The mythical Jesus

[Amanda]

Yes, that's all Rohl's stuff. I've read the whole site before I posted the link. I spent also this day to read about the Nuzi, Qatna, Ugarit, Mari, Ebla and El Amarna tablets. I couldn't find many of them online. Only the latter, El Amarna or [2]. If you find electronic texts, I'd like you to link them. If you don't mind.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sorry Saviourmachine... I never even heard of these Amarna Tablets, nor the Qatna Tablets or any of these other ones either, till your posts. I do plan on looking into them, as you have them posted, and if I discover anything in another search... I will definitely share it with you. Can't do it tonight... its too late... goodnight. Hopefully tomarrow...

[- AUB -]

On mythicism. There's be some good posts here (Antlerman's especially), the teachings of Jesus being more important than his existence and such, (though I think the good teaching are tainted by all the bad, and the fact that these are propaganda for an insidious cult) But I think a more interested point is demonstrated here. Its not that the mythicist arguments are solid, its that the historical ones are terrible, theists here have offered fallacies, mindless rhetoric and reliance on debunked evidence, the article dealing with Earl Doherty for example was full of such basic errors that I just couldn’t be bothered to deal with it.

 

As to Rohl, OT’s not my field but this re-arranging of dates is irrelevant, as even if the bible got Ramses's dates right, there's still a load of evidence missing for the exodus, slaves etc, and there's a reason this guy is at odds with all archaeologists. I mean one “agnostic” who just happens to confirm all the bible, please.

 

Amanda seems very credulous when it comes to examples that support her belief. Some of the material she has presented is incredibly bad, and this is the problem, anything will do for a theist, its the lack of standards that is the biggest problem. It’s just that the more effort I put into research the more obvious is the laziness of the theist, particularly on biblical issues. Even many freethinkers here have no idea how much work is needed to find the truth, maybe the strain of it is getting to me. But I mean fancy still offering the Ossuary box.

 

Amanda, you need to think more critically about what you present, as you seem to just jump on anything that agrees with what you believe, regardless of how foolish it is. I might be able to demonstrate the problem if you present a few arguments here.

[Amanda]

On mythicism. There's be some good posts here (Antlerman's especially), the teachings of Jesus being more important than his existence and such,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AUB, thanks for bringing that to my attention. I'll look for Antlerman's posts.

As to Rohl, OT’s not my field but this re-arranging of dates is irrelevant, as even if the bible got Ramses's dates right, there's still a load of evidence missing for the exodus, slaves etc, and there's a reason this guy is at odds with all archaeologists. I mean one “agnostic” who just happens to confirm all the bible, please. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if Rohl is the ONLY agnostic supporter... yet there are others. As I understand it, according to Rohl... the Bible doesn't date Ramses being the Pharoah, the Egyptologist did that in their hurry to equate him to the Exodus. The new findings of Rohl place another Pharoah for the Exodus that seems to now help substantiate the Bible's account of history to other records after all. Rohl's book claims "Artapanus refers to Pharaoh Khenephres who had a daughter who adopted a Hebrew child who grew up to become Prince Mousos." at this site: http://www.northforest.org/classic/archaeo...ses.html#goshen

 

The same argument could be used such as your side against Biblical scholars' finds, with the Christian/Jewish side against atheists' finds, couldn't it? Sure, each side can't help but have at least a hidden agenda! Why not just look at the evidence and pick whose conclusions ring with the most probabilities to you, or pick a conclusion for one's self? Why dismiss the evidence just because you don't agree with the person's religous affiliations? Biblical archeology is a rather new field to have figured it all out yet! I think all of archeology is rather new, other than to just find hidden monetary treasures, instead of substantiating knowledge for history's sake.

