve and for personal gain.

For example, I think Sylvia Browne believes in God about as much as James Randi. But she says she believes in God and that He gave her the power to do what she does. And, in turn, people believe her.

I can't prove my opinion on Sylvia Browne. It's just a hunch.

The bible has a lot to say about people like her.

I think with the "forsaken me" passage, you can pretty much narrow the options down to two. Christ was either the real deal, or a charlatan.

It is more likely that one person could start a deception, than several people over thousands of years.

No one will ever be able to prove either option. We can slap each other around, but it won't change anything.

Do I sound schizo? :D

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
Your issues with headscratcher have absolutely nothing to do with me. In my opinion, headscratcher indulged in worthless, though benign, speculation. This differs significantly from your equally worthless and totally baseless assertion of fact. If you wish to defend such silliness, feel free to do so, but please have the integrity to leave headscratcher out of it.

Since you responded specifically to me, and didn't mention headscratcher's speculation, I assumed you only had a problem with my use of the sources and not headscratcher's. I apologize, as I see now that you feel both of our speculations are worthless. I disagree however that the two "differ significantly" and obviously I don't hold that my interpretation is an absolute certainty. If you wish to get your knickers in a twist, feel free to do so, but please have the integrity not to claim that I am saying something that I'm not.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Whether or not Jesus is who he said he was is subject to doubt, the idea that he existed at all is pretty much a mute point.Boy, don't I wish it WAS a mute point...oh, you probably meant a moot point. Never mind.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Jesus could have been the fabricator, we can't know. If he was, then he hardly had good reasons to be such, so then we are left with a question of his sanity. Bingo.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

I don't hold that my interpretation is an absolute certainty. If you wish to get your knickers in a twist, feel free to do so, but please have the integrity not to claim that I am saying something that I'm not. I believe I accurately quoted you as saying: Jesus regularly confounded the Jewish leadership with his grasp of the issues of his day and showed a great deal of wisdom. He was also very outward looking and concerned with those around him. If you intended this comment to be viewed as mere speculation that you "don't hold [as] an absolute certainty", then I misunderstood you and clearly owe you an apology. If, however, it was intended as an assertion of fact, it differs qualitatively from headscratcher's speculation and my comments stand. So, were you speculating then, or are you dancing now?

[headscratcher4]

Stew/RD:

I think I should apologize and look for a different thread for the points I was making. In reviewing the thread, I think RD maybe correct...I keep sticking my marginal two cents in, while at the same time forgetting that the discussion is premised on proof, or lack of proof, for a historical Jesus.:o

While I have my doubts about the historical Jesus and whether he existed, it seems my posts are really off that point and I am sorry. My points had more to do with interpretaions, logic, historical merit etc. of the sources, rather than challenging whether the sources were relaying fiction or not.
So, to that end I'll back out with what little dignity I can muster and just watch unless I can add something useful and specific to the thread of this very interesting discussion.

(P.S. in any event, I thought my earlier comment that we have a book written by Ceasar as some kind of proof of his existence as being somewhat on point...I hope....:) )

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by LukeT

A+ for knowing the Psalm 22 connection. If you read the entire Psalm, you will see other parts that were fulfilled by the crucifixion.Thanks for the nice grade. As for the rest, by far the most reasonable explanation is reverse engineering by interpolators far removed in both time and space.

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Yes, the *exact same manuscripts that headscratcher was using to suggest that schizophrenia was a possibility!* So, it's ok to use those manuscripts and say, "oh, this, this and this suggest that X might be a good conclusion" as long as X is a non-traditional conclusion (mental illness), but as soon as we draw a traditional conclusion (Jesus confounded his critics -- is it really that unbelievable?!) from the same sources, those sources suddenly become worthless for drawing conclusions? Who has the agenda here? :rolleyes: Since I happen to share the position that mental illness is a possible explanation for Jesus, I will jump in here and hope I don't misrepresent anyone else's position.

My first point in an argument of this type is that I don't particularly believe the stories in the Bible, for reasons which I have already discussed.

