Why Focus On The Bible First, And Proof God Is Real Second?

[Mriana]

HanSolo, I'm sorry, but what you just said makes no logical sense to me. What does make sense is a progression of human thought that moved from animism to anthropomorphism, from (oh let's just pull one out of our hat, for simplicity) Egyptian myth to Hebrew myth to Xian myth. The Jews did have a lot of influence from the Egyptians, Babylonians, etc etc. Many of their stories came from there and were set to their culture (see Victor H. Matthews, a uni prof of religious studies books for a start). Midrash was a popular way for Hebrews/Jews of creating new stories for their people. The Jews started out as polytheistic and moved to monotheism, which is evident in the start of the OT and moving onward in it.

Ah. Okay. What you're saying is that the Christian religion got most of its pagan ideas from Judaism, from the beginning there. Do I understand you correct now? So the virgin birth, winder solstice celebration, etc, came from paganism through the Jewish culture.

 

No, it goes further back as I pointed out with Egyptian and Babylonian sources. Sadly, it doesn't look like you understand me still.

 

Just starting there and moving on with what I learned in my religious studies courses alone, with no outside sources, I get a glimpse in the progression of religious thought. Thus, I cannot make any sense out of what you are saying. It is just not logical, IMO. Now you can say I maybe deluded by my education alone, as well as other sources such as Spong, Acharya, Price, Harpur, and many many more, but my education alone doesn't give way to making sense out of what you are saying.

First of all, I'm no saying that you're deluded, second of all, so far what I see is that we can't trust any of the documents in history, and shouldn't assume that the Gnostic, Buddhist, Egyptian, or any other records to be any more reliable as historical sources than the Christian ones. And if my reasoning doesn't make sense to you, then I'm truly sorry, and I can only blame myself for not making myself clearer.

 

I'm afraid the unclear communication is going both ways.

[Guest Thor]

It goes back to the point I made earlier (& probably others as well) on page 9. Repeating rumors, traditions & myths doesn't constitute substantiating the claims with valid evidence. We are in the same position today as the earliest church fathers with no valid evidence supporting the claims :

Or Acharya S is just wrong about Josephus. Pseudoscience. It is possible at least, isn't it?

 

But maybe it is too much asked to even question her claims. WWJ seems to be your inerrant book.

 

LOL, Badger you have no idea how badly you just put your foot in your mouth - WWJ includes an almost entirely all Christian bibliography containing commentary from the following Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars:

 

* John Ankerberg

* Craig L. Blomberg

* F.F. Bruce

* William Lane Craig

* John Dominic Crossan

* Bart Ehrman

* Norman Geisler

* Gary Habermas

* Josh McDowell

* John P. Meier

* Bruce M. Metzger

* J.P. Moreland

* Ronald H. Nash

* Lee Strobel

* Merrill C. Tenney

* Ben Witherington

* Edwin Yamauchi

* And more!

 

WWJ also includes a Foreword by Dr. Robert M. Price!

http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/whowasjesus1.html

 

So, while you attack it without ever having read it calling it "Pseudoscience" etc, you are also inadvertently calling all those "Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars" "Pseudoscience" as well.

 

If you can't handle the heat of common sense criticism of Christianity then maybe it's best for you to stay out of the kitchen? If you're just going to support your biased beliefs regardless the evidence or lack of, then why even waste the time pretending?

[Ouroboros]

I'm afraid the unclear communication is going both ways.

Yes, I'm afraid so. Which means I will bow out and just let the subject rest and we'll see if I understand it better in the future.

[NonXNonExX]

Sorry, Mriana, but i didn't find HanSolo's last post to be confusing at all. In fact, i thought it was pretty close to what i believe based on a great deal of reading on the subject, though i think it was more complex than his version.

 

I think it started with a rebel Galilean fundamentalist Jew (possibly an Essene leader or someone heavily influenced by Essene thought) named Jesus who was crucified by the Romans for sedition after leading a failed revolution. James, possibly his blood brother, then took over his group. The only aim of the Galilean group was to get rid of the Romans and bring back "true Judaism." Paul, or someone using that name, was an unprincipled, self-aggrandizing opportunist who wrested the movement away from James' group by preaching a mystical version of the Jesus story, one that takes place entirely in the spirit world and one that would appeal to non-Jews. The few epistles he wrote himself were passed around, edited, merged and added to by the growing movement until there was only a central core of true Pauline words remaining. Later outright forgeries, politely known as pseudepigraphia, were written in his name to try to establish orthodoxy and settle disagreements.