Amanda seems very credulous when it comes to examples that support her belief. Some of the material she has presented is incredibly bad, and this is the problem, anything will do for a theist, its the lack of standards that is the biggest problem. It’s just that the more effort I put into research  the more obvious is the laziness of the theist, particularly on biblical issues. Even many freethinkers here have no idea how much work is needed to find the truth, maybe the strain of it is getting to me. But I mean fancy still offering the Ossuary box.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AUB, I will admit that it is rather new to me to use something other than the Bible to substantiate my Biblical beliefs. Not to mention your affinity to nonBiblical resources for supporting your position is far superior to my novice attempts using these same ilk of resources to validate my position. It is still a wonderful experience for me, and hope to pursue more of this avenue!

 

I'll acknowledge that I just recently found out about the Ossuary box... and I'll concede that it appears that a second inscription was done later than the first... where it says something like 'the brother of Jesus', and it claims to have been buried in contrary to some traditional customs. It seems that much of the rest of the evidence still leaves it with the possibility to be true. Now if it was the other way around, with the second inscription claiming this to NOT be the brother of Jesus... you and others would probably say that it was word of mouth passed down and designating this for us so that NO ONE could misconstrue this with supporting the myth of Jesus... right?

Amanda, you need to think more critically about what you present, as you seem to just jump on anything that agrees with what you believe, regardless of how foolish it is. I might be able to demonstrate the problem if you present a few arguments here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AUB, I appreciate any help anyone could give me! Thanks! Am I going to be able to match you in your more pervasive nonBiblical resources in which to critique my newly acquired information? I don't think so any time soon. AUB, there are some very academic intellectual people on this site that are also very generous with their knowledge... and I'm so fortunate that many of them have had patience worthy of praise. I present information in a debate, I usually list my resources for their scrutiny, and I listen to their rebuttal and read the resources they offer in its support... and I have changed my mind many, many times (yet not always). Especially concerning discussions with HanSolo and Spooky. Their patience and manner are so commendable! I apologize if I frustrate you, it is never intentionally. I am really making an effort to understand what many here are offering from their insights.

[Saviourmachine]

I don't know if Rohl is the ONLY agnostic supporter... yet there are others.

Hey Amanda. Maybe you'll find the site http://www.specialtyinterests.net/ interesting. It's not merely copying Rohl or Velikovsky, but Mackey (and others) use their material to reconstruct history for themselves.

 

I don't know of a site that presents the conventional chronology for layman in such a way.

[- AUB -]

I don't know if Rohl is the ONLY agnostic supporter... yet there are others. As I understand it, according to Rohl...

 

Yes according to him, and only him, only a theist could believe anyone could use the bible to reorganise archaeological discoveries, this is wishful thinking that only fools those already convinced. Revisionism is a sinister practice. I won’t go into this any more as the OT is not my field of study right now. Though I’m well aware that all legitimate archaeology is entirely against it, this is just spin with dates and names. Asiatic huts does not make up for the lack of an exodus in the desert. The evidence against the conquest is even more solid, as it archaeological and biblical.

 

The same argument could be used such as your side against Biblical scholars' finds, with the Christian/Jewish side against atheists' finds, couldn't it?

 

That is simplifying the situation. For the most part I and many Jews are united against xtianity as we both recognise Jesus as a false (Jewish) messiah for precisely the same reasons. +Plus for me to oppose a religion I have to regard it has a lie and immoral, but Judaism is not immoral so I don’t oppose it, and even help it when threatened by xtianty or its other enemies.

 

Sure, each side can't help but have at least a hidden agenda!

 

I have no “hidden” agenda, my only goal is the truth, and ethicism.

 

Why not just look at the evidence and pick whose conclusions ring with the most probabilities to you, or pick a conclusion for one's self?

 

That is what I do, objectively, whereas the theist “picks” the evidence that supports their beliefs, and ignored the rest. This is not about sides or agendas, this is about the objective mind Vs the subjective one. Your Rohl appears to have greater explanatory power if you focus only on each of his areas, but in totality he explains far less than the legitimate conclusion.

 

Why dismiss the evidence just because you don't agree with the person's religous affiliations?

