Jump to content
Goodbye Jesus

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


DarthOkkata

Recommended Posts

I agree with DarthOkkata here.

 

To say the bible is "historical" is a rather strange statement, having nothing to do with the nature of history. It can, however, be viewed as a historical source. Historical sources are usually divided up into the categories of Primary and Secondary sources. A primary source is a source of information comprising direct physical evidence of the person, place, thing, or event in question. These are the lifeblood of history. Archaeological evidence counts here, as do verifiable eyewitness accounts. A secondary source is something written with secondhand information, based on primary sources or even other secondary sources that may or may not exist today. These also include oral history, written copies of oral history, and all analysis of primary sources.

 

The bible is not demonstrably a primary source. Some of the writings of paul *may* have been written by paul, but as far as I know, the gospels were not written by the evangelists, or even originally attributed to them, any more than the books of the old testament attributed to Moses were actually, factually written by Moses.. I won't provide the evidence here, but I could find it if I had to. You could easily wikipedia sources, I suppose. There is extensive scholarship on this subject. The events described in the bible are referred to in other places, verifiable primary sources on the events, cultures and people of the bible, that do not match the story of the bible in any way.

 

Therefore, the bible only applies as a primary source in terms of what the people writing the bible, verifiably at least decades after the fact, believed about a person they never met, and events that they themselves did not experience. It isn't exactly a work of fiction, but rather a collection of things that people believed about events that had long since happened. Myth, if you will.

 

A book that is demonstrably a secondary source should not be ones first or only reference to a historical period, except perhaps as a guide to what primary sources one might investigate in order to truly understand the period in question. One should never, ever trust a single secondary source as an authority.

 

This, as I see it, is the true nature of the bible, as proven by sound logic and research, including multiple primary and secondary texts, as well as the primary sources available through archaeology. There is an enormous scholarship backing us up here, as the bible is one of the single most studied documents in human history. To blindly follow it as if it were the word of a deity makes no sense at all unless one can refute at least most of the evidence against the authenticity of the documents in question, let alone the divine inspiration factor.

 

Therefore, christians do need to start taking the bible out of the question when dealing with educated atheists. If it *were* possibly to convert anyone here, and it isn't, one would have to start with presenting a believable, trustworthy deity that would *help* us live the lives we already want to live, using hard scientific fact or even decent logic, instead of fighting over the meaning of quotes from a secondary source on jewish and early christian history.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 289
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • Mriana

    65

  • Badger

    63

  • Ouroboros

    47

  • DarthOkkata

    27

DarthOkkata, I just wanted to correct the claim "there is nothing historical in the Bible." There is and that's my point. I'm not saying the Bible is true or the Word of God.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but you couldn't really claim it to be any more Historical than an Indiana Jones movie, or Saving Private Ryan [which isn't a true story], or the North and South novels mentioned earlier, or Robin Hood, or the Illiad and the Odyssey, or the Book of the Dead.

 

It's the same 'kind' of History, historical fiction and/or myth. All of these stories are fiction set in a historical period. They contain some vague elements of History, yes, but they aren't and shouldn't be considered as references for actual history. Much of the history involved is very inaccurate, and qualifies as 'history' in only the most vague of ways.

 

They don't meet the standards required to qualify as primary Historical sources, and the Illiad and the Odyssey, The story of King Aurther, Robin Hood, and the Book of the Dead are just as much secondary sources as the Bible.

 

All of them were once considered true stories, which can't be said for Saving Private Ryan, North and South, and Indiana Jones. So, it's a bit more credible than the most recent examples I gave. Still, not by much considering the apparent magic and myth involved.

 

You also claimed to have 'historical proof' of Jesus Christ.

 

What proof would that be?

 

There's no evidence anywhere that I'm aware of that he was ever even a real person. It's just assumed by those that believe in him that he existed despite there being no evidence to support this claim. Certainly not enough to consider him a 'real' historical figure. No more than Hercules, King Arthur, or Robin Hood.

 

As a legend and myth sure, but as an actual person that really existed? No such evidence has been found to support that anywhere.

 

There's no Archeological, or recorded evidence that he existed from any period during his lifetime. No mention of him is made historically until well after his death, and that includes the Bible writings.

