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

[Kuroikaze]

No, it is absolutely not a "false cognate" - that's a falsehood in itself. What is poor scholarship is the claim that Horus was not born on the winter solstice or "December 25th." The fact is that he, as the morning sun, WAS born at that time, as stated by the ancient historian Plutarch and as proved otherwise, especially in "Christ in Egypt" which provides other primary sources as well.

 

Do you know what a false cognate is? I am asking because from this post it seems you don't. I was not claiming that Horus was not born on the winter solstice, but that just because the two share the same birthrate does not indicate an actual connection. It can just as easily be a coincidence, or something in between the two.

 

So, claiming the opposite is a manufactured Christian revisionist position. Of course, the orthodoxy did not come right out and say, "Hey, this winter-solstice birthday has to do with Horus." That's a straw man. At the time when Christ was supposedly born, Horus was one of the most popular gods in the Roman Empire. The more evidence you have, the more obvious the connection becomes.

 

One of the most popular? Exactly how are they measuring that? That sounds quite fishy to me, its not like we have clear census data that shows how many people worshiped each god. Anyway, the winter solstice was an important date to nearly every religion at that time. For obvious reasons it was an important date in any agrarian culture.

 

I don't think the date indicates a connection to Horus, but a desire of the early church to co-opt the MYRIAD of religious celebrations going on around that time of the year. Horus was one to be sure, but there is no reason to single him out...at least not on this fact alone.

 

I am not arguing that these religions did not copy from each other, it is quite obvious they did, though it is sometimes unclear how much they copied and how the copies occurred.

 

What is very poor scholarship is to ignore the fact that for many centuries Jesus Christ's birthday has been celebrated on December 25th by hundreds of millions of people and that this date is basically the winter solstice, celebrated in Egypt as the birth of Horus long before Christ supposedly lived. It is old news that ancient sun gods were celebrated on the winter solstice which carried over for 3 days. Christianity has simply severed Dec 25th from the winter solstice natural phenomena to the point that people today never make the connection. All of this is detailed in an entire chapter in CIE, of course.

 

I am well aware of the importance, of winter solstice in ancient cultures. Stop speaking down to me like I am an idiot. I am not some slack jawed fundy, and I have studied this stuff a bit.

 

It is comments like these based in utter ignorance that convince others not to study further. You've already admitted that you've never studied her work. If & when you read CIE, you'll be thoroughly embarrassed to make those types of comments again.

 

Just because I never read HER works does not mean I am totally ignorant on the subject. I have been quite polite so I don't see why you feel the need to attack me verbally just because I happen to disagree with you on the topic of ancient history. This is hardly something worth getting angry over.

 

Which book & from where ... do you have a link?

 

I believe it was her most recent one "who was Jesus" I won't post a link to a torrent site because it might get the site in trouble.

[Badger]

Some more thoughts. There is nothing wrong to express personal thoughts and opinions in Internet. In his writing, Sommer "attempts to clarify the reasons why Humanists hold negative views about the Bible." Someone may consider it as interesting reading, why not. But this writing is not meant to be, as I said, a careful attempt to evaluate the historical value of the biblical documents. Yet Mriana was appealing to is as a (kind of) proof of the unreliability of the Bible. This was the reason for my criticism.

[Kuroikaze]

I took a glance at the site you linked. Nothing really new there. The section "Inaccurate Statements About History" is largely based on the argument from absence what comes to the New Testament. Only the census reported by Luke is a real historical problem of those listed.

 

Ummm....sorry to burst your bubble, but deductive logic is not really used as the basis for historiography, and the argument from absence fallacy only applies when making deductive syllogisms.

 

Historians use a more inductive sort of logic, and much of what we think we know about past events is based upon an absence of evidence.

 

No one is arguing that this method is guaranteed to give us the right answers all the time, but it does generally work well.

[Ouroboros]

In his writing, Sommer "attempts to clarify the reasons why Humanists hold negative views about the Bible."

I think one reason why non-Christians take a negative view on the Bible is that it's a symbol of Christian religion, not necessarily what it contains or how it is viewed as an artifact of history. I don't know if Sommer take the same stand, but it's just my personal opinion. (sorry for the sidetracking)

 

On another side note, the early Christian church didn't start celebrating Christmas until the 2nd or 3rd century. And according to records, they didn't even bother to celebrate it before then. And the date of Jesus birth is by tradition another date (April?), so the reason why the upcoming orthodox church in 3rd-4th century picked 25th of December for the celebration was more of a political move to override the existing pagan feast. So Christianity didn't grow out from a celebration of the 25th December, but was a later addition to remove the opposition. (That's another of my opinions) And if the argument is that "just because we don't have any documents showing they celebrated Christmas before 200 CE, it doesn't mean they didn't," then I must say the same argument for "lack of evidence" must apply. Hence, the current evidence only points to a Christian celebration 100 years or more after the supposed death.