 

In this case the guy is “agnostic” so it doesn’t apply, you accuse me of being biased against someone’s work due to their faith, but as an Empiricist the data is all that matters. I never usually bother to check a persons faith or agenda unless I have reason to doubt the work. At times I can’t help but notice a certain pattern of falsehood, I then check for motive. I am aware that certain agendas, particularly religious and ideological ones foster scores of “experts” who tend to lie for a living. Holocaust deniers, creationists etc.

 

Biblical archeology is a rather new field to have figured it all out yet!

 

Biblical archeology is by definition a fraud. There is archeology, and nothing else. The moment you start digging around with an agenda, biblical or otherwise, that’s when you’ll find what you’re looking for, but not the truth. Is there such a thing as atheist archaeology? No, I except whatever archaeology uncovers, when done by respectable professionals with no ideological or theological agenda.

 

I don’t just except what evidence supports my beliefs because my beliefs are the result of all evidence, I seek the truth for its own sake, I don’t embrace a “truth” that suites me. I’ve no need to pick and choose with no fear of the facts, unlike so many of your theistic brethren, who rely on apologists and creationist to manufacture reason to ignore the facts. We don’t need our views to be supported by “humanist science”, or “secular apologetics”, the facts alone, the plain objective reality is the basis of my view, and nothing in this universe ever contradicts my position, because my position is whatever the universe reveals, and it is always at odds with religion. That is not my fault, blame the universe. All Biblical archaeologists are no more than apologists, selling reassurance to the sheeple, creationists with trowels.

 

I think all of archeology is rather new, other than to just find hidden monetary treasures, instead of substantiating knowledge for history's sake.

 

For a relatively new field it has done a remarkable job of debunking the bible, this is empiricism, the arch enemy of faith. Have you gone through all the immense amount of evidence from digs in Israel, Sinai and Egypt that blows the bible away? Can this Rohl account for it all? Or have you limited your studies to what agrees with you?

 

AUB, I will admit that it is rather new to me to use something other than the Bible to substantiate my Biblical beliefs.

 

Therein lies the whole problem, most theists cannot think outside the bible, and use passages and quotes on us, even though that obviously won’t work with us. A myopic view is endemic to theism.

 

Not to mention your affinity to nonBiblical resources for supporting your position is far superior to my novice attempts using these same ilk of resources to validate my position.

 

That’s the key to biblical scholarship, context is more important than content. Historical, religious, cultural, without these insights into the relevent regions and social environment at those times, no bible reader can fully understand what they are reading. You can’t go through the bible and comprehend it all, anymore than you can get all of Shakespeare’s references without an Elizabethan era primer. Such tunnel vision as theists employ guarantees that ignorance is the biggest obstacle to enlightening them. I’m glad you recognise your previous dependence on only the bible, but common-sense says its ridiculous to expect you can do all necessary research using one book. Not that theists can’t twist other sources, but then debunking the bible with just bible passages is possible as well. Many of its flaws, contradictions and errors are self evident, the rest need to be compared to other accounts of the time, or to scientific knowledge before they are discredited, (creationism is of course an attempt to deal with the later). The trial of Jesus for example is disproved by more contemporary accounts than anything else in the entire bible. In fact the NT is far easier to disprove than the OT given the far greater amount of data we have on that time.

 

In mythicism particularly, theists and others read only the bible and tend to conclude Jesus existed, but that’s what the writers want you to do. Read only their propaganda and ignore everything else, all contemporary evidence, or differing opinions. Just the works designed to convince you. That is not balanced study, would you consider watching only Nazi propaganda films when researching the second world war? Without knowledge of the extra biblical “evidence” you can’t make the determination that there isn’t any. Ruling out Jesus’ existence is simple enough once all the “proof” has been discredited, i.e. the gospels, epistles and the secular report, Josephus etc. That can be done in a few weeks. Piecing together how Jesus came about is far far harder, and involves and intense study of metaphysical idealism, and the works of Philo, Aristotle etc. Only then can the huge gap between Old and New testament theology be bridged. To think you can find the truth from one book is absurd.

