headscratcher4
Philosopher
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2002
- Messages
- 7,776
I usually live in this neighborhood, so thanks
I usually live in this neighborhood, so thanks
PotatoStew
Scholar
- Joined
- Aug 10, 2001
- Messages
- 78
I did.
They did.
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?
Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception.
Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception.
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
You seem to want to consider the gospels in a vacuum; that seems very odd to me. I was referring to the entire text of what is now considered the Bible, which is necessary to understand the gospels in context.
While it is true the bible was translated into other languages (and continues to be) since it was written, as a person who has read the work in Greek (which was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine, or commoner dialect, splashed with Attic morphology) and can say with authority the work was finished within a century or so of "Jesus" life. So this 1,000 year talk is meaningless.
Furthermore, the Koine uses (as opposed to classical as in Plato's works) indicates not only the dating, but the voice, which was undoubtably that of less educated writers.
Flick
While it is true the bible was translated into other languages (and continues to be) since it was written, as a person who has read the work in Greek (which was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine, or commoner dialect, splashed with Attic morphology) and can say with authority the work was finished within a century or so of "Jesus" life. So this 1,000 year talk is meaningless.
Furthermore, the Koine uses (as opposed to classical as in Plato's works) indicates not only the dating, but the voice, which was undoubtably that of less educated writers.
Flick
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
If not being able to prove the existence of your god is not a big deal why get so worked up because there is so little independant evidence of the existence of Jesus?
Like I've always maintained, whether Jesus really existed or not, I could care less. I've made my choice based on the message. BUT to use a lazy approach to existing texts and ignore a host of very intelligent people who have studied this sort of thing is offensive.
It's like me telling a molecular biologist he has no idea what he is talking about just because I don't believe in molecular biology. That would be about stupid, as is anyone who neglects textual criticism of the New Testament because they are not Christian.
Flick
Like I've always maintained, whether Jesus really existed or not, I could care less. I've made my choice based on the message. BUT to use a lazy approach to existing texts and ignore a host of very intelligent people who have studied this sort of thing is offensive.
It's like me telling a molecular biologist he has no idea what he is talking about just because I don't believe in molecular biology. That would be about stupid, as is anyone who neglects textual criticism of the New Testament because they are not Christian.
Flick
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
what's your take on the J vs. P documents in Genesis?
To answer this and your other questions, yes, it is very clear that many parts of the Bible are later insertions. Not excluding the references of Jesus to earlier prophecy. I've actually had the priveledge of translating parts of Genesis from photographs of the earliest known parchements, and it is very clear to me that portions of the work are insertions from latter authors, perhaps even 500 years later than the original work.
But most insertions are trivial and play little part in theology formation.
Flick
To answer this and your other questions, yes, it is very clear that many parts of the Bible are later insertions. Not excluding the references of Jesus to earlier prophecy. I've actually had the priveledge of translating parts of Genesis from photographs of the earliest known parchements, and it is very clear to me that portions of the work are insertions from latter authors, perhaps even 500 years later than the original work.
But most insertions are trivial and play little part in theology formation.
Flick
If you are not already aware of it, some of you may be interested to know that a criminal trial regarding the Church's claims about the reality of Jesus Christ is beginning in Italy.
Luigi Cascioli has filed a criminal complaint "to denounce the abuse the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige, to inculcate, as being real and historical, facts that are really just inventions".
Cascioli is of the view that he has sufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that Jesus Christ did not exist.
More info here: http://www.anti-religions.org/english/cascioli_denonciation.htm
Brad
Luigi Cascioli has filed a criminal complaint "to denounce the abuse the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige, to inculcate, as being real and historical, facts that are really just inventions".
Cascioli is of the view that he has sufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that Jesus Christ did not exist.
More info here: http://www.anti-religions.org/english/cascioli_denonciation.htm
Brad
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
Cascioli is of the view that he has sufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that Jesus Christ did not exist.
That's hilarious. Let's go ahead and put the ancient world on trial while we are at it.
That's hilarious. Let's go ahead and put the ancient world on trial while we are at it.
stamenflicker said:
Flick,
Thank you for your reply. I'm confused by your second point. Clearly you have studied this in more depth than I have, but last time I looked into the J vs. P documents, I had the impression that large portions of Genesis were one or the other. How can the insertions be trivial when there are *so freaking many* of them? And again, I just picked Genesis as an easy target. What about the ending of Matthew, or any number of other examples I could look for?