 

But with that being said, I do believe pagan beliefs had influence on the early Church, like astrology.

 

Oh, and the lack of evidence goes for the link between Jesus and Mithras (Roman/pagan cult) too, since Mithraism was first recorded in 70 CE. But the link to Mithra (An angel in Zoroastrianism) could be possible, since it seems to be some links between Zoroastrianism and Judaism.

[DarthOkkata]

Roger Pearse is a good example of an Apologist you've quoted. I've been reading some of his writings and he is indeed an Apologist. [i've got lots to read thanks to this thread.] He can be a historian with multiple doctorates and still be an apologist. They are not mutually exclusive. There are creationist with doctorates after all.

 

How were you cherry picking? Here's one example: Your insistence that Ehrman agreed with you, when he if fact did not. Cherry picking things he said to support your claims that he was in agreement with you. This was pointed out to you earlier and I'm not bringing up the details again or reading through all these posts to find more examples.

 

I'm not combing through the thread again just to find multiple sources for this. Unless you've got some sort of memory problems, you should know exactly what I mean. I've a feeling you're trying to be a little 'cute' with me here while trying to look innocent . It's not that serious an issue and was halfway a jest. Still, I did have a point behind my prodding.

 

I'm not saying you should take his claims seriously or agree with him, only that after posting things from others with agendas of their own, it's not really a good idea to claim that someone else is invalid solely on the basis that they have agendas, and that's what you did initially.

 

Your second post cites much more valid reasons for not taking him seriously aside from 'he has an agenda'. Some of the people you've cited do as well. That was essentially your only cited reason behind your objection to the article in your first post. That's why it was a little hypocritical, even if only a little.

[Abiyoyo]

Meier admits to it having interpolations, but turns around and states a contradiction? That should tell you that he is only a worthless apologist who wants to keep believers under the delusion and control of the Church. Why in the world would you want to listen to such flap-trap of contradictions?

 

You guessed it. Those tricky Christians at it again.

[Mriana]

Even if you did cite others, [often cherry picking and misrepresenting them], you can't deny that many of the sources you brought up had agendas of their own.

How exactly I'm "cherry picking and misrepresenting" them?

 

You chose sources that support your view and your view only, that's how you cherry pick and misrepresent. Those with your view generally have an agenda of their own- just as you wish to reinforce your view, they wish to help you reinforce it, even if it is not necessarily true. You aren't trying to see any other view except for what the narrow lens you look through allows you. It doesn't matter what we through out on the table, you aren't even going to consider it because it does not fit your view. However, you have an agenda too and expect people to believe such a story.

[Mriana]

Some more thoughts. There is nothing wrong to express personal thoughts and opinions in Internet. In his writing, Sommer "attempts to clarify the reasons why Humanists hold negative views about the Bible." Someone may consider it as interesting reading, why not. But this writing is not meant to be, as I said, a careful attempt to evaluate the historical value of the biblical documents. Yet Mriana was appealing to is as a (kind of) proof of the unreliability of the Bible. This was the reason for my criticism.

 

No, not as proof of anything. I was just throwing it out on the table for something to consider. IF I were using it as proof, I would have said that, but that fact is, there is very little that is historical in the Bible. There is nothing scientific either. It is just a book of stories, nothing more and personally, I would hate to think that humans are so barbaric that they would torture a person so hideously and then praise such an action as being the best thing that has ever happened. It's horrid and personally, I am glad it is rewritten myth set to a specific culture. I much prefer the Solar mythology version of the story. Less horridly barbaric due to it being animism and not a person. There is also no cannibalism in it either, like there is in Xian theology. Personally, I don't know how anyone could stomach such a story as being reality.

[Abiyoyo]

No, not as proof of anything. I was just throwing it out on the table for something to consider. IF I were using it as proof, I would have said that, but that fact is, there is very little that is historical in the Bible. There is nothing scientific either. It is just a book of stories, nothing more and personally, I would hate to think that humans are so barbaric that they would torture a person so hideously and then praise such an action as being the best thing that has ever happened. It's horrid and personally, I am glad it is rewritten myth set to a specific culture. I much prefer the Solar mythology version of the story. Less horridly barbaric due to it being animism and not a person. There is also no cannibalism in it either, like there is in Xian theology. Personally, I don't know how anyone could stomach such a story as being reality.