However, and that however is important, if you are going to say that they are accurate, then my response to you would be that even if they are accurate, then there is still this other possibility which the stories lend themself to, that being that either Jesus himself was mentally ill, or that one or more of the people who wrote about him was. This means that either way, I can say there is doubt about the authenticity of Jesus as the son of God. The Bible may be inaccurate in the first place, or it may be accurate, but written about a paranoid schizophrenic. (Religious delusions are fairly common among paranoid schizophrenics, by the way.)

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I think I should apologize and look for a different thread for the points I was making. ... I keep sticking my marginal two cents in, while at the same time forgetting that the discussion is premised on proof, or lack of proof, for a historical Jesus. No. My comments were far too sharp with regard to you and I apologize for that. Rather than the phrase "worthless speculation" I would have been better served by the phrase "speculation with no probative value". I apologize again.

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by ReasonableDoubt
If you intended this comment to be viewed as mere speculation that you "don't hold [as] an absolute certainty", then I misunderstood you and clearly owe you an apology. If, however, it was intended as an assertion of fact, it differs qualitatively from headscratcher's speculation and my comments stand. So, were you speculating then, or are you dancing now?

I hold that it is reasonable to believe that those descriptions of Jesus and his activities are relatively accurate, but that there is a possibility that such a conclusion may be incorrect. Categorize that however you want, but realize that I've never claimed that I know anything with absolute certainty. At least not that I'm aware of. I could be wrong about that too.

headscratcher:

You're fine. No need to apologize. Your comments have been perfectly reasonable and level-headed. I appreciate your considerate tone and the fact that you actually listen to what people are saying, rather than projecting positions onto them.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by wolfgirl
..., if you are going to say that they are accurate, then my response to you would be that even if they are accurate, then there is still this other possibility which the stories lend themself to, that being that either Jesus himself was mentally ill, or that one or more of the people who wrote about him was. The last days of the 2nd Temple Period were not the most coherent. Society was unravelling. Magicians and healers were a dime a dozen. Messianic claimants (http://www.livius.org/men-mh/messiah/messianic_claimants00.html) were not at all unusual. Even given some backwater cult leader named Yeshua, it seems to me far more likely that various myths associated with various 'messiahs' were merged, embellished, conflated with paganism, and later interpolated and harmonized - a Hellenized Judaic version of King Arthur or Robin Hood.

Originally posted by wolfgirl
Since I happen to share the position that mental illness is a possible explanation for Jesus, I will jump in here and hope I don't misrepresent anyone else's position.

My first point in an argument of this type is that I don't particularly believe the stories in the Bible, for reasons which I have already discussed.

However, and that however is important, if you are going to say that they are accurate, then my response to you would be that even if they are accurate, then there is still this other possibility which the stories lend themself to, that being that either Jesus himself was mentally ill, or that one or more of the people who wrote about him was. This means that either way, I can say there is doubt about the authenticity of Jesus as the son of God. The Bible may be inaccurate in the first place, or it may be accurate, but written about a paranoid schizophrenic. (Religious delusions are fairly common among paranoid schizophrenics, by the way.)

Wow. Mentally ill.

Does that go for people who buy magnetic soles, too? And who swear that they work?

How 'bout John Edward fans who report on his "amazing" readings? Mentally ill?

How about someone who watches a magician make the statue of Liberty disappear and can't figure out how he did it?

How about anyone who holds a mistaken belief about anything?

Mentally ill. What an arrogant position.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by LukeT

Wow. Mentally ill. Does that go for people who buy magnetic soles, too? And who swear that they work?So, a man and a woman walk into a crowded room: The woman says: "I bought the magnetic sole shoes and I feel great!" The man proclaims: "I infested 2000 pigs with suicidal demons!" The impartial observers come to the conclusion that ...

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by LukeT
Wow. Mentally ill.

Does that go for people who buy magnetic soles, too? And who swear that they work?

How 'bout John Edward fans who report on his "amazing" readings? Mentally ill?

