Your original phrasing of the problem of the spaghetti monster was,
When you say 'proof' immediately above, I'm assuming you mean 'evidence', since you make a quantifying statement (as much) and proof is a yes/no thing. And I believe that's what Thirst has been trying to argue against this whole time. You probably don't realize it, but the topmost quote above completely changes the rules and objectives of the debate- there's a huge difference between [i]disproving[/i] the existence of God or the spaghetti monster, which Thirst has not even tried to do, and comparing which of the two has greater [i]evidence[/i] in support of it, which Thirst seems to have done quite well.
Also, can you cite your quote about Nazereth, please?
Well to prove something you need evidence, a cause. Thirst has brought forth alot of biblical evidence for christ which contradicts itself, in his causality and contradicts later religions which use similiar claims.
If you justify christianity using those claims you have to justify the later religions which are based upon such fantastic claims. Mohammed and smith were after all “the last great prophets”.
This is why I also posted a made up “zeus” bible as well below the spaghetti monster. There’s plenty of stories about Zeus and his ilk. But by and large we accept such stories as “mythology” (which they are like the bible).
Thirst has IMO, shown no difference between the flying spaghetti monster, zeus, god, jesus, allah. They’re all unsubstantiated.
Quote from first post:
Do you think that Thirst has proved me wrong? That Paul wasn’t a false prophet like mohammed and smith? That all these religions have similiar sins… the greatest sin is to doubt what I’m telling you.
That Jesus is similiar to other god-sons. Even the Jewish one Samson. Samson’s “birth prophesy” is oft used by christian theologists as a prophesy for jesus.
If Jesus existed, the man we know from the gospels is a pure figment of man’s imaginations run wild.
It’s possible also that Samson and Jonah were real people. It’s unlikely that:
Samson got strength from his hair.
Jonah was swallowed by a whale.
If I told you;
“Jesus gives me strength through my hair. I believe in him, and he infuses me through my hair.”
You’d laugh at me… and rightly so, unless I was telling you a story, and not presenting it as truth.
Thirst,
back to the archealogical evidence against the crucifixion, it wasn’t the amount of time that was the issue, it was the process of hammering the nail in that caused it to “hook” into the cross making removal impossible without sawing the legs off.
The fact is you can’t be “slid off the cross”.
Also, The jewish priests would NOT have held any sort of tribunal on Passover. Pilate would not have released a known murderer so that they could get Jesus on the cross instead.
The whole story of the gospels is so contradictary to reality that you must realize it is just that… a story.
I also think that Robert M. Price is correct in saying that the original gospel writers had no intention of writing a factual account of what actually happened. think of the gospels like this:
Mark
/ |
Matthew John
\ | /
Luke
Mark told the original story, which combined what they knew about Jesus from Paul, other similiar heroes. (Lord Krishna comes to mind) and OT sayings, with apocryphal sayings (the book of enoch anyone?)
Matthew and John were next, Matthew rewrote the story of Mark, improving the grammar, John is more of an eschatological retelling with fewer details about specific events.
Luke redacted the above and retold the story again.
If you (uccisore, thirst, ill) are wondering what interpretation I use it’s completely mythical. There is no way to justify a literal interpretation of the bible. Too many contradictions with reality, and itself.
That and god(whatever you wish to call him today) still isn’t there.
You made some wonderful points, and have provided to me much insight. My post were for you and only you, I was attempting to have you instead of being skeptical, which I would consider to be sort of a midpoint in the levels of existence, realizing that things really arent what they seem, to go beyond this skeptic focus and begin to ascribing meaning to things simply for the sake of growth. I can see more clearly your aims in this post, and I like them. Your more so speaking to those who obtain meaning from life, and getting them to the midpoint of skepticism. Everyone has their purpose. Do you understand what Im saying, my thoughts seem scattered, but they make sense to me. But as I said before, Im not speaking for myself.
I’d like to add an interesting note to the “nazareth” discussion here. The bible itself answers the problem.
first judges 18:27 Then they took what Micah had made, and his priest, and went on to Laish, against a peaceful and unsuspecting people. They attacked them with the sword and burned down their city. 28 There was no one to rescue them because they lived a long way from Sidon and had no relationship with anyone else. The city was in a valley near Beth Rehob.
The Danites rebuilt the city and settled there. 29 They named it Dan after their forefather Dan, who was born to Israel—though the city used to be called Laish.
then genesis 14:14 When Abram heard that his relative had been taken captive, he called out the 318 trained men born in his household and went in pursuit as far as Dan.
two possibilities (which also apply for the story of jesus, abram like jesus may be based upon a real person, it’s more likely what we know of him is all mythological though.)
the story of Abraham was written after the Danites siezed Laish.
the story of Abraham was Redacted after the Danites siezed Laish.
so at the very least you can use that as a defense for the term “nazareth” in the story of jesus. It’s either a redaction, or proves the stories were written much later. (whenever the town of Japha, was changed to be called Nazareth.)