 

That is the most absurd statement I have heard in a while. I think even the most anti dogmatic, Christian people will at least accept that the Bible is represented in history in some degree. Maybe not accurate to the individual expectation, but there and historical. Scientific, I agree. But Historical? Come on now. Sometimes what we define by our interpretation of reality in the 20th century, does make the past barbaric, that is why it is the ....past. History outside of Christianity represents barbaric actions, titles, powers, etc. So what's the deference of these historical writings and the Bible. What sources do you have that the Bible is of little historical value, factual sources?

[Badger]

Roger Pearse is a good example of an Apologist you've quoted. I've been reading some of his writings and he is indeed an Apologist.

I stand corrected then.

 

I'm not saying you should take his claims seriously or agree with him, only that after posting things from others with agendas of their own, it's not really a good idea to claim that someone else is invalid solely on the basis that they have agendas, and that's what you did initially.

There is a point, but I wasn't saying he is invalid solely because of he has agenda (but I admit that was careless claim). His dealing with the alleged inaccuracies of the NT is poor. I have seen better writings on that subject.

[DarthOkkata]

Because we don't still use those other historic barbaric atrocities to 'guide our lives' and 'provide our morals' today. That's why.

 

Seeing the Bible as any more a serious historical document as Beyowulf, the story of King Arthur, and Robin Hood is absurd. All of these stories may also have been based on people who were quite possibly real. Just like Jesus, though, they aren't suspected by anyone of being God. All of them also had scribes and other sources that wrote of them as real people as well. Though, none of them were witnesses or first hand accounts either. They were accepted as real people who actually existed, and appeared as such in the writings of scholars on occasion. Arthur in particular, I'd say he's mentioned as a 'real historical figure' in writings by regional scribes as much as Jesus, if not more.

 

All of them contain elements of history as well, but we don't try and claim them as valid historical documents that should be taken seriously either. We know they are just stories and myths, and that the details of the 'history' within them is not accurate. If they get something historically wrong, its fine, because it's fiction.

 

The Bible is no different. If it's historically wrong, it's fine, it's fiction. If it has a few details that aren't wrong, that doesn't make it any more valuable as history as any of those other stories I mentioned.

 

It's no more a historical source than any of those other legends I brought up. It's a bit absurd to say otherwise given the evidence we have at the moment. If more is discovered, that might change, but at present, there's not enough to claim the Bible as a 'valuable historical document' or 'valid history'. No more than Beyowulf, King Arthur, or Robin Hood should be considered as such.

[Badger]

You chose sources that support your view and your view only, that's how you cherry pick and misrepresent.

Cherry picking is the act of pointing at individual cases or data that seem to confirm a particular position,

while ignoring a significant portion of related cases or data that may contradict that position.

(

Wikipedia: Cherry picking

)

Have I ignored data that may contradict my position? I'm not sure, but I think I have considered Acharya S' claims and explained why I find them more or less flawed. Same with interesting thoughts made by DarthOkkata. And what about appealing to the authority or choosing my sources? It's not a fallacy if the authority cited is an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. (Appeal to Authority) Thus quoting Luis H. Feldman regarding the authencity of Antiquities 20.9.1 is not fallacy, and here Acharya S words weigh little if at all. I'm sorry.

 

You aren't trying to see any other view except for what the narrow lens you look through allows you. It doesn't matter what we through out on the table, you aren't even going to consider it because it does not fit your view.

Huh? And how you differ from this description, then?

[Guest Thor]

ME <<Again, Josephus mentions around 20 different Jesus's & NONE can be demonstrated to be the biblical Jesus. That is just the facts.>>

 

Badger "No, it is not fact. Not at all. It is a logical fallacy known as circular reasoning"

 

LOL, just because you claim it's 'circular reasoning' doesn't make it so. Sounds like more of your hand-waving dismissals. The fact remains that there's nothing anywhere in Josephus proving that any one of the 20 different Jesus's he mentions were THE biblical Jesus - the TF is universally acknowledge by a majority of scholars including Christian biblical scholars to be a forgery. The James passage isn't all that much better as it IS in dispute. It's even disputed if that was the biblical James.