 

There's no proof he was real, only proof that there were people who believed he was real and people who acknowledged that there was a cult based on the belief in him. Which isn't the same thing at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is very little historical in the Bible, including JC. As I said, it is no more historical than John Jakes' North and South

I don't know North and South, but I can find plenty of historical information from the Bible (including Jesus Christ).

 

Why am I not surprised? Badger, N & S is a book by John Jakes. While Lincoln existed, what he said in that book he probably never said in reality. The truth about the Bible is even worse. Jesus never existed or IF he did, he is too buried in myth to find. The Bible is NOT the inerrant word of God nor was it inspired by God. It was written and inspired by man- humans.

 

 

Now, the Jesus Seminar, with Biblical Scholars, came to the conclusion that 80% of what is attributed to Jesus, the man never said. (Of course that isn't enough for you)

 

There never was a worldwide flood or an ark.

 

Adam and Eve is a myth.

 

Now to top it off, the Gospels were written to the Hebrew Liturgical calendar, not history. NONE of them are eyewitness accounts. The author attributed to Mark wrote first. (Technically the author referred to as Paul did and he never met JC. He wrote on hear say and not ALL that is attributed to the author called Paul is written by him.) Now why would anyone believe hear say? Not even a judge accepts hear say in a court of law. Even Paul says, "Well, I met this dude and he told me about this cool dude name Christ and then I met Jesus in a dream!" Yeah. That would never fly in a court of law. Yes, I realize that is not a word for word quote, so don't even try "that's not how it went" crap and go off on some tangent. It won't work.

 

The N.T. stories are a series of midrashes. Further more, those same stories, clear back to Adam and Eve were written mythology, set to a specific culture. The first two chapters of Genesis came from Babylonian and Mesopotamian mythology.

 

Samson, not historical, is the SUN, his hair are the rays of the sun. Delilah is the moon. In the Pentateuch he is also a "J" story. He is also a prankster/trickster story too, which is found throughout many societies.

 

Now here's another one, Moses and Jesus's "I AM's" did not originate with them. Try the Bhagavda-Gita. Krishna was the incarnation of Vishnu, just as Christ was the incarnation of God. The death and resurrection story of Jesus came from the most extreme earliest story of man Solar Mythology, in which the sun (Solstice) stood still. Solstice means sun stood still. The sun was "crucified" on the Southern cross (crux), then for three days went to the "underworld", technically below the hemisphere", in which its shadow did not move for three days (it is said the sun died for three days). On the third day it rose again and we have a new sun. You Jesus is the sun and I give you Easter, and the sunrise services there of, as evidence. Easter is one of many things that point to Jesus being the sun.

 

There is that and the Horus story. The Jesus story is the Horus story with Hebrew clothing. This also contains a lot of solar mythology too. The reason for this is because people lived their lives by nature. They had fertility rituals when it was time to plant and some people celebrated the longest night of the year (Mother Night or Yule). The sun was/is a very important aspect for survival.

 

Now here you go with another nature motif: Eve and Mother Mary are Gaia or Mother Earth. Like many other fertility motifs, these two women are the very same senerio.

 

Tired of solar mythology? Well... Moses worshiped a volcano god. There are many many gods in the OT and one of them is a volcano god. This happened quite often throughout history, until we figured out what made volcano's tick.

 

As for the ages- Moses brought the Israelites out of the age of the bull and into the age of the ram. When John the Baptist came along, he not only symbolized Aquarius, but with the baptism of Jesus, he ushered out the age of the ram and brought in the age of Pisces. Jesus is Pisces, as symbolized by 1/2 a fish and fish all over the place. The new age to come is said to be Aquarius.

 

Not only is the story of Jesus' baptism part of Solar mythology- bring in a new age, BUT it is also a Hebrew liturgical celebration- The Jewish new year, Rosh Hashanah (John Shelby Spong explains the Hebrew liturgical calendar in A New Christianity for a New World. This is very fitting with the motif of a new age too. It is also seasonal too, part of the pagan celestial celebrations.