[- AUB -]

I'll acknowledge that I just recently found out about the Ossuary box... and I'll concede that it appears that a second inscription was done later than the first... where it says something like 'the brother of Jesus', and it claims to have been buried in contrary to some traditional customs. It seems that much of the rest of the evidence still leaves it with the possibility to be true.

 

They arrested the guy that did it, found his lab, and disproved others he made. Proved empirically it was fake (I’ve read the lab report), end of story. Flogging this dead horse is as desperate as the Turin shroud, this is not a matter of interpretation or possibility, this is empirical fact. I wish theists would admit to their subjective bias instead of claiming to be all for facts, were not stupid. Even the discovery channel admitted this brought the tally of evidence for Jesus back to zero.

 

Now if it was the other way around, with the second inscription claiming this to NOT be the brother of Jesus... you and others would probably say that it was word of mouth passed down and designating this for us so that NO ONE could misconstrue this with supporting the myth of Jesus... right?

 

Pardon?

 

Am I going to be able to match you in your more pervasive nonBiblical resources in which to critique my newly acquired information?

 

No theist has yet, but try it anyway.

 

AUB, there are some very academic intellectual people on this site that are also very generous with their knowledge... and I'm so fortunate that many of them have had patience worthy of praise.

 

Patients leads to more deconverts, the main problem is lack of time, I could write tens of thousands of words a week here, as I once did, but like Remus my research is taking everything over.

 

I apologize if I frustrate you, it is never intentionally.

 

It’s not you I’m frustrated with its the whole situation theism creates, when it lies to millions all the time. The degree of miss-education developed to counter education is in the US is only going to get worse. I don’t want a second dark age, but I see it coming in the awful posts theists in their ignorance put on the web. They’ve even taken to pod-casting their idiocy.

[Antlerman]

Biblical archeology is by definition a fraud. There is archeology, and nothing else. The moment you start digging around with an agenda, biblical or otherwise, that’s when you’ll find what you’re looking for, but not the truth. Is there such a thing as atheist archaeology? No, I except whatever archaeology uncovers, when done by respectable professionals with no ideological or theological agenda.

 

I don’t just except what evidence supports my beliefs because my beliefs are the result of all evidence, I seek the truth for its own sake, I don’t embrace a “truth” that suites me. I’ve no need to pick and choose with no fear of the facts, unlike so many of your theistic brethren, who rely on apologists and creationist to manufacture reason to ignore the facts. We don’t need our views to be supported by “humanist science”, or “secular apologetics”, the facts alone, the plain objective reality is the basis of my view, and nothing in this universe ever contradicts my position, because my position is whatever the universe reveals, and it is always at odds with religion. That is not my fault, blame the universe.

I just had to highlight this quote from you since it says so perfectly states my thoughts. Thanks AUB!

[Cynical Realist]

This was pretty much the nail in the coffin for me as far as being a christian. I had never heard of these things before about a year ago and when I started studying about the existence of jesus (or lack thereof) that was the end of christianity for me.

[Eponymic]

It’s not you I’m frustrated with its the whole situation theism creates, when it lies to millions all the time. The degree of miss-education developed to counter education is in the US is only going to get worse. I don’t want  a second dark age, but I see it coming in the awful posts theists in their ignorance put on the web. They’ve even taken to pod-casting their idiocy.

 

I'm totally with you here AUB. The rampant ignorance in this country is going to have to either break or consume us. And hopefully those of us who know better will help overcome the money & power wielded by the snake oil peddlers who would rather keep us in the dark.

[Amanda]

Hey Amanda. Maybe you'll find the site http://www.specialtyinterests.net/ interesting. It's not merely copying Rohl or Velikovsky, but Mackey (and others) use their material to reconstruct history for themselves.

 

I don't know of a site that presents the conventional chronology for layman in such a way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Saviourmachine, thanks for sharing a great site!!!

 

It was disappointing that some areas seem to be only in German right now. Do you speak German too? How many languages do you speak... besides Dutch, English, and Spanish?