 

Badger "As I said, if we are talking about disputing in the sense of claiming Josephus is unreliable and useless evidence of Jesus, then yes, virtually none but Jesus Mythist hold this position."

 

I know, it's inconvenient for you to accept that christian biblical scholars even dispute the TF & the James passage.

 

Badger "Acharya S fails also to explain why we should accept the first premise."

 

LOL, no - that's just you jumping to false assumptions based on 2 short quotes out of a 300 page book. (shakes head in amazement)

 

Badger "Acharya S isn't historian, is she? Well, show me a historian that would accept her criteria about a valid historical source."

 

LOL, she certainly studies, compiles & writes about loads of history throughout all of her works discussing the origins of religion - it's helpful that she can read it in its original languages too...makes it better for accuracy. Your 2nd comment shows an ignorance on the opposition to the TF & James passage throughout history. You only are interested in what agrees with you at this point. I see no reason to continue attempting to share facts with you - you'll just do the hand-waving dismissal when facts & evidence are inconvenient for your beliefs.

 

Her comment here displays common sense:

 

"...let us for a moment assume that the Testimonium Flavianum is genuine, in whole or in part. Even with such an assumption, the TF still does not constitute credible, scientific proof of the historicity of Jesus Christ, since it was not written by an eyewitness, nor is it based on any discernible documents of any authority. The TF reflects only a tradition or rumor of something that purportedly occurred 60 to 70 years earlier and made little to no impact upon anyone significant outside of immediate Christian circles."

 

- WWJ 91

 

A point of fact here is that the reason Christians are so heavily reliant upon Josephus is because there is no valid contemporary evidence for Jesus during his supposed like time. The reliance upon the TF & James passage serves to demonstrate the flimsiness of the evidence for Jesus. Even belief in a historical Jesus requires a giant leap of faith. I will accept a historical Jesus as soon as VALID evidence is offered that can stand up to peer review & scientific scrutiny. After 2,000 years none has passed the test.

 

Badger "Meier and Bruce says nothing I can't agree with."

 

Oh, good to see you come around to the fact that "sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic" and "Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits," as Meier & Bruce say.

[Guest Thor]

Kuroikaze "Do you know what a false cognate is?"

 

Yes, I do & your use of it here is a, out of ignorance & b, a straw man. I realize you may not understand why - but that's because you haven't studied the subject in depth - I know that you think you have. Simply calling this a false cognate doesn't necessarily make it so.

 

Kuroikaze "just because the two share the same birthrate does not indicate an actual connection"

 

This demonstrates the ignorance (not an attack or name calling) on the subject - the winter solstice/xmas has been a well known celebration date for the sun god for literally thousands of years. Thus, hand-waving dismissals will not suffice.

 

Kuroikaze "One of the most popular? Exactly how are they measuring that?.....I don't think the date indicates a connection to Horus, but a desire of the early church to co-opt the MYRIAD of religious celebrations going on around that time of the year. Horus was one to be sure, but there is no reason to single him out...at least not on this fact alone."

 

Er, Historians, scholars & archaeologists explain how Horus & the Egyptian religion was popular & wide spread throughout the mediterranean based an a large assortment of artifacts, temples etc. Here even Christians agree:

 

“Harpokrates was very popular in the Graeco-Roman period.”

 

“The birth of Horus is a well-known mythological theme...”

 

- CIE 92

 

Constantine certainly found it useful to co-opt them all into one celebration nobody is argueing against that. However, there is too much evidence with the nativity scene connection. Harpocrates symbolizes the baby sun born on Dec 25th. The nativity of Horus was quite similar to the nativity we see of Jesus at xmas time:

 

The Nativity Scene at Luxor

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

 

Kuroikaze "That sounds quite fishy to me, its not like we have clear census data that shows how many people worshiped each god"

 

Well, lets be honest you've already admitted that you've never studied the subject in depth. We have discovered around 500,000,000 mummies buried or in tombs over a span of over 3,000 years. Again, Historians, scholars & archaeologists explain how the Egyptian religion was popular & wide spread throughout the Mediterranean based an a large assortment of artifacts, temples etc.

 

So, while I'm not trying to "speak down" to you or say that you're an "idiot" or "slack jawed fundy" - all I'm saying is that you're just wrong in your assumptions. It's not about disagreeing - the views you've shared on this issue are demonstratively wrong according to evidence that actually exists. Those of us who have actually worked very hard to research this subject indepth find it extremely insulting to see people who haven't keep posting views from Christian biased encyclopedia entries. From my view, I haven't personally attacked you at all in anyway. I'm sorry you took it like that.