 

In the meantime, the exploits of JC, whatever his real name and real story were, began to spread to the Jewish disaspora, where he became known as a great hero who stood up to the Romans. Someone (later called "Mark," who was probably not very well educated and certainly not a good Jew) eventually wrote down the legend from his home somewhere far from Jerusalem, complete with some miracles and OT connections to make the hero look even better. But the original version was so crude and full of errors that other authors felt obliged to write their own "corrected versions." The first version, however, was still well known and respected in the early Jesus circles so it survived in spite of its shortcomings. Others rewrote the story from different angles, with even more divergent details and more "heretical ideas." Eventually, the Pauline and gospel streams were combined, with perhaps some fiddling with Paul's epistles to make them more compatible and the addition of Acts to make Paul appear to be a team player, the books that disagreed with the growing "orthodoxy" advocated by those with the most power were thrown out, and voila! The Xtianity we all know and love was born.

 

Of course, this is still a gross oversimplification and it could have happened in a completely different way, but this seems to make the most sense to me based on what little we know. Now if we could only find that book JC wrote himself we could settle this once and for all!! At least we can all agree that if there ever was a real person behind the legend we will probably never know what the real person said or did. He was just of too little significance for anyone at the time to notice.

 

BTW, to get back to the original question, i think it's obvious. Without the bible, what evidence is there for Yahweh besides a few scratchings on ancient pottery shards here and there? On the other hand, i can easily see why a Xtian would want to divert attention away from the bible as evidence for anything but barbaric behavior.

[Guest Thor]

Hansolo "My problem is more about the progression of how it happened, and when it happened."

 

This is detailed on an over 60 page chapter in CIE titled, "The Alexandrian Roots of Christianity" beginning on page 431. There's simply too much history for it to be accurately described in a post.

 

H "And the thing is that we don't have to put it all in a false dilemma, where either MythJesus is true, or GodsSonJesus is true, and there's no middle ground. I think there is a middle ground. A theory that solves the problems"

 

Yes, the Egyptian & Indian devotees also believed their gods to be real. We have starting on page 10 in 'Christ in Egypt" a sub-section titled "God, Man or Myth?" and covers what you bring up here Hansolo and the entire 600 page book reiterates it throughout:

 

God, Man or Myth?

 

"A major source of confusion within the field of religion has occurred because there has existed a tendency over the centuries to make gods into men and men into gods. It is therefore imperative that we develop our skills for discernment as to what is historical and what is mythical ..... SNIP

 

"Nevertheless, even in ancient times the story of Osiris included his advent on what seems to be Earth, and, as related by historians Herodotus and Diodorus Siculus (c. 90-27 BCE) beginning centuries prior to the common era, many people have believed Osiris was a real person...."

 

- CIE 10

 

She provides a quote from Sir E.A. Wallis Budge was an Egyptologist (and a professed Christian) discussing these changes.

 

On page 11 in CIE:

 

"The tendency to make the gods into real people dates back into ancient times and was developed most notoriously by the Greek writer Euhemerus or Evemeros (c. 330/320-c. 260 BCE), who argued that the gods and goddesses of the day had been real people of old, such as kings, queens and other heroes and legendary figures. This thesis developed by Euhemerus may be called “euhemerism,” “evemerism”2 or the “evemerist position,” defined as follows:

 

"Evemerism represents the perspective that many of the gods and goddesses of antiquity had been real people, such as kings, queens and other heroes and legendary figures, to whose biographies were later added extraordinary and/or supernatural attributes."

 

- CIE 11

 

She goes on to explain the Mythicist Position on page 12. So, she lays all of this out in the introduction of "Christ in Egypt." From there, The chapter in CIE titled, "The Alexandrian Roots of Christianity" is the last chapter in the book and discusses the time periods from around the 5th century BCE through into around the 5th century CE explaining the popularity of the large variety of cults including Egyptian throughout the Roman Empire, Mediterranean and the origins of Christianity. This is the best book on this subject I've ever seen.

[Ouroboros]

This is detailed on an over 60 page chapter in CIE titled, "The Alexandrian Roots of Christianity" beginning on page 431. There's simply too much history for it to be accurately described in a post.

Ok. I guess I have to haul my big butt to the book-store after all...