 

That is just a short summery, very short summery, of the Bible NOT being historical. The only thing that is historical about it are the places and not even that. Jesus was a Nazarene, as in a religious sect much like the Pharisees, not an actual town. Nazareth was a in the wall where about the only thing that exist was the leaders and practitioners of the Nazarene sect. A camel jockey might have came by once in a while to bring food or something.

 

That is just a small sample of how none of it was ever real. How it is not history. I can go through the whole damn thing and show this throughout and you should see what I can do to Revelations. That book is nothing but astrotheology and makes a whole lot more sense when explained in that manner. Oh and communion is nothing by theophagy. Both theophagy and crucifixion is a motif that is found in many a mythical hero story (godman stories), with the except of Buddha. Yes, Buddha was killed at his last meal, but he was not nailed to a tree and no one ate him. The 12 disciples represent the signs of the zodiac, which can also be found in other societies too. The list goes on an on.

 

Judas, like Thomas, was a "twin" of Jesus. This is something Robert Price explained in one of his books.

 

Ah, but like I said, I can tear the book up and put it back together in a way that makes a whole lot more sense than the way Evangelicals try to present it. Now here is one last one for you- there were many Jesuses around that time- even Jesus Barabbas. Bar abbas means 'son of the father'. Jesus is son of God, Barabbas son of the father. There is a split motif here, where the two are separated and syncretism is lacking. This is something the Egyptians did quite often with their god Osiris/Horus. Osiris was the father and Horus the son, but sometimes the would blend together as one (Coffin Texts). Here is a short list of other Jesuses for you: http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm Which reminds me, the Joshua cult was pretty much the same thing as the Jesus cult and Jesus is a derivative of the name Joshua.

 

So... As you are probably not convinced and probably sitting there going "all lies" etc. I could point to other things that show just how much of the Bible is NOT historical, but I doubt you are ready to have such a meme busted and are probably going nuts with just this much that I have presented and those who want to keep you in the delusion, will try to convince you the Bible is historical and unique, when it is truly not.

 

One last thing, in Rev. 3:14, the gig is up, because that Amen refers to Amen-Ra/Amen-Re, the Ammon/Amon. This goes back to the Egyptian sun worship, which makes sense since the Hebrews came out of Egypt. It does not and never did mean, "so be it", "very", "verily" or what have you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DarthOkkata, I just wanted to correct the claim "there is nothing historical in the Bible." There is and that's my point. I'm not saying the Bible is true or the Word of God.

 

As I showed above, very little is historical, except for places and alike, but only because it is set to the Hebrew culture. To set something to a particular culture, you have to have something that points to something real, but for the most part, the Bible is a work of fiction, just like North and South is.

 

There is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed. The Josephus quote is a forgery, that many scholars have even stated is a forgery. Many of those things are too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome site BTW Mriana. I've seen most of these arguments before, but never in one place. Very convenient. Thanks for posting the link, even if it was to beat someone over the head. :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Awesome site BTW Mriana. I've seen most of these arguments before, but never in one place. Very convenient. Thanks for posting the link, even if it was to beat someone over the head. :P

 

Thank you. :) I have so many sources to refer too, as seen with the other sources I mentioned such as the Jesus Seminar, Spong, Price, etc., but that site does well in and of itself too. I am a mod on Acharya S.'s board, thus I get a lot of different links via that site too, but as mentioned, she is not my one and only source. I've researched this stuff for years and when I find a good site to use as an example of what I am saying, I bookmark it, because I can't share my vast library of books on the subject via internet.

 

I can beat people over the head with what I have learned though and what I said, barely puts a dent into what I've learned over the years. Thus explains why I do not believe Jesus ever existed or if he did he is too buried in myth to find. It also explains why I don't have a god concept too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, but you couldn't really claim it to be any more Historical than an Indiana Jones movie, or Saving Private Ryan [which isn't a true story], or the North and South novels mentioned earlier, or Robin Hood, or the Illiad and the Odyssey, or the Book of the Dead.

I didn't because it wasn't my purpose. OK?

 

You also claimed to have 'historical proof' of Jesus Christ.

 

What proof would that be?

There is another topic for this. See The Bible Fraud.