 

If you're sincerely interested in this topic and interested in making necessary adjustments towards accuracy, (like I assumed) I thought you want to know - I know I would. I've made many necessary adjustments myself over the years as a former saved, baptized 20 year Christian who first set out to debunk Acharya S/Murdock's works. She simply provides a mountain of thought-provoking primary sources & details to her case for anyone to dismiss. And it gets better & stronger with each book she writes. CIE has the potential to change comparative religion as we know it.

 

Kuroikaze "I believe it was her most recent one "who was Jesus" I won't post a link to a torrent site because it might get the site in trouble."

 

Oh you mean the ex-xian site? Well, fair enough ... just send it to me in a private message then....

[Mriana]

No, not as proof of anything. I was just throwing it out on the table for something to consider. IF I were using it as proof, I would have said that, but that fact is, there is very little that is historical in the Bible. There is nothing scientific either. It is just a book of stories, nothing more and personally, I would hate to think that humans are so barbaric that they would torture a person so hideously and then praise such an action as being the best thing that has ever happened. It's horrid and personally, I am glad it is rewritten myth set to a specific culture. I much prefer the Solar mythology version of the story. Less horridly barbaric due to it being animism and not a person. There is also no cannibalism in it either, like there is in Xian theology. Personally, I don't know how anyone could stomach such a story as being reality.

 

That is the most absurd statement I have heard in a while.

 

No more absurd than your zombie Jesus and IF you are a Rapture believer, it sure as hell is better than that Return of the Zombie story, because Rapture theology is totally bogus and not actually in the Bible. Of course, not all Xians believe in Rapture theology and not all church preach that insanity.

 

I think even the most anti dogmatic,

 

Thank you. I am anti-dogmatic. I do not believe in dogma.

 

 

Christian people will at least accept that the Bible is represented in history in some degree.

 

Knock, knock! Have you forgotten where you are? This place is called Ex-Christian.

 

Maybe not accurate to the individual expectation, but there and historical. Scientific, I agree. But Historical? Come on now. Sometimes what we define by our interpretation of reality in the 20th century, does make the past barbaric, that is why it is the ....past. History outside of Christianity represents barbaric actions, titles, powers, etc. So what's the deference of these historical writings and the Bible. What sources do you have that the Bible is of little historical value, factual sources?

 

That is just it, the resurrection did not literally happen. Metaphorically, in an effort to tell a story, yes, but not literally. Genesis is not historical either. Place might have existed then, but not necessarily the people- ie Adam and Eve are myth, even Spong says this and states the creation story is myth. He has said the Virgin birth story is myth. Archbishop Rowen Williams has called a category of myth too.

 

History INSIDE Xianity represents NOTHING BUT barbaric actions- I give you the crucifixion, but since it did not literally happen, the solar mythology is far better than that crap used to instill fear, shame and anxiety into people. The Bible has NO historical value. We have been saying this through out this thread and giving sources, which many of you find an excuse to reject because you wish to cling to mythical barbarism. Try reading all the posts in this thread and you will see I'm not the only one who says it is no more historical than John Jakes' North & South books.

[mwc]

And what about appealing to the authority or choosing my sources? It's not a fallacy if the authority cited is an authority on the subject on which he is being cited. (Appeal to Authority) Thus quoting Luis H. Feldman regarding the authencity of Antiquities 20.9.1 is not fallacy, and here Acharya S words weigh little if at all. I'm sorry.

Heh. You "cherry picked" from your source on "appeals to authority."

 

Read this part again:

An appeal to authority is an argument from the fact that a person judged to be an authority affirms a proposition to the claim that the proposition is true.

 

Appeals to authority are always deductively fallacious; even a legitimate authority speaking on his area of expertise may affirm a falsehood, so no testimony of any authority is guaranteed to be true.

Now that you've (hopefully) read it again. Read it again. And again. And again. And keep reading it until you understand my frustration with your constant appeals to authority.

 

mwc

[Badger]

just because you claim it's 'circular reasoning' doesn't make it so. Sounds like more of your hand-waving dismissals.

Maybe I can help you then,

 

(1) Josephus mentions several persons called Jesus.

(2) Josephus does not mention the Jesus.

Therefore:

(3) Josephus does not mention the Jesus.

 

This is reasoning in circle.