JesusNeverExisted Dot Com? Okey Dokey. Didn’t you, maybe a week ago, give me a hard time for citing studies from Narth, and critically deconstruct their mission statement for bias? Didn’t I warn you at the time that that was an extremely hypocritical gesture, considering your favored citations in religious discussion? There are plenty of non-biased websites out there about archaeology, even a few that specialize in the biblical era, and many of them you could use to support some of the things you are claiming. None of them, though, would endore a claim that “Jesus never existed”.
And which of these does the Spaghetti Monster fall under? By diverting the discussion to things like Islam, which actually a robust history of it’s own, are you backing off from the claim that Jesus has no more evidence behind His existence than this pasta deity? You guys are discussing the nuts and bolts of Gospel historicism, but really it’s a lot simpler than that. “1000 years ago, many people believed that Jesus was God” is evidence, more than the pasta monster has.
If you don't believe him, then he hasn't proven you wrong. However, I believe that he's presented adequate evidence, yes. Perhaps not enough to elevate Paul above Muhammed, but certainly above um, whoever thought Zeus was cool.
You seem here, to be saying that questioning one’s views and exposing oneself to contrary opinions and evidence is a virtue. How well do you feel you have demonstrated this virtue so far?
Sure, god could be in any shape, form, but that is not the point of The Spaghetti Monster. The evidence offered by the Spaghetti Monster is in no way, shape, or form comparable. There are absolutely no archaeological findings, no ancients texts, no credible witnesses…
Proving something does not exist is nigh impossible. However, there is sufficient evidence to suggest that Jesus existed; the evidence is reasonably credible while no such evidence exists for unicorns, or food monsters. In fact, evidence exists to highly discredit the spaghetti monster while no such evidence exists to discredit Jesus, the gospels, the apostles, and the mountains of credible, reliable discoveries that justify a Christian’s belief, a Jew’s belief, or even a Moslem’s belief.
The reason a handy rebuttal is always available means something: it means credibility. The Spaghetti Monster has none. Thus, you are wrong about evidence not changing people’s minds. Evidence changes people’s minds all the time. We convict or free people based on different types of evidence. A jury is often certain of a guilty verdict and small little bits and pieces can make them change their mind.
I don’t know what you mean by this statement. Could you clarify?
Either way, we can be reasonably certain that the number was 500 or approximately 500.
Actually, it is very likely the Corinthians new these people because we can posit that those that witnessed a resurrected Christ became disciples that spread the good word. Perhaps many of these men spread the gospel in Corinth. The letter was addressed to the Corinthians by Paul in a very personal manner. In other words, when I speak of a Dr. S to you, it is pretty clear that I am speaking of Dr. Satanical; however, that may not be clear to a newbie. The Corinthians knew who Paul was talking about. They were already believers! And of course the purpose of the letter was to debunk naysayers… They were trying to keep the gospel whole and clarify it from firsthand witnesses.
• I doubt this source has taken account of recent discoveries that name Nazareth.
• Nazareth was such a small, tiny, insignificant place that it was a joke: “Can anything good come from Nazareth?”
• You ignored the discoveries found near where the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls, a very significant discovery.
• Nazareth is an ancient location that was insignificant to the people in the area.
• I come from El Salvador, a heavily populated area with many small towns that are known to the community but are not official villages. Do you think you could (a) find a town in El Salvador in 1000 years named “Chalate” (b) find many records of this town and (c) be surprised when there is one little bit of evidence that suggests this town exists?
I too, would be afraid to leave my entire belief system behind. I don’t know that I could. So, I understand why so many Jews were afraid to make the leap. It is hard to abandon something that you have believed your whole life on the testimony of a few witnesses. In fact, I imagine that it must have been a lot more difficult for the Jews in those days to convert than it is for the AVERAGE person today to convert. Simply, the significance of the New Covenant could have easily been misunderstood, easily misinterpreted, and easily ignored. Plus, how many people would want to convert and face opposition from their families, the authorities, et al.
The message that Paul preached was not “Jesus is your god and not YHVH” but rather that “Jesus is the resurrected Son of Man, your new prophet to lead you into God the Father”. It is a scary theological principle for some to accept and/or understand.
Your statement is ridiculous. You are judging the actions of the men that counted the fish as blaspheme. If Jesus didn’t condemn it, why should we?
You are right. Peter never made the statement in his epistles that said “I saw Jesus killed and resurrected”. Do you concede that Paul testified that Jesus was seen by Peter, and that Paul testified that Jesus was seen by James?
Peter, did however, testify regarding Christ:
Personally, I think Peter is telling us the story that he witnessed. As in, Peter witnessed Jesus suffer and die on the tree. I think BOB has an interest in revisionist interpretations of god, Jesus… Frankly, I don’t know why he is a Christian. When he comes back from La La land perhaps we can discuss BOB, again.