[Abiyoyo]

Now you are misconstruing what I said. I said it was no more historical than North & South. Lincoln was a real man, N.C. existed, Slavery existed, BUT what John Jakes attributed to Lincoln as saying, he probably did not say, there probably was no Ory Main, as well as other characters in the book, and many of the slaves may or may not existed and the actual events (except the Civil War of course) depicted more than likely did not happen as stated. Thus, given there were many Jesuses around the time of the N.T. setting, we don't know which one it was and much of what is attributed to Jesus in the story, he did not say (see Jesus Seminar for one source). The crucifixion is an event that has happened many times in history previous to that, even in myth. Many heroes were nailed to a tree or something there of, in this case, we have a tree or rather something made from a tree and Judas was a mirror of that when he hung himself from a tree (see Robert Price's "Deconstructing Jesus" for one source out of many) It is a previous myth rewritten to a particular culture, thus the places, for example being real, but not necessarily historically accurate in depiction.

 

Ah!, A fellow N.C.'er ? I grew up there. Anyway, Mriana, there is a difference though. Yes, I get your point here, but it is a little off. There is an abundance of other sources to learn about this type of history, whereas there is not much in regard to the ancient Hebrews. One, back in the OT Bible day, they didn't have email, and internet, or even libraries. They had what they kept sacred, and protected. These people were destroyed, in history, outside the Bible, and also in the bible. So, no, it's not quite the same, it's of no comparison, and I am sure most any historian would agree. But, for the sake of arguing, agree to disagree.

 

 

No it is not true. Do some REAL research instead of being spoon-fed by your preacher and apologists. That last about being stuck makes absolutely no sense at all. Your definition of anti-dogmatic, as well as how your write it, is not standard. A really twisted misuse of the word and the English language, which, the way you are attempting to use the word, makes no sense because it is not proper use of the English language.

 

One, I am not spoon fed by anyone, as you are. I am open minded of most things. Two, I could've worded it better, sorry teacher

 

Okay, all the points you are mentioning, you are correct. They all can not be proven to have happened, but that doesn't make them not historical. Your opinion, and personal view of the subject makes it not historical, not the events. People wrote about the reurrection, famous painters in history sculpted, painted Jesus arrays, and it is still a movement in our current world. Rome, historically, made Christianity their official religion. History is history. Opinions on history is opinions, it still doesn't change the meaning of history.

 

Um... IF it cannot be proven, then one cannot take it as actually being historical. Have you ever researched why and how Rome made Xianity their official religion? Just because it is an official religion does not make it literally true or even historical. I am not expressing an opinion, I am expressing that people have been fooled by ancient Rome and those who have been in control of the "vulgar" since Rome created the pagan mixed Xian religion and enforced it on people. Xianity is nothing but pagan mythology, anthropomorphasized and rewritten to a specific cultural.

 

 

Can you prove Apollo became a god? Can you prove that the gods, or Apollo, really spoke through the Greek Oracle? No, but it is apart of history because it was involved with that culture of that era, just as God for the Hebrews. The Bible has as much historical value as any Greek mythology history. It has value, and maybe you are too close minded to understand that,.... but that's on you

[Mriana]

Now you are misconstruing what I said. I said it was no more historical than North & South. Lincoln was a real man, N.C. existed, Slavery existed, BUT what John Jakes attributed to Lincoln as saying, he probably did not say, there probably was no Ory Main, as well as other characters in the book, and many of the slaves may or may not existed and the actual events (except the Civil War of course) depicted more than likely did not happen as stated. Thus, given there were many Jesuses around the time of the N.T. setting, we don't know which one it was and much of what is attributed to Jesus in the story, he did not say (see Jesus Seminar for one source). The crucifixion is an event that has happened many times in history previous to that, even in myth. Many heroes were nailed to a tree or something there of, in this case, we have a tree or rather something made from a tree and Judas was a mirror of that when he hung himself from a tree (see Robert Price's "Deconstructing Jesus" for one source out of many) It is a previous myth rewritten to a particular culture, thus the places, for example being real, but not necessarily historically accurate in depiction.

 

Ah!, A fellow N.C.'er ? I grew up there. Anyway, Mriana, there is a difference though. Yes, I get your point here, but it is a little off. There is an abundance of other sources to learn about this type of history, whereas there is not much in regard to the ancient Hebrews. One, back in the OT Bible day, they didn't have email, and internet, or even libraries. They had what they kept sacred, and protected. These people were destroyed, in history, outside the Bible, and also in the bible. So, no, it's not quite the same, it's of no comparison, and I am sure most any historian would agree. But, for the sake of arguing, agree to disagree.