 

"An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove."

 

the TF is universally acknowledge by a majority of scholars including Christian biblical scholars to be a forgery.

Please provide your sources(s) to substantiate your claims.

 

Forgery is curious word choice, since it seems to mean being fraudulent. That is, to deceive people. But I noted in my last post that the overwhelming majority consider the Testimonium Flavianum as partial authentic, including a few interpolations. This word however does not (necessarily) connote deceive.

 

I know, it's inconvenient for you to accept that christian biblical scholars even dispute the TF & the James passage.

According to Compact Oxford English Dictionary, dispute means to "question the truth or validity of (a statement or fact)". Based on this definition, the quotes from Meier and Bruce you made does not support your conclusion. Bruce and Meier are talking about sources of historical Jesus generally, not dealing with the issue of authenticity of Ant. 18.3.3 or 20.9.1. Thus nothing they say dispute (or validate) these passages. If you argue that even Christian scholars, or the majority, question the authenticity of any of these, you must back up your claim with proper sources.

 

no - that's just you jumping to false assumptions based on 2 short quotes out of a 300 page book.

What are her arguments for the first premise, then? Give me a summary.

 

Your 2nd comment shows an ignorance on the opposition to the TF & James passage throughout history.

Why is that?

 

Oh, good to see you come around to the fact that "sources of information about the life and teaching of Jesus are scanty and problematic" and "Paul and Josephus offer little more than tidbits," as Meier & Bruce say.

Sure. No problem there.

[Badger]

You "cherry picked" from your source on "appeals to authority."

Just refered to the site, explaining when the appealing is not considered as fallacy.

 

I have never claimed that "legitimate authority" does guarantee the true or correct information. Of course authority may affirm a falsehood.

 

And keep reading it until you understand my frustration with your constant appeals to authority.

Judging from this thread, I'm definitely not the only one who appeals.

 

But who knows why you "cherry picked" me. At least I don't. If you disagree with me on something, I expect you will explain why and then give some counter arguments.

 

Or maybe you don't have arguments and that makes you frustrated?

And stagnates the discussion?

[DarthOkkata]

You're asking us to do a lot of grunt work for you Badger. To the point that it's becoming unreasonable.

 

Why should we provide summaries, cite every source repeatedly, define terms that are easily looked up, and do all this work for you?

 

We're not a library, research tools, or search engines. You've cited a few of your sources it's true, but not anywhere near what you've demanded of us in your arguments over the course of this thread.

 

Do some of your own research. Search and you can answer many of your own questions with relative ease.

 

Asking us to provide enough for you to look something up yourself is one thing, but now we're to provide you with summaries and explanations for terms you could look up with no difficulty? Why should we?

 

What are you a Professor? Handing us assignments now? Would you like a cup of tea, your slippers, and a pipe to go with that?

 

You've not provided this much information to us for your claims. Why should we bend over backwards to hand it all in to you as if we're taking a course for you? Nor have you bothered to clarify every claim you've been asked about.

 

Asking for a specific source or to clarify something is one thing, your demands are getting unreasonable. Look some of it up for yourself. It's getting beyond the point of inquisitiveness and to the point of academic belligerence, arrogance, and laziness.

 

Many of the sources you've asked for have been provided already. At least enough information has usually been provided for you to find the information for yourself in most cases.

 

Google it, if nothing else it will point you in the right direction.

[Badger]

Why should we provide summaries, cite every source repeatedly, define terms that are easily looked up, and do all this work for you?

Have you heard about "burden of proof?"

 

Nor have you bothered to clarify every claim you've been asked about.

I'm sorry if that is happened. So you wanna know something now?

[Mriana]

Badger, I have listed books with their authors for you to read as sources for my statements, but it would seem to me you are just too lazy to read them and would prefer just to be told/spoon fed what is said. That is something ministers do. We don't spoon feed anyone. IF they really want to know, they need to do their own research so they can actually think for themselves and learn something other than Church brainwashing dogma.

[DarthOkkata]

The burden of proof? You're just being lazy.

 

As I said, there's a point where it becomes unreasonable. We're not going to start writing you reports and summaries. Do some of your own research.

 

Considering this thread has been going on for nine pages now, and you've asked for the same sources more than once at some points, it goes a bit beyond 'burden of proof' standards.

 

No, there's nothing in particular I want to know. The thread has been going on for nine pages, as I mentioned, and it's not just me. You've been asking for an unusually large amount of clarification, information, and references. To the point that it seems belligerent. As if you're using it as a distraction to divert attention away from other issues or as a way to stall instead of giving straight answers.