 

There's no evidence anywhere that I'm aware of that he was ever even a real person. It's just assumed by those that believe in him that he existed despite there being no evidence to support this claim. Certainly not enough to consider him a 'real' historical figure. No more than Hercules, King Arthur, or Robin Hood.

 

As a legend and myth sure, but as an actual person that really existed? No such evidence has been found to support that anywhere.

We must be careful here and define what we mean by "Jesus." The great majority of historians and NT scholars agree that the Jesus of the Gospels did exist as a historical person, but they would say he was merely human and the Gospels are essentially theological, rather than historical, documents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can beat people over the head with what I have learned though and what I said, barely puts a dent into what I've learned over the years.

Honestly, what I see in your comments is largely a lack of critical scholarship and tendency to conspiracist. Seriously.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can beat people over the head with what I have learned though and what I said, barely puts a dent into what I've learned over the years.

Honestly, what I see in your comments is largely a lack of critical scholarship and tendency to conspiracist. Seriously.

As opposed to belief in invisble, magic fairy men?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know them. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are some interesting tales of sex in the babble.

 

From Ezekiel 23

 

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

 

Ewww, metaphorical bestiality.

 

This passage (and the whole chapter in context) once again supports the metaphor of Yahweh as an abusive husband to his "bride." And he also seems to have a bad case of penis envy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, there are some interesting tales of sex in the babble.

 

From Ezekiel 23

 

19 Yet she became more and more promiscuous as she recalled the days of her youth, when she was a prostitute in Egypt. 20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. 21 So you longed for the lewdness of your youth, when in Egypt your bosom was caressed and your young breasts fondled.

 

Ewww, metaphorical bestiality.

 

This passage (and the whole chapter in context) once again supports the metaphor of Yahweh as an abusive husband to his "bride." And he also seems to have a bad case of penis envy.

 

There's always the Song of Solomon. It's pretty steamy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can beat people over the head with what I have learned though and what I said, barely puts a dent into what I've learned over the years.

Honestly, what I see in your comments is largely a lack of critical scholarship and tendency to conspiracist. Seriously.

 

I has nothing to do with conspiracy and a whole lot to do with honest and critical scholarship. I hardly believe that the Jesus Seminar lacks scholars or critical thinking. Both Robert Price and Spong were part of the Jesus Seminar and have written a lot of fine books. I do not consider apologists scholars- they aren't honest nor do they have rational critics of anything. All apologist do is appease believe and keep them in the delusion by BSing them. I suggest you read REAL scholars such as Robert Price, John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, Borg, Tom Harpur, Funk, even Acharya S and others. Maybe that will help you more than listening to apologists who are not honest critical scholars with integrity. I've been studying this subject for years - both in college courses and under those such as Spong and even Price. I studied directly under Victor H. Matthews even (in a university setting) who wrote books such as Old Testament Parallels which you can find on Amazon. I am being serious here, but I'm not so sure what you are being, but it isn't serious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know them. Sorry.

 

Sure you do. The fairy men are those angels so many Xians like to talk about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Funny how those who believe in it the least, are often those who know the Bible best, isn't it?

 

Well, not so much funny. Most people who believe in it, only believe because they don't realize what it really says. That's something of another issue, but a good place to open up for this.

 

I also feel I should mention, because there are other kinds of theist and spiritual beliefs on this site, when I say 'God', I mean 'Christian God'.

 

Most of us on this site know the Bible very well. In a lot of cases, better than most Christians do. At the very least, all of us have read it, at least once, in it's entirety.

 

Many of us spent years reflecting on it's passages, and all of us once believed it was true. We changed our minds, and we still remember what it said. It does not impress us. Nothing in it does, nor will convince us that God is real.

 

Using it to convert us or bring us back, does not work. We're not some ignorant native that's never seen the wonders of God's word. All of us are quite familiar with it here.

 

This is not, NeverSeentheBibleBefore.net. Please get that through your skulls.

 

You can't start with God's word, and then prove God exists later. It doesn't work that way with us. We've already been down that road before, and you never got around to the part about proving God existed. You just sort of met a dead end at the 'God's word' and 'you must obey it' parts.

 

What's the deal with this backwards thinking idiocy Christians? Why the Bible first, and belief in God second?