As for warnings about thinking for yourself. I will not address them. They are ludicrous. Especially when their are instructions to watch your life {actions} and doctrine {theology} closely, and that people should examine the scriptures for themselves. Frankly, I will NOT be dragged into a debateabout “don’t think for yourself” and cult talk. You have no understanding about blaspheme of the holy ghost. It does not apply to doubt, it does not apply to cult warnings. Veiled my ass… Also, nice try to change the focus of the discussion.
And it fails miserably.
I have stated that I am an atheist. I research it as an atheist. I have no interest in proving the bible. I have addressed the topic as unbiased as humanly possible. NICE TRY trying to make this about me. The issue is not about me. The issue is not about you… Do not make it about you and me. Argue the evidence. Don’t pull the same liberal bullshit you always do… stay focused here and on topic.
Look at you… desperately trying to change the topic. You can’t beat the archaeology, you can’t beat the theology so you go into speculation about Paul and prophecy. That’s pathetic and it will not work. I won’t address the rest of this post because you continuously switch the conversation into something else in order to draw my attention away. You have NOTHING that refutes or disproves the evidence I have provided. I am correct in asserting that a Christian in justified in having faith in their god, their Jesus, and their bible.
You are a con artist. You, (you), YOU, put the odds at 1/5 for choosing. The odds of the lottery are very different. Nice try pal, changing the original terms to which I argued. It won’t work. I won’t allow you to misrepresent our original discussion. Also, you misrepresent the odds and leave out a critical element in your examples: you have no choice but to choose. Taking you car example and comparing it to the ORIGINAL choice you offered is more like the scenario below:
There is a gun to your head and unless you choose to run in 1 of 5 directions through rush hour traffic you will have a 100% chance of death. Now, you are assured that 1 of the 5 routes will be successful and the other four will lead you to death. If you choose a direction you have a 1/5 chance to live and an 80% chance to die. If you do not choose, you have a 100% chance that you will be shot to death.
Now that if the true reflection of the choice you presented to me earlier. You screwed yourself when you made that analysis. Be honest enough to admit you misrepresented the scenario.
Correction: Thirst has brought forth a lot of evidence (theological, biblical, archaeological, reasonable) that does not contradict itself. You claim it does, but you have not shown how it contradicts itself or where it does it… More importantly, I have shown you ample evidence that suggests there are reasonable causes for the apparent contradictions.
There is substantial evidence between the differences of pasta demons and the Abrahamic god. Deal with the evidence, not with the person.
you are saying that we each have a personal god, I’m denying mine.
I have no idea.
uccisore,
obviously not well enough.
Perhaps allegory isn’t something understood?
thirst,
So are you making an allegory between a gun and hell?
There’s a huge difference, the gun is a real, solid, proveable thing. Hell is not.
You have a 100% chance of wasting your time believing in literal religion. Does that mean I should waste my time trying to prove literal religion wrong?
[rant]Thirst…you have 100% chance of calling me a liberal every time you engage in conversation with me. You’ve also taken the liberty of calling me a con man in this post. Could you please in the future make your posts less about me, and more about the topic?[/rant]
Yeah you’re right, they’re much much worse. It was a bad allegory. Let’s not forget that when you did the same thing (with the 1 million man march), I didn’t call you a con artist.
but you of course you then you do it again. I state:
" you have a 20% chance of crossing the freeway during rush hour successfully"
to correlate the waste of life religion is, than you add in the gun variable.THE 80% IS MEANT TO BE UNKNOWN. You don’t know and can’t prove whether or not hell exists, but you do know that when you successfully cross the freeway you’ll feel euphoric.
You do know that if and when you succesfully cross the freeway you’ll feel euphoric. Do you have any proof for this? no. Just what the guy that went before you told you.
Perhaps it’s not the failure of the model, but the failure of those looking upon the model. I would suggest you, in your pursuit of “knowledge” read some of Joseph Campbell’s works, or perhaps listen to some of Robert M. Price’s lectures.
I myself could do with reading more of campbell’s work, he’s the quintisential mythologist of the age.
BUT, I’m hardly one dimensional, while I read Alvar’s book “jesus 100 years before the christ”, I also read books from authors on the other side, like lee strobel’s “the case for christ”, or C.S. Lewis “mere christianity”.
I think it’s important to examine all sides of an issue before making a decision.
-----> back to your regularly scheduled reply
I think Bob has the proper approach to christianity, but I also think that christians like him in the states (the liberal moderates) tend to be really PC and discourage a critical deconstruction of christianity.
I also find it interesting, that you the atheist, is making decisions as to who should or shouldn’t be christian.
they aren’t ludicrous, for a literalist christian they are RIGHT there. Most evangelicals teach their children the dangers of doubting the holy spirit.