How about someone who watches a magician make the statue of Liberty disappear and can't figure out how he did it?

How about anyone who holds a mistaken belief about anything?

Mentally ill. What an arrogant position. You may note that I never claimed Jesus or any of his followers were mentally ill, but rather that it was a possibility. The followers most likely were just deluded.

Yeah, if somebody says they think John Edward is real, I question their reasoning ability or their gullibility, but not (necessarily) their sanity. If somebody, however, says that they are the son of God and can heal people and have magical powers, yeah, I'm gonna question their sanity.

So I still believe mental illness is a possible explanation for the biblical stories. I think it's more likely, though, that they are a combination of fabrication, misunderstanding and degradation of the story over time.

[Gregor]

LukeT - calm down

There is an apparently scholarly group that views Jesus as an "ecstatic" healer - that is someone who went into trances to communicate with god and heal people.

"Mental illness" may have negative connotations, but Headscratcher and Wolf refer to an actual acedemic position.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by wolfgirl
Yeah, if somebody says they think John Edward is real, I question their reasoning ability or their gullibility, but not (necessarily) their sanity. If somebody, however, says that they are the son of God and can heal people and have magical powers, yeah, I'm gonna question their sanity.

Not to be pedantic, and God forbid I should defend Christianity, but Jesus didn't go around claiming he was the son of God. In fact, he very pointedly and frequently called himself "The Son of Man". I have a suspicion that if he existed, he would be very sad to learn that he had been deified. It was his followers who elevated him to Co-God status. Were they mentally ill? I think not, just overzealous.

[stamenflicker]

What a shoddy and disingenuous little tap-dance that was.

Actually, you've really caused me to waste about two hours of my time this evening with that silly little cut and paste you pulled. I had to go back through my seminary books and try to figure out where the gaps in my education were. What you fail to mention in any of your "research" is that these types of textual criticisms have a variety of names, depending on who you are reading. Alexandrian has been called the "Neutral criticism" by Wescott-Hort and "Eastern" criticism by others, Byzantian text is also called the "Koine" text, which is what I called it and this is the currently accepted canon, which is also what I called it and the "Western" text is mostly disputed and questioned to have ever existed in the first place.

So what you basically have is a handful of texual critics arguing over even what to call it, and what it is. I have read Metzger whom the web site you've cut from basis the outline. Granted, that was over 10 years ago for me. What I did come away with in my education is a Metzger edited Greek New Testament which I can read and analyze. This same source for your nice cut and pace, rates every passage in the following ways:

1) The evaluation of the evidence for the text (rated A-D). A = virtually certain; B=some doubt, etc. This grade is given on a variety of factors including how many other variants there are, whether they are obvious errors in copy only, and whether some intentional rewording seems to have taken place.

2) The Manuscript Evidence, ie. what source did it come from, where was it found, is it a special miniscule, what family does it belong to [here is your Alexandrian, Byzantine, Western question. Please note how embedded it is], what is it's believed date, how solid is the lectionary evidence, etc.) And by the way there are over 3,000 parchaments #'d and labeled in my margins by the editors-- unlike the 414 parchament attempt by von Soden.

3) Evidence from ancient versions. An analysis of Vulgate, Syraic, Coptic, etc. copies of the NT (there are over 100 different languages prior to the 4th century BTW.

4) Evidence of the Church Fathers. ie. Who quoted the text, how early was it quoted, etc.

Not that I actually plan on spending the time, but what exactly is it you want to know? I claim that the text speaks to a historical Jesus and you say that it doesn't right?

The text has evidence in it of an early dating at numerous points. The text also has portions which seem to be tampered with, I've not disputed that, but I fail to see (as does every textual critic) where anything "major" has been fabricated. In fact, since you seem bent on researching this harder than me, I challenge you to go find us all a textual critic who asserts there has been an obvious and "major" fabrication in the NT.