 

I don't know if that is the case, but it does seem that way.

 

I don't want to sound upset about the matter or anything. I'm not, but you are asking a bit much of us. We're not personal research tools, and we've got better things to do than look all this stuff up for you. Some of your requests for information have been reasonable, others are just tedious and unnecessary. Things you could easily find out with a simple Google search or visit to Dictionary.com, or something similar.

 

It is kind of funny to hear a Christian bring up 'burden of proof' considering how the literal definition of 'Faith' is 'belief without evidence'.

 

Odd how you'll accept that there is an invisible man who lives in the sky, and that a 2,000 year old manic depressive hippie with magic powers came back to life and asked his friends to eat him with no evidence or proof.

 

Yet, believing that an expert in a field might have disagreed with another expert in the same field and said that an old document might have been partially forged and isn't really valid proof that some dude who may or may not have existed at some point in the past was real.

 

For that, you need references, sources cited, and a summary.

 

Or that you won't take someones word about a definition of a term, and require them to post a definition for you that you can see.

 

While at the same time believing that there is a Jewish Overlord who is the same person as his own Son, with another dude who rooms with them, but is also the same guy, who watches over you, and cares whether you believe in him or not, and wants to make sure you aren't being naughty or enjoying sex with someone you've not formed a contract with or is the wrong gender. With no proof whatsoever.

 

I mean, you'll believe that super hippie fed thousands with a few loaves of bread and a couple of fish, reattached someone's ear with his bare hands and no stitches, raised his pal from the dead, turned water into alcohol, walked on water that wasn't frozen, told the sea to 'shut the hell up' and it listened to him, and managed to dodge being left up on his cross for a few weeks as an example like everyone else who was crucified back then so his friends could bury him so that he could wake up in three days and nights, [even though the time given doesn't add up to three days and nights], because some people told you it was true based on a book that was written three hundred years after it supposedly happened, in the wrong language, and whose contents were voted on by committee.

 

Yet, somehow, 'the burden of proof' applies to us, but not them?

 

That's kind of messed up.

[Kuroikaze]

This demonstrates the ignorance (not an attack or name calling) on the subject - the winter solstice/xmas has been a well known celebration date for the sun god for literally thousands of years. Thus, hand-waving dismissals will not suffice.

 

I did some research and found out that Horus' birth day was not even in December. It falls on July in the current calendar http://books.google.com/books?id=-mtlCPm70...lt&resnum=1

 

Not only that Horus was not born of a virgin, his father was Osris. He was killed by his brother Seth. Isis used a spell to bring him back to life for a short time so they could have sex, in which they conceived Horus

 

The bit about him having 12 followers is also false. He had four semi-divine followers, and 16 human followers.

 

I am sorry, but the more I look at this stuff the more difficult to believe it becomes. She makes these claims which are clearly false, and hopes no one will research it themselves.

 

You might give a look at this site http://www.conspiracyscience.com/articles/...rt-one/#the_sun which talks about some of the bad facts in zeitgeist, he annotates everything so you can verify that he isn't pulling this stuff out of his ass, or from apologetics sites. Most of his sources are neutral, meaning they were not written to refute Acharya S, or to support Christianity in any way.

 

I am not going to write a 10 page post detailing all the incorrect information when others have already done so.

 

 

Well, lets be honest you've already admitted that you've never studied the subject in depth.

 

Point of fact, I never made this admision. I admited I had not read Acharya S, I am, however, decently knowledgeable on this topic, I majored in religious studies in college.

 

So, while I'm not trying to "speak down" to you or say that you're an "idiot" or "slack jawed fundy" - all I'm saying is that you're just wrong in your assumptions. It's not about disagreeing - the views you've shared on this issue are demonstratively wrong according to evidence that actually exists. Those of us who have actually worked very hard to research this subject indepth find it extremely insulting to see people who haven't keep posting views from Christian biased encyclopedia entries. From my view, I haven't personally attacked you at all in anyway. I'm sorry you took it like that.

 

Well, to be honest, I feel a bit the same towards you. I have actually studied stuff in this field a bit, and you seem to have read Acharya's work fairly uncritically and without checking her sources very well. I am not a Christian, nor am I blindly trusting in documents written by apologists. I find it a bit insulting that you would assert such.