 

I need to believe in God before the Bible will mean anything to me. It's not proof enough on it's own. What's so hard about that to understand?

 

God's word means dick without belief in God to back it up with -first-.

 

Many Christians seem dead set on focusing their arguments on the semantics of the book that we often quite literally tell them to their face that we don't view as viable evidence to begin with.

 

As if we'd suddenly think that the two thousand year old Bronze Age book of Myths and Poetry was suddenly a valid source of truth because of some verse they pointed out.

 

This is an ex-christian- website. -All of us have read the Bible- -All of us have attended services- -All of us have already heard the 'word' before- It is not -new- to us.

 

Stop being so retarded about this. I realize that you don't understand that we don't believe, but the Bible -does not impress us-, or does any verse, or passage from it. We don't believe that it's true, hearing or reading it again won't change our mind. We don't believe in God to begin with, so the fact that -you- think it's God's word means squat to us.

 

To us, it is just another work of fiction.

 

Arguing the semantics of the meanings of lines of text in something you know we don't take seriously isn't going to prove your point.

 

I don't get that at all. Rather than dealing with the issues of the existence of God, which we need to take the book seriously in the first place, they decided to focus on the book.

 

Why? Idiots.

 

Without belief to begin with, what Joshua, Matthew, or whoever said in the bible is no more important than what Frodo or Harry Potter said in their books of fiction.

 

Maybe I understood the mentality once and forgot?

 

As far as I'm aware, you have to believe in God first for the Bible to mean anything. It's not evidence enough to prove that he's real.

 

Why do so many Christians always get that backwards?

 

First, convince us that God is real, then tell us about the Bible. It -does not work- the other way around.

 

In order for their book to mean jack shit to anyone, they have to already believe in the existence of a God.

 

The Bible does not prove that, it does not qualify as evidence of that, it means nothing without belief already in place.

 

What's so hard to understand about that?

 

I'll say it again to be clear. The Bible does not mean anything unless you already believe.

 

Stop trying to use it to convince us that your God is real, or that your beliefs are correct.

 

It will not work.

 

You've got to prove that God is real first.

 

It does not work in reverse, especially on -ex-christians.

 

We already read that book. It does not impress us. We don't care if you have every line of it memorized and can recite it backwards.

 

Prove God -first-, or the Bible means nothing more than any other book of myths and poetry.

 

Reciting scripture won't change our minds. It doesn't matter how you phrase it.

 

Prove. God. First. Or. It. Doesn't. Mean. Shit.

 

Understand this, or you're just wasting our time, and yours here.

 

There is nothing in the Bible that proves God, or anything in it is real.

 

The Bible is not evidence. It is a book. So is Lord of the Rings, and that doesn't prove that the One Ring is real.

 

So it happens in real places, and contains real historical figures.

 

So does Raiders of the Lost Ark.

 

If we don't already believe in God, it's just as relevant to reality as either of those two things are to us.

 

Get it through your skulls.

 

One more time.

 

Prove God first, then tell us about the Bible.

 

It does -not work- the other way around.

 

We do not care how much -you- believe. You've got to get -us- to believe, and the Bible cannot help you with that. You've got to prove God first, then worry about his book, and what it means for us.

 

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The Bible is -not- extraordinary evidence.

[/quote

Very well said, I read the bible for the first time in 1994 and i still start out with in the beginning there was God, and the rest is comentary, i have heard many sermons scince then only to find that every minister, profit,messenger or what ever reads what they have heard all thier lives with out even looking at what a word means for when it was written example; satan in the hebrew means advisary, it has nothing to do with aperson being satan, and i have still yet to find where it says that the devil or satan and a third of the angels were cast out of heaven, yes i know the scripture about a third of the stars, thats stars not angels, it is not in there

and you are right prove God first well lets see, he is mentioned in the beginning and here on this form, many have said he was borrowed from earlier beliefs, so it does look like he has been around for a very long time, absolute truths?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I has nothing to do with conspiracy and a whole lot to do with honest and critical scholarship. I hardly believe that the Jesus Seminar lacks scholars or critical thinking.

And does the Jesus Seminar accept that astrotheology/Solar mythology theory?