Perhaps you know of verse or passage, or can go find one, that is clearly fabricated and we can debate that one together? You use your sources and I will use mine.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Regarding the Psalms 22 connections, even if these references were cut and pasted back into the documents in hindsight, it doesn't really answer the question as to why the fabricators would want their deity crying out to big daddy deity in defeat, when obviously (as the fabricators knew) he was going to be raised from the dead anyway.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

RDoubt,

Let's get started on something specific. I just referenced my handy-dandy Metzger et. al NT on the phrase "My God, My God why have you forsaken me," Mark 15:34.

Besides being quoted by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (who don't count to you), the copies indicate that the textual disputes arise from the latter half of the verse when the author(s) translate the phrase. Several of the copies say "which is to say," others say "which translates as." Others contain other minor variants.

So what exactly are we left with? A "B" rating, according to my book, which is a liberal score at best it seems to me. Clearly we don't know what the original source was due to these minor variations, but it also seems clear these changes don't really matter to theology, or even dating. This was most likely a part of the original manuscript.

Thought?

Flick

[BobM]

Not to be pedantic, and God forbid I should defend Christianity, but Jesus didn't go around claiming he was the son of God. In fact, he very pointedly and frequently called himself "The Son of Man". The Son of Man thing is actually another one of those references to OT prophecy. It doesn't mean what you claim here at all. I'm too tired to go find the relevant bits right now, and I suspect you wouldn't really care if I did. If that's not true, let me know, and I will find he relevant bits.

[Tricky]

Originally posted by BobM
The Son of Man thing is actually another one of those references to OT prophecy. It doesn't mean what you claim here at all. I'm too tired to go find the relevant bits right now, and I suspect you wouldn't really care if I did. If that's not true, let me know, and I will find he relevant bits.
No, I'm very interested. But take your time. I know how difficult research is.

My preliminary search indicates that almost all the references in the Old Testiment to the "Son of Man" come from Ezekiel. While not a great biblical scholar, I cannot see anywhere that a prophesy is being made. But I withold judgment in lieu of your results.

[Gregor]

Jesus did not say "My God, why hast thou forsaken me" as his last words on the cross.

He said "It is finished." John 19:30.

Oh, that's right, that's a contradiction.

----------

But at least he was upset in Gethsemane when he asked God to save him from this fate and take this cup from him (Mk 14:36).

Oh, that's right, no he didn't. Another contradiction. In John there was no agony. He merely went to a garden (not Gethsemane) and awaiting his fate proudly.

----------

If you read Mark, and realize that it ended at 16:8 at the empty tomb and before any ghost stories were added in later writings, it all is somewhat consistent. Jesus feels powerless, a pawn of God's will, someone who does not want to die, and he asks "why have you foresaken me."

Gee, what comforting words those would be to a Jew after 66 CE after the Romans had crushed your civilization, or after 70 CE when they destroyed your temple. I bet those Jews felt like powerless pawns. I bet they felt that God had foresaken them. What a coincidence that Jesus had suffered a similar fate, just 40 years before.

If the Jesus death story did not already exist by that time, it would sure have been nice for someone to write a story about how this guy named Jesus knew just what you were feeling, too.

Originally posted by Gregor
LukeT - calm down

There is an apparently scholarly group that views Jesus as an "ecstatic" healer - that is someone who went into trances to communicate with god and heal people.

"Mental illness" may have negative connotations, but Headscratcher and Wolf refer to an actual acedemic position.

The chances of a lunatic, who is incapable of actually performing a single miracle, kickstarting a religion which has lasted 2000 years and shows no signs of diminishing, are extremely remote. It is more likely Jesus was the real deal than that.

We won't be reading The Gospel According to Squeaky (Fromme) a 100 years from now, much less 2000.

As for the "forsaken me" statement, Christ was probably signalling the fulfillment of Psalm 22, since the "forsaken" quote is the first line of that Psalm. As was pointed out earlier, every Jewish schoolboy would get the reference.

And since the prophecy, and others, had been fulfilled, Christ then said, "It is finished." All that remained were the ones foreshadowing his resurrection.