 

If you're sincerely interested in this topic and interested in making necessary adjustments towards accuracy, (like I assumed) I thought you want to know - I know I would. I've made many necessary adjustments myself over the years as a former saved, baptized 20 year Christian who first set out to debunk Acharya S/Murdock's works. She simply provides a mountain of thought-provoking primary sources & details to her case for anyone to dismiss. And it gets better & stronger with each book she writes. CIE has the potential to change comparative religion as we know it.

 

Hey, I am all for leaving Christianity, and quite a bit of my study of Christianity in school played a part in that for me. I even agree with some of Acharya's claims. I just think her claims sometimes go beyond what the evidence supports. Unfortunately, at times she seems to manufacture false information to back up those claims.

 

As an atheist, who seeks rational and balanced skepticism, I can not help but find this kind of "scholarship" to be detrimental to our cause, and seems to belong next to books like "more evidence bigfoot is real" than the works of serious scholars like Ehrman or Pagles

[Kuroikaze]

Maybe I can help you then,

 

(1) Josephus mentions several persons called Jesus.

(2) Josephus does not mention the Jesus.

Therefore:

(3) Josephus does not mention the Jesus.

 

This is reasoning in circle.

 

"An argument is circular if its conclusion is among its premises, if it assumes (either explicitly or not) what it is trying to prove."

 

Yeah, except this is clearly a strawman. The argument looks more like this.

 

1. Josephus mentions several persons called Jesus.

2. There were lots of people called by that name at the time.

Conclusion. It is not possible to tell if the Jesus he is referencing is the same one spoken of in the bible.

[Abiyoyo]

No more absurd than your zombie Jesus and IF you are a Rapture believer, it sure as hell is better than that Return of the Zombie story, because Rapture theology is totally bogus and not actually in the Bible. Of course, not all Xians believe in Rapture theology and not all church preach that insanity.

 

There is a difference between believing the fantasy of the Bible, and recognizing it as Historical. It perphaps may not be historically accurate to someone who expects it to meet the 'flawless Bible' standards, but by many educated, historians, the Bible is historically accurate in many parts. Do you suggest Israel didn't exist? Are all the Jews liars when they speak of the fore fathers? These people are real people Mriana, still living in a country represented of them and their heritage. How historically accurate does it need to be? I would assume that it is as historically accurate to the same extent that any other formations, during the great reigns of the powerful countries of that era. We find some pottery, arrows, and drawings and have detailed descriptions of groups, settlements, ancient civilizations (small ones); yet the Jews are debunked because they have a God and a Bible, and a guy named Jesus started a movement through it?? There are real Jews, there were real Jewish settlements. King Darius did decree the Jews to be released, ..outside the Bible's acknowledgment. People of the era of Christ wrote about the movement of Christianity. The Greek oracle speaks of Christians in the era of early Christianity. What is not historical?

 

 

 

Christian people will at least accept that the Bible is represented in history in some degree.

 

Knock, knock! Have you forgotten where you are? This place is called Ex-Christian.

 

If you read that again, I said anti dogmatic, Christian ( as anti both) at least accept that the Bible is history in some degree; and it is true. Yes, there are some here that just deny it, but it to me means they are the same as someone that is 'stuck' on the truths of the Bible. Being stuck is not just a Christian thing, it's a people thing. :wink:

 

Maybe not accurate to the individual expectation, but there and historical. Scientific, I agree. But Historical? Come on now. Sometimes what we define by our interpretation of reality in the 20th century, does make the past barbaric, that is why it is the ....past. History outside of Christianity represents barbaric actions, titles, powers, etc. So what's the deference of these historical writings and the Bible. What sources do you have that the Bible is of little historical value, factual sources?

 

That is just it, the resurrection did not literally happen. Metaphorically, in an effort to tell a story, yes, but not literally. Genesis is not historical either. Place might have existed then, but not necessarily the people- ie Adam and Eve are myth, even Spong says this and states the creation story is myth. He has said the Virgin birth story is myth. Archbishop Rowen Williams has called a category of myth too.

 

History INSIDE Xianity represents NOTHING BUT barbaric actions- I give you the crucifixion, but since it did not literally happen, the solar mythology is far better than that crap used to instill fear, shame and anxiety into people. The Bible has NO historical value. We have been saying this through out this thread and giving sources, which many of you find an excuse to reject because you wish to cling to mythical barbarism. Try reading all the posts in this thread and you will see I'm not the only one who says it is no more historical than John Jakes' North & South books.

 

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.