When you think for yourself, you doubt the holy spirit. The moderates are really interesting in this regard as most of them believe in evolution. Evolution turns the story of adam “more into a representative myth”, but it also makes the punishment for original sin come before man… death.
Christs sacrifice was to free us from death and original sin. If they don’t exist what was christ sacrificed for? (I realize this isn’t a question you can address thirst, as you are an atheist.)
I think most apologists would place the writings of Peter after Paul… But it’s a bit of a problem if Paul testifies to something, and then in the writings we have from Peter and James there is no correlatory proof of these events. It’s almost as if they are just repeating what Paul told them about christ… that he died for your sins… that you will be resurrected if you believe.
Sounds an awful lot like Lord Krishna. (and other saviour gods, that came before christ.)
Do you, or do you not concede it’s a problem that in the writings we have from john, peter, and james none of them say “I physically saw jesus” (or something similiar) in most of these (and especially the apocolyptic writings of john, when jesus does say something it’s through the purveyor that is writing.
The most likely explanation for the 1 cor 15, in light of all the other 1st century writings? it was an addition by redactors, much like the large statement by josephus that interrupts the flow.
Is that really such a bad thing? to the literalist it is.
(read my post about the danites for more information regarding this type of redaction.)
Jesus didn’t condemn them in the story, because the story it was borrowed from didn’t condemn them.
Not for most actually, remember that christianity was a coalescent of diasporic judaism (which believed loosely in the old covenant) and the teachings of the essene teacher of wisdom who “preached about the new covenant of the golden rule”.
Then further social combining happened, we got hell from hellenistic influences, strict orthodoxy from roman influences, and holidays from other various “pagan” beliefs. As you absorb other beliefs into your own, it makes it easier for those people to believe. The reason that the Israel jews didn’t convert had to alot to do with the fact they felt jesus was a rebel teaching them not to obey to old covenant anymore. It was much easier for the pagans and loose jews to convert.
The town right next to it (less than a mile away from what we today call nazareth) was mentioned by Josephus. And it too was a small rural town, that Josephus grew up in… surely he would’ve mentioned the neighboring town, had he grown up there right?
read my redaction post about the danites, and see if you can come up with a good rebuttal.
I think it proves my original assertation, that the bible was redacted to change the nameplace to Nazareth, or was written when it was called Nazareth.
When telling a story you don’t want people to read “Jesus of Japha” and they’ll go “where the heck is Japha?”, the preacher will then have to explain that before it was sacked, the area now known as Nazareth was called Japha.
I think we’d have many more writings from this era then… unless of course the catholic church decided to burn those during the inquisition also. very doubtful they’d appreciate 500 witnesses vouging for christ.
I think we’re forgetting the mindset of these people. I’ll try an analogy.
We’re both going around from city to city preaching about the president we want to run next. You hit a town before I do, and you tell them your candidate is 7 ft tall and can run the mile in under a minute. I get to the town you just visited and they are loudly declaring how great this guy is. I tell them about my guy, “he can breath fire, and 20 people saw him walk on water!”.
(do you understand or do I need to clarify?)
It doesn’t prove the event happened as I proved above. Tall tales were far more common in these days, and as I think has been posited by many mythologist, it’s completely likely the author of Mark, KNEW he wasn’t writing a literal history of Jesus.
Let’s see…
From the beginning we know that the earth is 4.5 billion years old, we evolved, the world does not have 4 corners, there is no place called sheol below ground, above underground rivers, there is no home for god in the atmosphere. People, can’t live in a whale’s belly, people don’t come back from the dead, unless they’ve been sprayed with voodoo powder, people can’t walk on water, people can’t feed 3000 (or was it 4000?) people with 4 loaves of bread.
You can’t come off a cross without losing your legs. (I’d draw you a diagram in ascii, but I suck at ascii art.) To keep your feet on the cross they place your feet on the “butt” (the bottom part of the cross that the feet rest on) place a board on top of your feet, then drive the nail through the board, through your feet and into the cross.
The nail while being driven through your foot, hooks and flattens in such a way, that it cannot be removed easily from the cross. (regardless of how much time has gone by).
We also now that the dead do not rise from their graves, diseases and mental illness are not caused by demons, people who “speak to god” are usually insane.
You don’t have to worry about that if you take the bible as a piece of mythology.
No, that is the point of the spaghetti monster…
Sure, potato, potahto.
The people who firmly believe in the Spaghetti Monster, say he created the Earth, the Earth is here proof for the spaghetti monster.
If you really feel you can prove the spaghetti monster’s non-existance take the guy up on his ramen challenge.