 

I suggest you read REAL scholars such as Robert Price, John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, Borg, Tom Harpur, Funk, even Acharya S and others. Maybe that will help you more than listening to apologists who are not honest critical scholars with integrity. I've been studying this subject for years - both in college courses and under those such as Spong and even Price. I am being serious here, but I'm not so sure what you are being, but it isn't serious.

I wasn't talking about apologists, so that was bad trick. In your list Price, Spong and Acharya, at least, are hardly expert; not to mention the jesusneverexisted site.

 

Here is list of your claims that I believe experts in the field would have problems with:

  • The Gospels were written to the Hebrew Liturgical calendar.
  • The N.T. stories are a series of midrashes.
  • The Jesus story is the Horus story with Hebrew clothing.
  • This also contains a lot of solar mythology too.
  • There is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In your list Price, Spong and Acharya, at least, are hardly expert;

Doc Robert Price and John Shelby Spong hardly experts??? Acharya I can agree on, because here degree is in some complete different area, but these two guys not being up to your standards, that is... wow... just wow...

 

Do you know the degrees and experiences these guys have?

 

Doc Robert M. Price:

After early involvement in a fundamentalist Baptist church, he went on to become a leader in the Montclair State College chapter of the Inter-Varsity Christian Fellowship. Having developed a keen interest in apologetics (the defense of the faith on intellectual grounds), Bob went on to enroll at Gordon-Conwell Theological Seminary, where he received an MTS degree in New Testament. Billy Graham was the commencement speaker.

 

It was during this period, 1977-78, however, that Bob began to reassess his faith, deciding at length that traditional Christianity simply did not have either the historical credentials or the intellectual cogency its defenders claimed for it. Embarking on a wide program of reading religious thinkers and theologians from other traditions, as well as the sociology, anthropology, and psychology of religion, he soon considered himself a theological liberal in the camp of Paul Tillich. He received the Ph.D. degree in systematic theology from Drew University in 1981.

 

After some years teaching in the religious studies department of Mount Olive College in North Carolina, Price returned to New Jersey to pastor First Baptist Church of Montclair, the first pastorate, many years before, of liberal preacher Harry Emerson Fosdick. Price soon enrolled in a second doctoral program at Drew, receiving the Ph.D. in New Testament in 1993. These studies, together with his encounter with the writings of Don Cupitt, Jacques Derrida, and the New Testament critics of the Nineteenth Century, rapidly eroded his liberal Christian stance, and Price resigned his pastorate in 1994. A brief flirtation with Unitarian Universalism disenchanted him even with this liberal extreme of institutional religion. For six years Bob and Carol led a living room church called The Grail. Now, back in North Carolina, he attends the Episcopal Church and keeps his mouth shut.

 

John Shelby Spong:

Spong was educated in Charlotte public schools. He was a Phi Beta Kappa graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1952, and received his Master of Divinity degree in 1955 from the Episcopal Theological Seminary in Alexandria, Virginia. That seminary and Saint Paul's College have both conferred on him honorary Doctor of Divinity degrees.

 

He wrote: "[i have] immerse[d] myself in contemporary Biblical scholarship at such places as Union Theological Seminary in New York City, Yale Divinity School, Harvard Divinity School and the storied universities in Edinburgh, Oxford and Cambridge."[2]

 

He served as rector of St. Joseph's Church in Durham, North Carolina from 1955 to 1957; rector of Calvary Parish, Tarboro, North Carolina from 1957 to 1965; rector of St. John's Church in Lynchburg, Virginia from 1965 to 1969; and rector of St. Paul's Church in Richmond, Virginia from 1969 to 1976. He has moreover held visiting positions and given prominent lectures at major American theological institutions, most prominently at Harvard Divinity School. He retired in 2000.

 

So I think they are more than capable of speaking about the topic, but to be honest, I don't think Doc Price is completely in the "Jesus is only myth" camp, but I think he's in the same category as me: some insignificant person who perhaps was named Jesus made some impact with his teachings, but the story took life on its own and became this big legend.

 

Come on. I can't imagine that you only can listen to scholars who got 500 Ph.Ds and 20,000 years of experience? I think both of these two guys have a lot of weight of authority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Doc Robert Price and John Shelby Spong hardly experts???