 

The area I read, Toledoth, seems to dismantle the traditional Creationist's theory of the world being made in 6 days... using the Bible itself! I didn't believe the 6 literal days anyway. It explains much more, and the possible reasons of what appears to be these many one sided narratives in the Bible, with which I had concerns. Lots of areas to pursue, where should I begin looking?

[Amanda]

Yes according to him, and only him, only a theist could believe anyone could use the bible to reorganise archaeological discoveries, this is wishful thinking that only fools those already convinced.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AUB, with all due respect, besides your disdain for David Rohl's theories validating the historical accounts of the OT and pointing to what clearly seems to be mistakes the "legitimate" Egyptologist made... you don't give me any research resources or lines of reason to debunk his theory.

Revisionism is a sinister practice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Anthropological finds seem to do this, as even historical accounts of discoveries... such as Columbus being the first one to discover America. I'm curious to know, once a theory is popular, should we just turn a blind eye to ANYTHING else?

For the most part I and many Jews are united against xtianity as we both recognise Jesus as a false (Jewish) messiah for precisely the same reasons.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Many Jews perceived a different interpretation. It does seem to me that Jesus did fulfill the prophecies, yet in a different manner than what was expected. I have tremendous respect for the Jewish people, and am against no one.

I have no “hidden” agenda, my only goal is the truth, and ethicism.

That is what I do, objectively, whereas the theist “picks” the evidence that supports their beliefs, and ignored the rest.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps you stereotype theist? Maybe one of your agendas in this regard is hidden from yourself?

Biblical archeology is by definition a fraud. There is archeology, and nothing else.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps the Biblical account, which seems to be the only historical account of such, is just a beginning reference for their search? Nothing more. The evidence they present appears to not have been altared to validate scriptural accounts as understood today... because their findings don't usually match or support it perfectly.

We don’t need our views to be supported by “humanist science”, or “secular apologetics”, the facts alone, the plain objective reality is the basis of my view, and nothing in this universe ever contradicts my position, because my position is whatever the universe reveals, and it is always at odds with religion. That is not my fault, blame the universe.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

AUB, with respect, should everyone just close shop and wait for you to tell us what the "truth' is? What the universe reveals is different to different people... including scientists! Sure, there seems to be a popular theory at the moment... yet it is ONLY a concensus.... not TOTAL agreement... and that's a good thing IMO. Objective evidence is changing with new objective evidence all the time, and the more diverse the perspectives are... wouldn't that increase the boundaries available to explore?

Have you gone through all the immense amount of evidence from digs in Israel, Sinai and Egypt that blows the bible away?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I have read evidence that supports some of the Bible, and I've read evidence that doesn't. I guess you're too busy to post any research sites to your many claims, so I will just consider your remarks the next time I go exploring in thses areas.

Therein lies the whole problem, most theists cannot think outside the bible, and use passages and quotes on us, even though that obviously won’t work with us. A myopic view is endemic to theism.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, I love science and have an immense respect and fascination for it! How did you get my reference to David Rohl's work as using Biblical text to validate anything?

I’m glad you recognise your previous dependence on only the bible, but common-sense says its ridiculous to expect you can do all necessary research using one book.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I said that I'm use to using only the Bible to validate the Bible, moreover, my interpretation of it! My studies of the Bible focused on the validity of the message as important, as it involves relationships with others, with the world, and with one's self. If these messages gives one the sense they are a better person, able to maneuver through the world better than before their revelations... that is generally good enough validation... unless something better comes along. It ususally does, and I am revising my beliefs and understandings all the time. I hope I stay open to all things. Yet, I'm familiar with several scientific theories that were absolutely not acquired from the Bible.

In mythicism particularly, theists and others read only the bible and tend to conclude Jesus existed, but that’s what the writers want you to do. Read only their propaganda and ignore everything else, all contemporary evidence, or differing opinions. Just the works designed to convince you. That is not balanced study,

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hey, AUB... you forget... I'm here on ExChristian.net... please remember.