I’ve shown the problem with archaeology and the bible (which of course you’ll deny)
plenty of other ancient beliefs have MORE ancient texts, like Buddha, and Krishna. If you use this as a definer of legitimacy, they are legitimate also… in fact more so, because they are older.
credible witnesses? You mean like the 13 mentioned in the front of the book of mormon? You mean like the groups of people that claim to see UFO’s? This is again not a good legitimatizer, as it ignores all the other beliefs that claim “credible witnesses”.
As for your pharoah question? I’m sure you could find a tablet exclaiming evidence of seeing a risen pharoah. There’s historical records of those who claimed to have witnessed Succubi. Should we believe that, just because they got witnesses?
all 3 of these are bad qualifiers for christianity being more valid than any religion, let alone the “church of the flying spaghetti monster”.
For instance, I’m sure you could get some people to testify they saw the risen meatball. Just as you could get people testifying to seeing leprachauns and invisible pink unicorns.
Again, I’m not here to win or lose… like you seem determined to do. Are you truly trying to challenge what you believe? no.
You yourself said:
The issue IS about us. It’s about what we believe and what we choose to believe. I frankly think any real christian should find the way your defending something you don’t even believe a little disgusting. How can you have passion for something you find so fake and false?
How can you present any real humility to the issue at hand?
Hopefully, we can continue the discussion in a more civilised fashion and you can address the fact that you still haven’t addressed:
Paul’s false prophesy of imminent doom.
Japha ↔ Nazareth (maybe you’ll deal with that shortly?)
Other christ saviour figures that attribute the same believability as what you are pushing for christ.
why mythology is more important than a literal standpoint.
Why the crucifixion was impossible as described.
That, in a census you wouldn’t be asked to visit your great great great great grandparents homeland. (could this be any more logical?)
the contradiction between corinthians and hebrews.
Why doubting the holy spirit is an important common sin among religions.
Maybe you’ll address some of these issues in your coming post.
Good point. Then perhaps a more fitting description would be a man claiming to have a gun… But you missed the point entirely. The point was that you used the numbers and figures and I simply responded to what you gave me. I think you subsequently misrepresented the topic. Which I think you now admit, right?
Do you really want to use numbers and statistical analysis? There are two things above with which I take issue: (1) Nothing is 100%, the chance of striking gold is higher, especially if you do the research. That is, if we study scripture {all of it}, archaeology, testimony, and vast amounts of data we can logically narrow down the correct paths. In other words, you can improve your chances significantly. (2) Believing is not a waste of time. I believe in love, in compassion, in survival. How tangible is love or compassion? Claiming that believing in “literal religion” is a waste of time is wrong. Moreover, it is more your desire to make it such because you can never decide what is a waste of time for somebody else. No, your statement stinks of bias.
Says the person that claims that because my arguments don’t come from within they are false. Besides, you are a liberal. Not to mention that you go on a nice long post about your reading habits… If you don’t want to be in the topic, stop throwing yourself into the topic.
My parallel was nowhere near as misleading or as foolish. I represented that people can claim 1000 when it was really 760… or claim 500 when it is really 442 or 1,000,000 when it is really 600,000. Making such a claim is not deceitful, rather it is an approximation.
You are the one that provided the example. Is it my fault you fucked up?.
Or the person who made the model unsuitable to his own agenda and then tried to misrepresent it so as not to concede his error.
Do you read what you post? You, an atheist/agnostic, states that you think Bob has the proper approach and then you bitch that me (an admitted atheist) makes a statement about his Christianity? Hypocrisy or stupidity? Which was the case of your above quote?
Most X teach Y, thus all X teach Y… Ludicrous. Unfounded, ridiculous.
Christ died for something that is theologically accepted: we die and we sin. Christ died for the sins of all mankind. That includes a number of sins beyond original sin.
It is not necessary for Peter and James to have S.P.E.L.L.E.D. it out… They were testifying to the same story as Paul. It simply was addressed to a specific audience that was aware of the teachings. These letters were addressed to the BELIEVERS. Do I need to specify that I physically saw my brother (and not in a dream) in order to tell you what he is like? So, no, there is no problem with not specifically saying “I saw Jesus physically”. In fact, let’s take the opposite approach. Paul specified when he saw Jesus in a vision… I think it is safe and reasonable to suggest that Peter and James would have specified too.
That’s bullshit. You have no evidence to support this. Provide evidence. I have repeatedly claimed that 1 Corinthians 15 is one of the earliest creeds of the church that can be dated as far back as 45 A.D. There was no redaction here, no collusion, no coverup, no conspiracy.
That’s silly. The authors show Jesus condemning all manner of things to everyone else. Everwhere we read about Jesus he is never afraid to condemn the inappropriate. Why would he not do so here? Sorry, this doesn’t hold water.