If "most" changes are trivial, do you allow that some may not be?
Also, you mention studying Jesus references to earlier prophecy. What's the current theory for why so many new testament references either badly misquote scripture or refer to scripture that cannot be found at all? This is just a point of curiousity for me, I'm not trying to suggest that it means anything.
-Chris
Jedi Knight
Banned
- Joined
- May 21, 2002
- Messages
- 2,712
stamenflicker said:
That is what will end up happening when the living on trial (religious, psychics, dowsers, etc) have all been eliminated
JK
Shroud of Akron
Thinker
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2002
- Messages
- 129
most of the books that i have read concerning the history of the bible claim that the individual books were not even commited to paper until 300 c.e.stamenflicker said:
furthermore, what of the alternate texts? why not accept books written by the gnostics? what about the books the catholics chose to not include in the bible? the pseudopigripha? there are more than that, but why not accept all the contradictions?
Skeptical Greg
Agave Wine Connoisseur
stamenflicker said:
The 'aware of' part is an acceptable out.
Question dissmissed.
So all you have done is ignore the question.
You say: " Chritstianity is valid because people are willing to die for it."
toddjh says: " Why, since you wouldn't consider that as validation for any other religion."
So you say: " Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception. "
This is otherwise known as " changing the subject ".
To restate what can be deduced here:
1. Martyrdom is evidence of the validity of the Christian religion.
2. Martyrdom is not acceptable evidence for the validity of any other religion.
Gee, stamenflicker, for someone who was all twisted up by the 'double standard' of the 'Jesus Mythers'.. Wasn't that the reason you started this thread?
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
Diogenes,
I didn't change the subject at all. If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing. Maybe you'll hit a homer, because as I stated, I'm not 100% sure. Toddjh's argument is not consistent with the facts however. The fact that I would die for my faith 2,000 years later says nothing of the followers who made immediate choices in the face of what many on this board deem "known fabrications." That is unreasonable. Would you like to try defend Toddjh's response in the light of this information?
Flick
I didn't change the subject at all. If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing. Maybe you'll hit a homer, because as I stated, I'm not 100% sure. Toddjh's argument is not consistent with the facts however. The fact that I would die for my faith 2,000 years later says nothing of the followers who made immediate choices in the face of what many on this board deem "known fabrications." That is unreasonable. Would you like to try defend Toddjh's response in the light of this information?
Flick
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
most of the books that i have read concerning the history of the bible claim that the individual books were not even commited to paper until 300 c.e.
Since the latter half of the N.T. is mostly letters, they were for sure existing in written form. Since most of them were penned by Paul, they were probably written before 50 AD. The earliest known manuscripts (believed to be copies and variations of an original source "Q" have been dated back as far as 180 AD.
furthermore, what of the alternate texts? why not accept books written by the gnostics? what about the books the catholics chose to not include in the bible? the pseudopigripha? there are more than that, but why not accept all the contradictions?
We can rule out contradictions since the New Testament is chalked full of them. Most of the books were rejected because their authorship or authenticity could not be established, or was in question. Additionally, the majority of the gnostic gospels were written down between 200-300 AD.
Flick
Since the latter half of the N.T. is mostly letters, they were for sure existing in written form. Since most of them were penned by Paul, they were probably written before 50 AD. The earliest known manuscripts (believed to be copies and variations of an original source "Q" have been dated back as far as 180 AD.
furthermore, what of the alternate texts? why not accept books written by the gnostics? what about the books the catholics chose to not include in the bible? the pseudopigripha? there are more than that, but why not accept all the contradictions?
We can rule out contradictions since the New Testament is chalked full of them. Most of the books were rejected because their authorship or authenticity could not be established, or was in question. Additionally, the majority of the gnostic gospels were written down between 200-300 AD.
Flick
stamenflicker
Unregistered
S
I had the impression that large portions of Genesis were one or the other.
Actually most of the O.T. is written this way, not just Genesis. For example the book of Job is likely from the J camp. In Genesis for example, chapter 1 is a J author, but chapter 2 is a P author, hence the contradictions.
Whether J or P, the central message is the same:
1) God is.