I might be wrong. Admited. But the comment was based on their opinions I have read or heard. I have feeling they are rather in the far left (not sure if that's correct expression).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's funny how easily one can make claims like 'many Historians' and not provide any examples.

 

There are not 'many Historians' who claim that Jesus is or was a real man based on historical, or Archeological information.

 

There are some who believe in him and his religion, but none who claim that there is Historical or Archeological proof.

 

None who are taken seriously and have provided any actual evidence that it's true.

 

The stance of Historians who believe in Jesus is 'I think he's real myself, but I can't prove it, and wouldn't claim it in my work'.

 

In other words, it's pretty much the same as shrugging one's shoulders and saying 'I dunno, I can't prove it or anything, but I think he might have existed personally' which is nowhere near the same thing as saying 'I have historical and Archeological evidence of Jesus'.

 

No one makes that claim. No Historian anywhere. They have no evidence to back it, and wouldn't be stupid enough to put it forth as a Historical Theory without it.

 

So no, your claim that 'Many Historians agree that Jesus is a Historical figure' is misleading and false.

 

No Historians make that claim as part of their work. It's an outright lie to make that claim.

 

There's no evidence that supports Jesus as a real Historical figure anywhere. A few have tried to make the claim and put it forward, but all have been conclusively debunked, and their Theories have been rejected by lack of evidence, false evidence, and incorrect assumptions based on presented evidence failing testing and examination. Those claims have no support within the Historical community.

 

You shouldn't make claims based on what you 'wish' was true.

 

It's not true, no one supports such a claim as "Jesus is proven as a real historical person' outside of religion, especially not in Scientific fields like History.

 

I'll give you that 'maybe it just hasn't been found yet' [Which is the most you can hope for as a claim by a Historian] but until it is, it's not History, and it's not backed by the Historians.

 

So no. That's not true.

 

There is no Historical evidence or proof that Jesus ever existed anywhere.

 

Once again, if there is, I challenge you to prove it and provide such evidence.

 

Also, where do you get off making claims about opinions and credentials of people you don't even know a thing about?

 

Didn't bother to find out did you? Just ran off at the mouth without worrying about discovering what those opinions or who those people actually were?

 

Fail.

 

You can't refute an opinion you don't understand or know anything about, because you've got no idea what it is you're refuting to begin with, do you?

 

I suppose learning something is a bit too much trouble for you then is it?

 

I suppose you don't have time to find out, so you figured you'd just refute it 'just to be on the safe side'.

 

That's not even an educated guess, just ignorant contradiction for the sake of contradiction and nothing more.

 

It's about the dumbest argument someone can make about anything.

 

I have the same problem with most Creationist. How can they argue against something they don't know anything about and don't understand to begin with?

 

The only way to make intelligent rebuttals is to actually learn what the opposing opinion is.

 

You can't argue against someting unless you know what it is you're arguing against. Only an idiot would even try something like that.

 

Argument for the sake or argument is not an intelligent debate. It's just childish back and fourth that accomplishes nothing and proves nothing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I has nothing to do with conspiracy and a whole lot to do with honest and critical scholarship. I hardly believe that the Jesus Seminar lacks scholars or critical thinking.

And does the Jesus Seminar accept that astrotheology/Solar mythology theory?

 

I suggest you read REAL scholars such as Robert Price, John Shelby Spong, Karen Armstrong, Borg, Tom Harpur, Funk, even Acharya S and others. Maybe that will help you more than listening to apologists who are not honest critical scholars with integrity. I've been studying this subject for years - both in college courses and under those such as Spong and even Price. I am being serious here, but I'm not so sure what you are being, but it isn't serious.

I wasn't talking about apologists, so that was bad trick. In your list Price, Spong and Acharya, at least, are hardly expert; not to mention the jesusneverexisted site.

 

Here is list of your claims that I believe experts in the field would have problems with:

  • The Gospels were written to the Hebrew Liturgical calendar.
  • The N.T. stories are a series of midrashes.
  • The Jesus story is the Horus story with Hebrew clothing.
  • This also contains a lot of solar mythology too.
  • There is no historical proof that Jesus ever existed.