Since you have no problem with speculating about Josephus’ motives, I would ask you to speculate if Josephus had any reason to mention Nazareth? I would ask you to speculate that besides his hometown, why would he mention a near by town? And how many nearby towns must one metion. I could say that San Diego is not too far from Los Angeles and be correct. I would also be more correct to say that San Diego is not too far from El Centro, but why would I mention that to anyone? Who the fuck knows, or wants to know, about El Centro? Who the fuck knows, or wants to know about Nazareth? Remember, Jesus was a radical rabbi of little importance and which Josephus had reason not to include at all… Besides, Josephus also says surprisingly little about Christianity, does that mean that the first century disciples did not exist too? No, sorry, this doesn’t hold water either. Sorry, call Dr. Strange… ask about Nazareth of the first century.
Why don’t you speculate so I can tear it down…
I understand that you have no basis or evidence for this… none whatsoever.
Men don’t go to their deaths testifying they caught a 8ft fish… Men went to death testifying they saw the resurrected Christ in the flesh.
So, you don’t think miracles are possible? Is that what you are saying?
Have you ever seen Pulp Fiction and the “miracle” that occurred in the movie? Miracles can be interpreted a number of ways, some that have faith will see a genuine, according to Hoyle, miracle. I am not here to prove anything, but there is evidence to suggest.
Stupid, estupido. You can draw all the false parallels you want, but just because you say so, does not make them equal.
See, I think we have to review the veracity of those that believe in the Pasta thingy… I think the veracity of Paul, Peter, James, and the authors of the gospels stands up to criticism and review. The same is not true of Spaghetti thingy…
I have already told you that one would have reasonable cause to review these texts in some detail. In other words, it is a good idea to check them out! If they stand up to criticism, continue reviewing. Spaghetti does not stand up to criticism. Of course, every person should decide for themselves what is credible, but I think you would find that a reasonable person can come to a reasonable conclusion about credibility. Certainly, a reasonable person would conclude: Spaghetti Monster = bullshit, Christianity = Plausible.
I love it when atheists resort to referring to unicorns as if that is a end all to the discussion! Please!
Scythekain, the following will be very strong, since you choose to make it about me and you.
Arguments come from within and are false? What kind of stupidity is that? I do not have to believe that War and Peace is the good book in order to point out it’s brilliant segments; I do not need to like McDonald’s to point out it is convenient. Facts are facts whether or not I believe in them. Should an atheist be “disgusted” when a Christian defends their position? Should a liberal be disgusted when I point out they have a good point? Should a liberal be disgusted when I point out that Clinton served the economy well? Do you read what you write?
I have passion for the truth. There is some truth to the bible.
Why do we need to discuss this? Where did we discuss this in the past?
It’s not more important. It certainly is a viable and reasonable option but it is not more important than a literal interpretation.
I am pretty certain that some people who were crucified had their feet in tact. There is also evidence that the Roman executioners didn’t always do things in one specific way. There is certainly a plausibility that the crucifixion occurred as described. It was possible.
REMIND ME ABOUT THIS… I HAVE SOME ARCHAEOLOGICAL INFO TO PROVIDE HERE
If you would actually read Hebrews you might be able to understand it… That particular part you mention actually begins in Hebrews 7:11 through the end of that chapter (vs. 28 ) and continues in Hebrews 8:1 through the end of that chapter (vs. 13) and continues in Hebrews 9:1 through the end of that chapter. So, to understand the whole of it, let’s review the conclusion of Hebrews 9 (below).
A few things to consider:
(1) Jesus came down to die for man’s sin
(2) Visions don’t die
(3) He will return a second time (suggesting he was here before)
Consider your Hebrews “contradiction” refuted. There is no contradiction with 1 Corinthians 15. It actually fits in quite well, extremely well.
You’ve got me confused. You seem to be more open to the essential message of Christianity as re-birth far more than some others calling themselves Christian. Yet you call yourself an Atheist while suggesting that it is plausible. This would seem to be the more open minded position of an Agnostic yet you call yourself Atheist. What am I missing?
you have refuted that contradiction, as he clearly says “second coming” in that statement.
There is some truth to it… from a mythological standpoint.
well you haven’t yet… I’ve addressed it several times. THAT is an unaddressed contradiction as the later written gospels try dealing with that issue, by saying “no one will know the hour” (etc). Glance up the page, or if you can’t find the specific area where I’m dealing with Paul as a false prophet I’ll cut and paste it in to my next post.
You don’t have the passion of someone who believes what they are posting. You don’t gain anything if you are right or wrong about a point.
I should probably explain why I think it’s more important. Here are a few quick reasons, if you need more than that I’ll go into more detail:
Literal Christians are still obsessed with violence and blood… the worldwide take including DVD sales/rentals of the “Passion of the Christ” was over 1 billion dollars.
The highest grossing book series “left behind” sold more than 75 million copies, and the authors look forward to the day when non-believers will be thrown screaming into hell.