 

No, not an N.C.'er, but in the Bible thumpin' Belt, and no, not all of them were destroyed outside the Bible. Much of it is myth- rewritten myth, but you won't believe it anyway, so it is pointless to explain.

 

 

No it is not true. Do some REAL research instead of being spoon-fed by your preacher and apologists. That last about being stuck makes absolutely no sense at all. Your definition of anti-dogmatic, as well as how your write it, is not standard. A really twisted misuse of the word and the English language, which, the way you are attempting to use the word, makes no sense because it is not proper use of the English language.

 

One, I am not spoon fed by anyone, as you are. I am open minded of most things. Two, I could've worded it better, sorry teacher

 

Yes, you are spoon-fed.

 

Can you prove Apollo became a god? Can you prove that the gods, or Apollo, really spoke through the Greek Oracle? No, but it is apart of history because it was involved with that culture of that era, just as God for the Hebrews. The Bible has as much historical value as any Greek mythology history. It has value, and maybe you are too close minded to understand that,.... but that's on you

 

Can you prove your god became God? Oh! I'm glad we can agree Biblical mythology is as much a part of history as Greek mythology! Now we are getting some where. I won't disagree it has value- the sense the such things are part of the human condition and need to be studied and researched. I'm hardly close-minded, because I at least accept the fact that it needs to be studied and researched in the area of human sciences (neurology, psychology, sociology, mythology, archeology, etc) and alike. However, I don't believe you accept such things, so who is close-minded?

[Rev R]

Mriana,

 

I would like to see this translation of Buddhacarita.

[Badger]

Badger you have no idea how badly you just put your foot in your mouth - WWJ includes an almost entirely all Christian bibliography containing commentary from the following Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars:

And this proves what?

 

So, while you attack it without ever having read it calling it "Pseudoscience" etc, you are also inadvertentlwas y calling all those "Christian authorities, apologists and evangelicals, as well as New Testament scholars" "Pseudoscience" as well.

Actually I asking wheter you can even think her criticism of Josephus could possibly be a pseudoscience, that is, not using normal methods and criteria.

[Mriana]

Mriana,

 

I would like to see this translation of Buddhacarita.

 

This is it: http://www.amazon.com/Buddhacarita-Asvagho...2166&sr=8-2

 

The first chapter has a celestial miraculous birth story (notice I did not say "virgin", I said miraculous) It is titled "Birth of the Holy One" and it takes place up in the heavens. His mother dies 5 days after the birth, but the motif is the same- miraculous conception (she was under a vow of celibacy when she conceived), there was a bright light in the sky, sages, etc etc. Now even the Buddhists will tell this is not a story of his actual birth, but a myth that surrounds the Siddhartha. Later there is a flight out of dodge (similar motif again).

 

Even Joseph Campbell mentions these similar motifs in myths too. I think the issue here is, people are stuck on the idea of a "virgin birth" and it has to be exactly that, when in fact the literary outline of a motif is a "miraculous birth", which is what a virgin birth is, just like any other miraculous birth. BTW, Mary's concept was not necessarily "virgin" due to the mistranslation of "alma".

[Ouroboros]

Is it the same as this one: PDF - Buddhacarita - English translation ?

 

On Wikipedia they say Buddhacarita was composed in the 2nd century AD (CE).

 

And I took a new look at the Z movie, and I couldn't find that it stated Buddha to be born of virgin or not. So it's really not an issue.

[Mriana]

No, that is not what I have in front of me. These are two totally different stories (btw, what I have in front of me was what we used in my Buddhism class) Mine starts out:

 

Canto I

 

Birth of the Holy One

 

1. There was a king of the unconquerable Sakyas (accents are in my book, but I'm too lazy tonight to use that thing with all the different letters), Suddhodana by name, of the race of Iksvaku and the peer of Iksvaku in might. Pure he was in conduct and beloved of his peopl as the moon in autumn.

 

2. That counterpart of Indra had a queen, a very Saci, whose splendour corresponded to his might. In beauty like padma, in steadfastness like the earth, she was called Mahamaya, from her resemblance to the incomparable Maya.

[Rev R]

No Mriana they are not two different stories, they are two translations of the same story. In fact, the edition Hans located is a compilation using E.B. Cowell's translation as a basis (since it is public domain) and using Johnston's English translation to cross reference (in fact reprinting Johnston is full for the 14th chapter as the Sanskrit is apparently lost...it happens).