 

Spong, as I said, made the statement that they were written to the Hebrew liturgical calendar. There is not problem with that either, esp if you know the liturgical calendar. Episcopalians use a much similar liturgical calendar and I can see it very well within the gospels. They are a series of midrashes. Tom Harpur has made the statement of the Jesus story being Horus in Hebrew clothing.

 

I'm not going through it all again. IMHO there is there NO problems with any of it. In fact, I can show you Victor H. Matthews work and we can go to the very beginning and go all the way through. The whole Bible is nothing but rewritten myth set to a particular culture. The problem is, you don't want to believe it because it would totally blow your delusion.

 

One more thing, scholars, not just Acharya whose degree is in archeology, do support astro/solar mythology and some have even came out and stated that Samson, for example, is allegory for the sun and his hair was the rays of the sun. So no, I am not talking off the top of my head with that one. The Bible is loaded with it.

 

 

Doc Robert Price and John Shelby Spong hardly experts???

I might be wrong. Admited. But the comment was based on their opinions I have read or heard. I have feeling they are rather in the far left (not sure if that's correct expression).

 

And what is wrong with being on the far left? IMHO the Right is totally mentally ill with their delusion because they can't see the difference between myth and reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No one makes that claim. No Historian anywhere. They have no evidence to back it, and wouldn't be stupid enough to put it forth as a Historical Theory without it.

And Ehrman claims that he know of no legitimate scholar of the NT that deny Jesus's existence. Michael Grant, late atheist historian, rejected Jesus myth position and regarded Jesus as historical figure. Many other secular, non-Christian, scholars have this very same opinion. Jesus did exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem is, you don't want to believe it because it would totally blow your delusion.

What delusion exactly?

 

And what is wrong with being on the far left? IMHO the Right is totally mentally ill with their delusion because they can't see the difference between myth and reality.

Indeed. But I wasn't speaking of scholars who are in the far right. Sorry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There's always the Song of Solomon. It's pretty steamy.

 

No no no Song of Songs is all about JEEZUS!

 

And teeth like a flock of naked sheep? Not really what turns me on. Dirty shepherd porn maybe?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK Badger, let's start from the beginning where humans believed in animism. The sun was very important. So much so that it died and resurrected day and night and Sunday. However, on Solstice, it was crucified on the crux (Southern Cross). Whether Solstice of daily the sun went down into the underworld (katabasis motif), which was below the equator. This is why they had fertility rituals during the spring equinox. Easter is scheduled via the equinox (this is even stated in the Book of Common Prayer and the Lutheran Book of Worship. Your Easter is a sun worshiping holiday, a throw back to these ancient rituals. Thus, Jesus is a symbol of the sun and is yet another katabasis motif.

 

I even explained this via the Hebrew liturgical calendar and pointed out that the Christian liturgical calendar isn't much different. It all surrounds ancient pagan traditions, but it set to modern day culture. The ancient sun worship (in Islam's case moon worship) is buried in the text. JC is the light of world and walks on water. That is symbolism for the sun doing these things, but of course you don't want to believe that.

 

The Mithra religion was also a sun worshiping religion and some of it's ways was incorporated into Xianity, just as Mother Night/Yule was. It is Egyptian, Mesopotamian, etc ancient mythology too. What you have is a hodgepodge of pagan mythology, symbols, and rituals. The WHOLE Bible is nothing but a hodge podge of all those things, which you also find in Victor Matthews' books too, but of course, when I last spoke to him, even he agreed that the masses aren't going to believe it no matter what we say.

 

Here's something that I bet you didn't know- Adam had a wife before Eve. Her name was Lilith. It's a Hebrew story not found in our texts, yet many Jews know of it and there are superstitions surround the birth of a baby boy because of Lilith. Yes, before they are circumcised the boys were a certain article of clothing to protect them from Lilith (of course, not all Jews buy into this myth anymore than not everyone buys into the myth of Genesis and alike).

 

My point is there are some myth we share and some we don't, but we share the animism of the past, but it is now disguised as anthropomorphism and taken very literally- too literally. It's ALL the SAME thing! It's all myth and none of it actually happened- not even the Jesus as seen in the Bible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.