44% Of Americans believe that christs return will happen within their lifetimes. This is patently dangerous for any long term planning, as you don’t care about the future, if you think your going to be sucked up into heaven. In fact to quote Reagan, “Why care about the redwoods, when the last one gets cut down we’ll be raptured up to heaven.”
It’s much better to take a mythological look at the bible, than a literal look.
they have yet to find any ossuaries of such an example.
That’s fine, except they borrowed crucifixion from another society, and thus rarely did it differently (from what I’ve read.)
It’s highly improbable, as I’ve stated, ossuaries from that century and the century before the legs were chopped off and the nail still embedded into the foot.
So did mithras, dionusys, krishna, etc. If you read their “holy books” they had witnesses too. Many apostles like Paul preached for their respective churches.
yeah because they aren’t real?
you got me there, but it’s exactly the same thing we read from other mythological sin savers as well. Lord Krishna is supposed to return as well. He was crucified on a tree and an arrow nailed him to the tree.
He is risen. He is risen indeed.
mostly… I still think it’s a good representation. You have men telling you that if you come across the freeway you’ll experience bliss if you stay there you’ll be killed by invisible demons. The freeway, in my mind represents the waste of energy devoted to a literal interpretation of the belief.
Maybe it is a bad analogy if you don’t see that?
Should I have stated IMO?
I didn’t say “believing” is a waste of time, I said “believing in a literal religion” is a waste of time. BIG difference.
No it’s my fault I didn’t come up with an allegory that better related to you the danger of believing in literal religion.
If you haven’t figured it out by now, I believe myth represents life. I’m agnostic when it comes to god. and passionate against literal belief, because I’ve seen the dangers it causes. You are passionate for literal belief and don’t even believe that.
Is that supposed to make sense? Explain your passion for literal belief.
I’ve explained my passion against it.
I’m betting it’s pretty close to all literalists that teach that way. If you believe the bible literally you believe that is the worst sin.
are there exceptions? sure, every rule has them.
thirst… the theological explanation is directly correlated to original sin. Death came from original sin, god sent his son to help us conquer death and adam’s “big mistake”. And christ only died for those who accept him, so all those people who are more moral than the angel gabriel and bring people into their house… according a literal interpretation of the bible they’ll be burning in hell for no simply believing in a saviour god. If that’s really all it took, why not believe in Mithras? he’s got as much ancient proof that he lived and sin sacrificed as christ.
All sins originate back to original sin though.
So you’re telling me that if you actually witnessed something as miraculous as the christ you wouldn’t write about it, simply because Paul covered the basics? James and Peter just re-spell out what Paul makes clear in his letters. That there was this guy named christ and he lived and died for your sins, and that he rised 3 days later into heaven. Soon he’ll return (before all of you “sleep”) and raise us up to heaven.
I don’t buy it. If I witnessed something like that I’d be writing about it. People who witness something SO out of the ordinary can’t stop talking about it. Take the people who claim to be abducted by aliens… it obsesses their every moment. I imagine it would be the same for these men if they physically saw the risen christ.
Has your brother risen from the dead with holes in his hands?
Except for the Danite redaction above in genesis? Let’s think about how books were copied. The copyist read the material, than copied it down. When you add a possible translation it gets even worse.
Or how about this to think about. The oldest versions of Mark we have end
at verse 8.
Or the oldest copy of the Torah we have that resides in a museum in England, shows the numerous copyist and redaction changes that have happened to the torah since.
Do I think that NT literature was subject to the same thing? Absolutely.
Does it date back as a complete document? They rarely even if it matched what’s there today, could find a document that old that is not fragmented.
Remember that, the Qumran scrolls were found in the 40’s and held in a ca tholic church vault until the 70’s to 80’s. Is it possible they are holding on to other such scrolls that show there is a problem with the Jesus story in the bible?
Most of the conspiracy and coverup happened much earlier. You don’t think they were just burning Talmud’s do you? Much of what they burned was most likely the true story of what Jesus was.
It may of even contained his burial location.
Highly spurious, I know… But completely possible, knowing that the modern church held onto the less damaging Qumran document for 40+ years.
We unfortunately don’t know what was burned during the inquisition. Lot’s of important history that’s for certain.
indeed. And most of those stories were borrowed from pseudigraph, apocryhpa or hellenistic influences. The mere fact that he doesn’t scorn them for counting the fish is more proof that the story was borrowed.
Common sense question>
What’s more likely that this story was borrowed from an earlier story from a hellenistic figure that was considered to be a messiah (plato), or that it’s an original story of something that actually happened?
Because it was right near his hometown. (which was as small or smaller than Nazareth was supposed to be.)
Archaelogically this is what they find… in the valley where “nazareth” is supposed to be is a large gravesite. Where Japha is, there is a small town.
It’s completely obvious that it was called “Nazareth” later on much like Laish was changed to Dan.