 

The early stanzas are different yes because they are omitted from Johnston's translation as being spurious, that is the Sanskrit, Tibetan, and Chinese don't agree on the exact phrasing. A quite common problem. I'm not expert in the history of Tibetan translations, but I do know that Sanskrit to Chinese is very difficult process sometimes taking a decade or more to translate a short text accurately and a lifetime to translate a longer text.

 

Asvagosha is certainly the most popular "biography" of Buddha but it is not the only source of this story. To insist that Johnston's translation is the only valid work simply because it was used in a University class is poor scholarship. The fact of the matter is that several points of your literary outline are at best creative interpretations of one version of the text or completely false at worst.

 

 

For example:

There is no evidence in various tellings of the story that indicate in any way that Queen Maya was celibate at the time of conception.

 

There is no evidence in various tellings of the Buddha story of a solar event. There are celestial events at the birth itself but to make the claim that these happenings are depictions of actual solar events is taking it out of the realm of allegory and into literal interpretation.

 

There is no textual evidence that Asita, the kings sage, was visited by angels. Cowell's translation states Asita saying he heard a "heavenly voice" but doesn't identify the source. Citing this as an "angel" is stretching it a bit, hell citing it as a Deva or some other god-form within the Brahmanic tradition is stretching it as well.

 

There is no evidence in cross reference that the Buddha was murdered in the story. Most often it is stated as illness and some offer food poisoning.

 

The Dharma wheel, which is a symbol of "Buddhism", has nothing to do with the numbers 12 or 13. It is usually depicted as having 4 spokes (symbolizing the four stages of the Buddha's life) or 8 (symbolizing the Noble Eight Fold path of practice).

 

So what you have presented (way back on page 10 of this thread) is a series of parallels to the story of Jesus probably drawn to make (or imply) the claim that the Buddha is Jesus and now co-opted into the Universal Solar Myth hypothesis. It's simply an attempt to pad this claim and capitalizing on the fact that most people don't know jack about "Buddhism" or Buddhist literature. Which is a pretty fair assumption I admit.

[Mriana]

No Mriana they are not two different stories, they are two translations of the same story. In fact, the edition Hans located is a compilation using E.B. Cowell's translation as a basis (since it is public domain) and using Johnston's English translation to cross reference (in fact reprinting Johnston is full for the 14th chapter as the Sanskrit is apparently lost...it happens).

 

OK if you say so, but I don't agree they are the same story.

 

Asvagosha is certainly the most popular "biography" of Buddha but it is not the only source of this story. To insist that Johnston's translation is the only valid work simply because it was used in a University class is poor scholarship. The fact of the matter is that several points of your literary outline are at best creative interpretations of one version of the text or completely false at worst.

 

I never said it was the only source or the only valid work. There can be many different versions of a miraculous birth, but that doesn't mean they are necessarily the same.

 

 

There is no evidence in various tellings of the Buddha story of a solar event. There are celestial events at the birth itself but to make the claim that these happenings are depictions of actual solar events is taking it out of the realm of allegory and into literal interpretation.

 

Again, I beg to differ. It is very celestial. However, again, I never said "solar event". I said celestial, meaning it took place up in the "heavens". There is a difference.

 

There is no textual evidence that Asita, the kings sage, was visited by angels. Cowell's translation states Asita saying he heard a "heavenly voice" but doesn't identify the source. Citing this as an "angel" is stretching it a bit, hell citing it as a Deva or some other god-form within the Brahmanic tradition is stretching it as well.

 

I don't know where you got the idea of angels from me. It still seems to me people here are interpreting literally word for word. Similar motifs are not word for word the same.

 

There is no evidence in cross reference that the Buddha was murdered in the story. Most often it is stated as illness and some offer food poisoning.

 

Right. I don't know where you got that when he told his followers not to take revenge.

 

The Dharma wheel, which is a symbol of "Buddhism", has nothing to do with the numbers 12 or 13. It is usually depicted as having 4 spokes (symbolizing the four stages of the Buddha's life) or 8 (symbolizing the Noble Eight Fold path of practice).

 

Right. Again, I think one is misunderstanding the numbers.

 

So what you have presented (way back on page 10 of this thread) is a series of parallels to the story of Jesus probably drawn to make (or imply) the claim that the Buddha is Jesus and now co-opted into the Universal Solar Myth hypothesis. It's simply an attempt to pad this claim and capitalizing on the fact that most people don't know jack about "Buddhism" or Buddhist literature. Which is a pretty fair assumption I admit.

 

There are most definite parallels and the ones I presented came from a college course and a textbook. I think the prof., a Buddhist, knew more about Buddhism than most people. Again, I have to totally disagree.