[Gregor]

It's more logical that these "prophesies" were fulfilled, rather than someone wrote down what did not happen.

Oh, and it's easy to explain away the contradictions.

I'm sure you loved Mr. McDowell's book.

[ReasonableDoubt]

LukeT wrote:
The chances of a lunatic, who is incapable of actually performing a single miracle, kickstarting a religion which has lasted 2000 years and shows no signs of diminishing, are extremely remote.CONSTANTINE

By the way, how many miracles (roughly) did Kali and/or Buddha perform to "kickstart" those religions? Almost exactly 2 years ago, a gentleman named Stephen Roberts wrote: I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Regarding the Psalms 22 connections, even if these references were cut and pasted back into the documents in hindsight, it doesn't really answer the question as to why the fabricators would want their deity crying out to big daddy deity in defeat, when obviously (as the fabricators knew) he was going to be raised from the dead anyway. Flick Crying out in defeat? You should be truly embarrassed by such ignorance. :rolleyes:

So, for example, The Stone Edition of the Tanach (pg. 1453) says of the 22nd Psalm: "David, speaking as an individual Jew, prays for a final end to Israel's long exile from it's land and temple." If, in the context of the catastrophic end of the 2nd Temple Period, you can see neither meaning nor value to a poetic allusion to King David's prayer for Israel, you are beyond reason.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Three posts by stamenflicker

Let's get started on something specific. I just referenced my handy-dandy Metzger et. al NT on the phrase "My God, My God why have you forsaken me," Mark 15:34. Besides being quoted by Justin Martyr and Irenaeus (who don't count to you), the copies indicate that the textual disputes arise from the latter half of the verse when the author(s) translate the phrase. Several of the copies say "which is to say," others say "which translates as." Others contain other minor variants.Given your exegesis regarding the 22nd Pslm and your silly straw-man arguments, this will quickly get tiresome, but fine, let's get started ... What is the earliest manuscript containing Mark 15:34? Where is Mark 15:34 quoted by Justin Martyr (ca 150-160 CE)? What is the earliest manuscript containing this Justin Martyr reference? Where is Mark 15:34 quoted by Irenaeus (ca 175-185 CE)? What is the earliest manuscript containing this Irenaeus reference? Using your self-proclaimed knowledge of textual criticism, what do these purported manuscripts (ca 150-185 CE) tell you about Marcan text dated dated a century earlier (ca 65-80 CE)? Where have I indicated that Justin Martyr and/or Irenaeus "don't count"?

[stamenflicker]

RD,

You're appropriately slamming me on the Psalms 22 bit, even though I was being fecious. I think I would have attacked my statement based on the alleged "fabricators" attempts to include additional Messianic references to the story of Jesus. The 22nd Psalm is better understood in Jewish tradition as being Messianic. My point, not clearly articultated, was why pick such a disparaging passage (whether a fabricator, or a Jewish Messianic scholar) to define your God. Clearly, the agony of the would-be Messiah which continues for approximately 20 verses or so is hardly befiting of describing a deity. The restoration passages bring an air of redemption to the passage, but it does seem logically inconsistent with what a fabricator would want for his god.

On your other questions, I will post when I return from a business trip to Houston. It will take time for me to parouse my sources. I do see your point and I think the following question is the one that deserves the most merit:

Using your self-proclaimed knowledge of textual criticism, what do these purported manuscripts (ca 150-185 CE) tell you about Marcan text dated dated a century earlier (ca 65-80 CE)?

At a glance, I think I'm trying to make the case that the bulk of Christian theology, true or not, was established by the turn of the century, countering the notion that the Bible was written over the course of 1,000 years as purported here. So our fabricators were most likely those with first hand knowledge, or near first hand knowledge of the figure in question. What we see as a primary controversy in the latter years of theological construction are minor details, like bodily resurrection vs. spirit resurrection and other meaningless banter. The last great controversy was most likely settled by Paul, that being the inclusion of Gentiles into the salvation process.