[- AUB -]

you don't give me any research resources or lines of reason to debunk his theory.

 

That’s just it, any archaeology site will do, just compare, either this guy’s somehow got it right and everyone else is wrong or this is just another fringe nut. Besides as I said twice before, I’m not doing the OT right now, and have enough to research, I’m sure a google will find his critics.

 

Anthropological finds seem to do this, as even historical accounts of discoveries... such as Columbus being the first one to discover America. I'm curious to know, once a theory is popular, should we just turn a blind eye to ANYTHING else?

 

Good question. There is good revisionism, and bad revisionism. Good is, like with Columbus or the Bible, when a majority opinion, held through simple honest ignorance or tyrannical imposition of an approved “history” is eroded by shear weight of evidence. We have the Viking settlements, we have the lack of Sinai remains. This is just like in science, a hypotheses falsified by empiricism, and perfectly normal. Bad revisionism is when a raving ideologue serving church or flag is forced to re-write history as a logical consequence of a certain position, or theory. Such as holocaust denial, which is the result of the theory that the world is controlled by a evil Jewish Cabal/Conspiracy, which doesn’t make sense if the holocaust is true, as they’d have prevented it, therefore it was just another one of their lies. Or in the case of biblical archaeology, biblical inerrantist unable to cope with any paradigm but the narrow minded crap they were spoon fed when growing up, deciding to fake a bunch of pious frauds, (a very old xtian tradition going back to the gospels) such as wood from Noah’s Ark, or blurred pictures allegedly of the 10 commandments, as well as the bones of Goliath like giants, (very popular right now). Its very easy to tell the difference between these two revisions.

 

Many Jews perceived a different interpretation. It does seem to me that Jesus did fulfill the prophecies, yet in a different manner than what was expected.

 

I wouldn’t recommend debating me on this one, its my speciality, I’ll just say that Jesus was no more the Messiah than I am, and the Jewish criteria Jesus fails to meet is the honest one, while the post-Jesus xtian version is the result of disingenuous interpretation, that defies context, plain reading and logic.

 

http://www.outreachjudaism.org/questions.html

 

Perhaps you stereotype theist? Maybe one of your agendas in this regard is hidden from yourself?

 

I speak from experience, and that of all freethinkers. If you can find another agenda I have, please tell me.

 

Perhaps the Biblical account, which seems to be the only historical account of such, is just a beginning reference for their search? Nothing more.

 

The bible can serve as a reference, but not as the presupposed truth, that is what I object to. Besides most of the eras it deal with are actually better covered than people think. For e.g. we have proof that the Egyptians controlled Canaan during the patriarchal era, something totally against genesis. And as for the NT, we have so much evidence for that period, it allows us to spot thousands of errors it makes, in geography, Jewish practices, the Sanhedrin, Herod, Pilot, golgotha, the temple, the language, dates etc.

 

http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/rmsbrg00.htm#CONTENTS

 

The evidence they present appears to not have been altared to validate scriptural accounts as understood today... because their findings don't usually match or support it perfectly.

 

They aren’t stupid, too close is suspicious, besides many do go over board. Western archaeology in Israel started with the express purpose of confirming the bible, (it never occurred to them it wouldn’t) For decades they presented their findings to the public as if it did, then slowly less evangelical ones, and Jews, started to show that in fact nothing of the bible is accurate. No Exodus, conquest, golden age, the Jews evolved as polytheists during the 1st temple out of the Canaanite population, all this is the majority opinion now, outside xtian denials. (even many Israelis admit this) That’s why it is either a strictly secular exercise or totally bible-thumping nutty, polarisation due to no common ground in fact.

 

AUB, with respect, should everyone just close shop and wait for you to tell us what the "truth' is?

 

I don’t tell anyone anything but my opinion, and what facts I have found, I always make the distinction.

 

What the universe reveals is different to different people... including scientists!

 

Which is what empiricism is for, filtering out the personal, to find the objective.