2) Man is a mess.
3) God longs to establish a relationship with man.
Flick
Actually most of the O.T. is written this way, not just Genesis. For example the book of Job is likely from the J camp. In Genesis for example, chapter 1 is a J author, but chapter 2 is a P author, hence the contradictions.
Whether J or P, the central message is the same:
1) God is.
2) Man is a mess.
3) God longs to establish a relationship with man.
Flick
stamenflicker said:
How about the Branch Davidians? They weren't all murdered, of course, but a significant number of them chose to die for their beliefs at Waco. Does that legitimize their "religion?"
Perhaps they were deluded, as David Koresh and his followers were. Perhaps they were simply unable to avoid being killed (if you try to start a socially disobedient cult, you might end up paying the consequences, especially in ancient Rome -- or Waco), and their deaths were recorded as martyrdoms by their sincere followers who didn't want to trivialize those they saw as holy figures.
Or, perhaps, a real person was at the core of the Jesus stories, and they were sincere in their beliefs. I'm not in the "Jesus definitely did not exist" camp; I think it's possible that much of the gospels are based on events that happened to one or more real people -- I just don't think it's reasonable to assume that every word is true, especially with all the supernatural hocus-pocus. To be honest, I see many parallels between Jesus and David Koresh. Christianity really wasn't much more than a Branch Davidian-style cult until Constantine gave it the backing of the Roman Empire.
Jeremy
Posted by PotatoStew:
Posted by Diogenes:
Diogenes, it seems that my last post was a little ambiguous(I didn't think my tag-line was though). What I meant was, that by asking that question, PotatoStew demonstrated that including witnesses who lack credibility can, to some people, add credibility to the story.
Of course, now that you've implicated me as a Christian, I'll have to sue for libel.
My response:
Posted by Diogenes:
Diogenes, it seems that my last post was a little ambiguous(I didn't think my tag-line was though). What I meant was, that by asking that question, PotatoStew demonstrated that including witnesses who lack credibility can, to some people, add credibility to the story.
Of course, now that you've implicated me as a Christian, I'll have to sue for libel.
Mormons.
IIRC, several them actually died from persecution.
BTW, a moment's thought would show that virtually every new religion is persecuted by the establishment at its inception.
Amazing how much easier it is to defend Christianity when you are ignorant.
homunculus
Scholar
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2002
- Messages
- 92
> I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?
With respect, all of your questions are very niave, indicative of a flimsy grasp of anything beyond the revisionist, Christian take on history which strives to paint the rise of the Church as the major civilizing force behind Western society (a view which virtually no mainstream, non-Christian scholar now regards as tenable). This is just self-aggrandizing nonsense, flimsy but seductive propaganda, of the kind that anyone who has studied the rise of "Uncle Joe" Stalin will be all too familiar.
Throughout history, religion has been a major cohesive force in society, with religious myth being the principal way in which ethical systems, conventions, traditions, alliances and emnities, forms of social organisation, rituals etc. etc. were encoded, and passed down through generations as unsullied truth. Religion has been the toehold by which the power-hungry manipulate the needy, a powerful tool for social engineering. Millions upon millions have died for countless different (and equally misguided) faiths, inculcated into them from birth, convictions in mysterious, invisible intelligences of one kind or another - in this respect no different from your Jesus or Jehovah.
Only recently, Muhammed Atta lead a group of religious fanatics - adherents of a corrupted form of Islam influenced by the Marxian revolutionist thinking of Europe - into flying jumbo jets into non-civilian targets across the United States. What was HIS motivation, do you think? - and if this is too extreme an example, how do you explain the rise of Islam among the many millions of ordinary, peace-loving people of the Middle East and beyond (a faith which, you simply MUST concede, is based on a Holy Book very simular to yours, a book which WAS fabricated, and which WAS successfully propagated, DESPITE the total lack of evidence to support it)?
> Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.
Perhaps you should read your Qu'uran. Come to think of it, read The Book of Mormon. Or study the ancient pagan cults of Mithra, or Dionysus, or Horus, or any of countless suffering-saviour myths of the ancient world in which miracle-mongering plays a part. Turning water into wine is not new - Horus did that. Walking on water is not new either - Bhudda did that (he also fed 500 people from a basket of cakes). Raising mummies from the dead? Horus did that too - and the mummy was called El-Laz-Eros (sound a bit like "Lazurus", does it?)