What we are left with is that by 70AD, a mere 40 years after the crucifixion, we see a pretty solid record (or fabrication) of the figure of Jesus. This is far different than claiming the story of Jesus was established centuries after, as it has been claimed here.

More later...

Flick

[Gregor]

Stamenflicker's post is beyond the pale - for someone wishing to make a cogent argument.

1. Are we to believe that his prior statements regarding the recapitulation of Psalm 22 were meant to be facetious?? That term means joking. His prior post was never intended as a joke - it was the primary basis of his argument for the accuracy of Mark's crucifixion narrative.

2. The Psalm is Messianic?? What craziness is that - you're 750 years too early for messiahship. I've already explained how Mark is entirely consistent with a fabrication - if the goal was to make the conquered Jews see the "truth" of Jesus.

3. Finally, the pinnacle of an outrageous statement for a literal christian:

" [most debate involves] minor details, like bodily resurrection vs. spirit resurrection and other meaningless banter.

MINOR details?
MEANINGLESS banter??

Bodily resurrection is the bedrock of the Christian faith. You have the gall to come here and argue historicity (and inerrancy, to a degree), and call bodily resurrection meaningless?

Wow

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
... I'm trying to make the case that the bulk of Christian theology, true or not, was established by the turn of the century, countering the notion that the Bible was written over the course of 1,000 years as purported here. Attempt to make whatever case you wish, but do not pretend to make it based on textual criticism when, with the exception of scraps such as P46 and P52, there is no Antre-Nicene text to analyze.

As for your suggestion that Christology was essentially established by 100 CE, might I suggest that you first study up on Gnosticism Marcionism Arianism Origenism Manichaeism Docetism Donatism Eunomianism Nestorianism Pelagianism for a start. What you call Christianity is precisely the interpolated and harmonized outcome of vicious doctrinal struggles as preserved by the victors.

[stamenflicker]

The Psalm is Messianic?? What craziness is that - you're 750 years too early for messiahship. I've already explained how Mark is entirely consistent with a fabrication - if the goal was to make the conquered Jews see the "truth" of Jesus.

Gregor,

I continually ignore you because I don't care for your tone. But the above statement is difficult to ignore. Messianic passages have a rich history in the Jewish tradition, and yes this passage was considered prophetic, even Messianic, in some Jewish circles as early as the pre-exilic period. Arguments arose even during the Masoretic period of 1000-500 BC about the text. Some felt like it referred to Esther, others a Messianic figure yet to come. Granted, Messianic history in Judaism is complex, often conflicting, but to place your claim in context, I'd say maybe 300 years too early. Either way, the fact that it was interpreted as Messianic at any point is reason enough for me to have included it in what I typed.

Bodily resurrection is the bedrock of the Christian faith. You have the gall to come here and argue historicity (and inerrancy, to a degree), and call bodily resurrection meaningless?

Bodily resurrection is not the bedrock of the Christian faith. I'm not a literalist. Nor am I a inerrancy nut. I believe both testaments are fallible. This post is about fabrication claims, and things embedded in the text that should be considered before jumping that gun.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

As for your suggestion that Christology was essentially established by 100 CE, might I suggest that you first study up on

RD,

What you neglect to consider is that all of these interpretations of the event, theological formations, or what have you are based on the same story. If you want to argue that Christian theology is in constant flux, have at it. God knows Jerry Falwell and I are at opposite extremes. But to argue that the story was re-written, re-fabricated, and adjusted to fit theology is just not the case. There are minor exceptions I'll admit. But the bulk of the story, the event, or the fabrication was set prior to 100AD. I'd bet it was even set by the end of Paul's ministry. That's been my only point from the start.

Flick

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
This post is about fabrication claims, and things embedded in the text that should be considered before jumping that gun.What text? What date? :rolleyes:

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
What you neglect to consider is that all of these interpretations of the event, theological formations, or what have you are based on the same story. You don't say! What story and what does this have to do with textual criticism? Please let me know if and when you intend to answer the 7 questions raised above. I'm beginning to believe that you are simply incapable of either focus or intellectual honesty.