 

Sure, there seems to be a popular theory at the moment... yet it is ONLY a concensus.... not TOTAL agreement... and that's a good thing IMO.

 

That’s right, empiricism allows great freedom, this is what I believe in, not however subjective warping of shoddy data.

[- AUB -]

Objective evidence is changing with new objective evidence all the time, and the more diverse the perspectives are... wouldn't that increase the boundaries available to explore?

 

Yes, but only within the realm of empirical science, this does not mean you can buy into anything that has no empical basis. Your belief that you have empirical facts on your side is subjectivly biased. You won't agree but that is how I see it, given my knowledge of xtianity, reality and what this allows me to infer with certainty.

 

I have read evidence that supports some of the Bible, and I've read evidence that doesn't. I guess you're too busy to post any research sites to your many claims, so I will just consider your remarks the next time I go exploring in thses areas.

 

I’ll be surprised if the evidence that supports the bible, (except in a largely irrelevant general way) isn’t from xtian sites. I encourage people to stick to mainstream sources, that can be found everywhere, there is no need to post specific sites. I know of no empirical confirmation of any bible passages, that are not bound to be right anyway, and many facts that so badly contradict as to refute the credibility of the entire thing. That is based on a broad area of study, its always the same picture. When one voice challenges it, I am very sceptical, if I have time I’ll look more into Rohl, I don’t expect to be surprised. When you’ve been through so many frauds, and debunkings, you get complacent, for good reason. I see the chances of xtianity being right as zero. And that’s as open-minded as I can possibly get, given all I know.

 

How did you get my reference to David Rohl's work as using Biblical text to validate anything?

 

I was referring to theism in general, most of my comments are general, not personal, I deal with things on a broader scale, its my tactic.

 

I said that I'm use to using only the Bible to validate the Bible, moreover, my interpretation of it!

 

Interpretation is very personal, I just compare it to reality and see if it fits, the truth is all that matters to me, not any interpretation. Assuming the bible is true in one area to prove the truth of another is such a common tactic for xtians, we are weary of all who stick too much to it. It’s very annoying.

 

My studies of the Bible focused on the validity of the message as important, as it involves relationships with others, with the world, and with one's self.

 

Treating it as a guide and friend, that’s fine if it a self help manual you’re after. You can get that from a lot of things; I’d just rather it wasn’t from something that contains evil and lies. They may not adversely effect you, as it doesn’t with many others, but every now and again it starts a war, or a subtler evil. It’d be nice to know if it was true, and whether it can be held responsible, that’s my area of study. For the kind of thing you’re into I just use reason, or material philosphy. Simple, and with no side effects.

What you get out of the bible can still be obtained if we critical thinkers show it to be all metaphor and allegory. Then those that saw it as fact will has to stop the more extreme forms of religious expression. If the bibles are not historical or divine, then we end the Jewish settler problems, xtians no longer believe they have the right to persecute gays, and Muslims no longer blow themselves up. I’d settle for a new agey view of them, but the belief in absolutes, deities and lies has to end.

 

If these messages gives one the sense they are a better person, able to maneuver through the world better than before their revelations... that is generally good enough validation... unless something better comes along.

 

Validation of your ability to improve yourself with a little placebo. This is the same error as assuming an objective reality based on an emotional one, “I feel jesus, therefore he exits” etc. A moral or life changing “truth” is subjective, the Koran is true in that sense for many. Its objective truths I’m after, the rest is up to the rest of you, and your choices.

 

and I am revising my beliefs and understandings all the time. I hope I stay open to all things.

 

As all should.

 

Yet, I'm familiar with several scientific theories that were absolutely not acquired from the Bible.

 

Name one that is. You’re not saying the bible is a science text book as well are you? I get enough of that from creationists.

 

Hey, AUB... you forget... I'm here on ExChristian.net... please remember.

 

Again general comments.

[- AUB -]

http://www.depts.drew.edu/jhc/doherty_price.html

 

this review by Doherty deals with the entire spectrum of this issue.