There is nothing new in the Bible.
> Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?
The Saviour ALWAYS suffered, and was ignored and persecuted in the ancient Pagan cults. Your Church just forgot to tell you that part.
> Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.
A moment ago you said Jesus WAS a god - THE god, in fact...so who is he talking to here?!
> It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.
Whatever. What characterized Greek culture was a desire to question the mythical view of the world - it was the birth of criticism, and marked the beginning of the slow trawl out of religious dogma and authoritarianism (which is happenning DESPITE, not because of the oppression and ignorance of the Church) which even now threatens to swallow up parts of America, great swathes of the Middle East, and much of the developing world. Science is characterised by a desire to embrace uncertainty, to weed out and learn from our errors, to correct and modify and revise existing knowledge, so that we might grow, and make progress; whereas religion in general is characterised by the childish fear of uncertainty, the need to return to the womb-like security of Absolutes, a desire to bolster, and to strengthen existing dogmas, and to surpress new ideas, and to stiffle creativity and liberal enquiry wherever it finds it.
But I've run out of time now...
Paul Hayward.
With respect, all of your questions are very niave, indicative of a flimsy grasp of anything beyond the revisionist, Christian take on history which strives to paint the rise of the Church as the major civilizing force behind Western society (a view which virtually no mainstream, non-Christian scholar now regards as tenable). This is just self-aggrandizing nonsense, flimsy but seductive propaganda, of the kind that anyone who has studied the rise of "Uncle Joe" Stalin will be all too familiar.
Throughout history, religion has been a major cohesive force in society, with religious myth being the principal way in which ethical systems, conventions, traditions, alliances and emnities, forms of social organisation, rituals etc. etc. were encoded, and passed down through generations as unsullied truth. Religion has been the toehold by which the power-hungry manipulate the needy, a powerful tool for social engineering. Millions upon millions have died for countless different (and equally misguided) faiths, inculcated into them from birth, convictions in mysterious, invisible intelligences of one kind or another - in this respect no different from your Jesus or Jehovah.
Only recently, Muhammed Atta lead a group of religious fanatics - adherents of a corrupted form of Islam influenced by the Marxian revolutionist thinking of Europe - into flying jumbo jets into non-civilian targets across the United States. What was HIS motivation, do you think? - and if this is too extreme an example, how do you explain the rise of Islam among the many millions of ordinary, peace-loving people of the Middle East and beyond (a faith which, you simply MUST concede, is based on a Holy Book very simular to yours, a book which WAS fabricated, and which WAS successfully propagated, DESPITE the total lack of evidence to support it)?
> Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.
Perhaps you should read your Qu'uran. Come to think of it, read The Book of Mormon. Or study the ancient pagan cults of Mithra, or Dionysus, or Horus, or any of countless suffering-saviour myths of the ancient world in which miracle-mongering plays a part. Turning water into wine is not new - Horus did that. Walking on water is not new either - Bhudda did that (he also fed 500 people from a basket of cakes). Raising mummies from the dead? Horus did that too - and the mummy was called El-Laz-Eros (sound a bit like "Lazurus", does it?)
There is nothing new in the Bible.
> Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?
The Saviour ALWAYS suffered, and was ignored and persecuted in the ancient Pagan cults. Your Church just forgot to tell you that part.
> Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.
A moment ago you said Jesus WAS a god - THE god, in fact...so who is he talking to here?!
> It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.
Whatever. What characterized Greek culture was a desire to question the mythical view of the world - it was the birth of criticism, and marked the beginning of the slow trawl out of religious dogma and authoritarianism (which is happenning DESPITE, not because of the oppression and ignorance of the Church) which even now threatens to swallow up parts of America, great swathes of the Middle East, and much of the developing world. Science is characterised by a desire to embrace uncertainty, to weed out and learn from our errors, to correct and modify and revise existing knowledge, so that we might grow, and make progress; whereas religion in general is characterised by the childish fear of uncertainty, the need to return to the womb-like security of Absolutes, a desire to bolster, and to strengthen existing dogmas, and to surpress new ideas, and to stiffle creativity and liberal enquiry wherever it finds it.
But I've run out of time now...
Paul Hayward.