[xrayecho]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Bodily resurrection is not the bedrock of the Christian faith. I'm not a literalist. Nor am I a inerrancy nut. I believe both testaments are fallible.

Flick [/B]

What would you consider to be the bedrock of Chrisitian faith?

[Denise]

bump

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by stamenflicker

Bodily resurrection is not the bedrock of the Christian faith. I'm not a literalist. Nor am I a inerrancy nut. I believe both testaments are fallible. This post is about fabrication claims, and things embedded in the text that should be considered before jumping that gun.

Flick

It is a good thing not to believe in literalism or inerrancy of the Bible. The Bible is the word of man.

You may believe in God - or not; or believe in Jesus - or not; or believe that the Bible was inspired by God - or not. But do not doubt that the Bible was created by the actions of hundreds, if not thousands, of men.

For what it's worth: I personally believe that the Bible, as a historical document, establishes the case for the existence of a man named Jesus.

[Fade]

Originally posted by Denise
bump

Why did you bump this nasty old thing?

[stamenflicker]

What you call Christianity is precisely the interpolated and harmonized outcome of vicious doctrinal struggles as preserved by the victors.

Nope. What I call Christianity is deeply embedded in the writings of the apostle Paul which history has demonstrated to have been written BEFORE any of these theological debates. The outcome did not go the victors. The outcome returned to the core fundamentals preached by the first generation of Christians...

How did I miss that one? I don't think RD is around anymore.

Flick

[DrChinese]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
What I call Christianity is deeply embedded in the writings of the apostle Paul which history has demonstrated to have been written BEFORE any of these theological debates. The outcome did not go the victors. The outcome returned to the core fundamentals preached by the first generation of Christians...

Flick

Your implication is that the Pauline letters are more fundamental to your beliefs than the Gospels. Or did I misread this?

Certainly, the ultimately selected Gospels (being Matthew, Mark, Luke, John) represented the results of debates within the early church - a church which you - as a non-Catholic (my assumption, correct me if it is wrong) - do not subscribe to.

In other words, the final New Testament was a synthesis of many works written over three or four generations beginning with Paul. And the selection process was substantially controlled by the early Roman Catholic Church.

So I can agree that the Pauline letters were relatively untouched by the heavy editorial hand of the early church, but that sorta leaves you out in left field (theologically speaking).

[Ruby]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Loki,

Thanks for actually reading what I posted instead and responding instead of jumping off track.

[B]The martyrs you refer to are not the 'fabricators'. Assuming it's all a big lie, there would have been only a very small number (less than 10?) who knew the truth.

Perhaps... say Jesus and his merry men. Even if only a handful of the disciples new the truth of fabrication. Here are the counter points:

First, we have the problem of Paul. Paul never saw Jesus, never met him in person. Paul wrote about 1/2 of the NT a few years after the crucifixion and is responsible for a large portion of Christain theological construction. Paul was beaten and jailed, and eventually according to tradition, beheaded. Beheading aside, we know he spent a lot of time in jail. Paul is not only believing the previous fabrications, he is extending the fabrications with a new theology he says he has received divinely from the orignial fabricator. What's the odds of two fabricators within 50 years of each other willing to die for the same fabricated theme? Also Paul admits that his own hands are bloody in that he participated in the killing of Christians before conversion-- evidence that indeed there was killing taking place soon after the crucifixion.

Second regarding Paul, we see him fighting with one of the first fabricators in Antioch (Peter) about whether or not the orgininal fabricator (Jesus) meant for his fabrications to extend to non-Jews. So if all this has been fabrication, we have several players extending approximately 25-50 years after Jesus' death.

Third, we have to assume the fabricator (Jesus) never wrote anything down, or that the true fabricators lived in 100AD and thought to themselves they needed to create a religion. That's very problematic in two ways. If if the former is true, then he had a lot of trust in word of mouth. If you are going to create a religion, you'd think you'd need to write something down. Unless of course the Jesus himself had no idea what was to later be fabricated. If the latter statement is true, why create a religion about a guy that lived several years ago and was crucified? The fabricators could go to any point in history and write about any figure, or not create a human figure at all.

What you are saying is music to my ears!!!:D :D

[stamenflicker]

In other words, the final New Testament was a synthesis of many works written over three or four generations beginning with Paul. And the selection process was substantially controlled by the early Roman Catholic Church.

Sure thing about the NT, though the core tenants of it (the story, likely oral tradition) seem to have affected Paul in a profound manner and were likely in place before he began writing, perhaps even in rough draft forms, though that is speculation. After all, Paul was converted to "something."

What matters to me is that this guy decided to put his ladder on the Jesus wall based solely on the narrative of what he had heard (and experienced en route to Damacus), historical figure or not. He was clearly intelligent, so we can hardly consider him a fool. Obviously he wasn't hurting too bad for cash because he held such a high status in religious/educated circles, so the idea of Paul as charlatin seems far-fetched too. This "Christ" clearly meant something too him at an ideological level, and the details were mostly irrelevant. I mostly share his views.

Flick

[Jethro]

Forum Necromancy!!!

[ceo_esq]

Flick,

I know we've probably covered this ground in other threads, but don't even non-literalists generally take the view that bodily resurrection is absolutely key to Christian soteriology? Wouldn't Paul have thought so?

Make no mistake: if He rose at all
it was as His body;
if the cells’ dissolution did not reverse, the molecules reknit,
the amino acids rekindle,
the Church will fall.

(John Updike, "Seven Stanzas at Easter")

[Loki]

Flick,

Like ceo_esq, I'm curious to know what sense of the word "christian" is implied by someone who's prepared to pass on the resurrection. Doesn't that sort of leave :

1. There is a god. He's probably quite nice.
2. He doesn't interfere in earthly affairs (anymore).
3. When we die, he sorts us into "good" and "bad", ("so be good for goodness sake...")

What else is left if Jesus is an optional extra?

[Gregor]

And if SFlick or Ruby base their entire reason for believing because Paul, who could have chosen not to follow Jesus, decided to follow him because: (i) Paul heard a few interesting stories, (ii) Paul claimed to hear a voice, and (iii) Paul was willing to die for his belief - you've got a BIG problem.

May I offer exhibit A: Heaven's Gate

I doubt you guys are going to buy black nikes now.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Gregor
May I offer exhibit A: Heaven's Gate

I doubt you guys are going to buy black nikes now.
I might buy the shoes, but I'd stop short of cutting off my nads.

[Dancing David]

Originally posted by Loki
Flick,

Like ceo_esq, I'm curious to know what sense of the word "christian" is implied by someone who's prepared to pass on the resurrection. Doesn't that sort of leave :

1. There is a god. He's probably quite nice.
2. He doesn't interfere in earthly affairs (anymore).
3. When we die, he sorts us into "good" and "bad", ("so be good for goodness sake...")

What else is left if Jesus is an optional extra?

Back before I found other paths I was a Jesus freak, raised in the cult of Christ Science and gentled by the Jesus people.
I felt at the time that the resurection of the body of Christ was the church and that the kingdom of heaven was meant as a metaphor for bringing the beauty of an open heart into the world. Jesus never meant that people would live after death, he used the garden analogy instead.
I thought at the time that resurection meant that a follower of Jesus would be so instructed by the teachings that they would live life as Jesus taught. I also faulted the disciples for not being able to preform miracles.
Needless to say I had many entertaining arguements with people.

My two cents: fortunatley I found a way to walk in beauty that does not involve the Xian church, my path is even crazier now!

Peace
dancing david

[stamenflicker]

Like ceo_esq, I'm curious to know what sense of the word "christian" is implied by someone who's prepared to pass on the resurrection.

I believe the resurrection. I just don't see it as a necessary belief. the apostle Paul would for sure disagree with me on that one:

"If Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and we are to pitied above all men."

I suppose I just disagree with him.

Flick