Smaller towns than that are mentioned on the pilgramage route map from that site.
it’s not like they had bursting megapolis’ like San Diego in this day and age… most towns were the smaller than El Centro.
Mainly because it was an “essene” branch called the “church of god” (as paul, james, peter, and barnabas address it.)
Christianity didn’t exist until after the second century. (as we know it today that is.)
Note that what the gospels call “disciples” called themselves “apostles” missionaries. The later written gospels turned the apostles into disciples then back into disciples (in I believe only one of the gospels.)
This is important and relates to the fact that none of the apostles mention any of the life of christ except for the last three “major” events, crucifixion, death, ascension.
And another group that usually convened right next to early christians, claimed to have seen the risen mithras. They probably had apostles and writings as well. Why don’t we have any? could it be the inquisition? We do know that mithras birthday became the birthday for christ.
yep.
Let’s take a recent event. The governor of west virginia claiming that having one survivor is a miracle. So the other 12 people’s lives weren’t worthy of a miracle? It is amazing that he survived, but to claim that his survival is a miracle makes the other peoples lives seem “less than worthy”.
whenever looking at something you are going to claim a miracle one should first seek a naturalistic explanation.
Pulp fiction is a great example of modern mythology by the way. Not as good as some others but still a fine arc of character growth and struggle that we can relate to.
According to the eschatological scholar. I suggest you read two books…
The case for christ; Lee strobel
and it’s counter
Challenging the verdict: A cross examination of the case for christ; Earl Doherty
I think both present good arguments and fail to see how “it stands up to criticism and review”…
Like I said I like to read both sides, recently I read the “jesus 100 years before the christ” I also read “the jesus myth” written by an apologist.
I think if jesus existed (there’s no reason to think he didn’t) Alvar comes closest to the true timeframe. He provides well thought out evidence and reasoning.
I think it would do us all good to read books about this time from other sources besides the bible and it’s apologists, don’t you think? Hence I suggest some books that I’ve read that I found to be interesting and enlightening.
well again, there’s more proof for jesus because of the bible… if The spaghetti monster had writings about him like zeus, thor, mithras, krishna, etc, then there would be just as much proof for him as those.
Absolutely. But, I would argue for a mythological interpretation. (as we’ve seen.)
I would also say to read from scholars from both sides that interpret the books.
Well I look at it like this:
Spaghetti Monster = god = christianity = implausible.
think about it this way.
Spaghetti Monster = god.
God = X.
Christianity = jesus
Jesus = God
X = X.
If one god is implausible, then all gods are implausible.
Not just any unicorns, but invisible pink ones.
With Large horns! I swear to you I witnessed the risen unicorn, I’ll write down that I saw it and 2000 years from now they’ll be a cult of people worshipping the risen unicorn that was turned into glue for their sins.
I wouldn’t be surprised if you saw a cult of elvis worshippers 100 years from now. Many people claim to have seen the risen Elvis.
"In lonely gas stations with mini-marts
You’ll find rows of them for sale
Liquor-filled statues of Elvis Presley
Screw his head off and Drink like a vampire
His disciples flock to such a fitting shrine
Sprawled across from his graceless mansion
A shopping mall
Filled with prayer rugs and Elvis dolls
And I wonder
Yeah I wonder
Will Elvis take the place of Jesus in a thousand years
Religious wars
Barbaric laws
Bloodshed worldwide
Over what’s left of his myth
A growing boy needs his lunch"- Biafra
you must partake of the holy donuts in the presence of a hunka hunka burning bush!!
NICK, sorry for the confusion. I meant to say the following: Certainly, a reasonable person could conclude: Spaghetti Monster = reasonably bullshit, Christianity = reasonably plausible. I don’t want to get into my personal views so I will make this short: I am an atheist. I think that anything is possible, sure; however, the likelihood of it being remotely possible does not prevent me from taking a hard stance. I have recently concluded that calling oneself ‘agnostic’ is the politically correct way of saying one of a three things: “I am an atheist but don’t want to offend you by saying that it is not at all possible” or a way of saying “I don’t know jack shit about theology, but since I don’t want to believe in god I will just say I am agnostic like everybody else” or it is a way of saying “I want to be an atheist but don’t have the balls to admit it”. I am an atheist.
Scythekain, I really appreciate that you condeded the point. It tells me you are reasonable. I thank you.
You couldn’t help yourself could you? You had to add “from a mythological standpoint” didn’t you? Admit it, there is some truth in the bible, period! Admitting this does not mean you admit that god is real or that Jesus was the Messiah… There are facts to be found in the bible some of which are supported archaeologically.
Would you mind reposting this? I am afraid I could not find it… we have had very LONG and detailed conversations.
There are a few problems here:
(a) If I have nothing to gain, then surely I am not biased.
(b) I DO have something to gain. As I mentioned, I am passionate about truth.
(c) Why do we have to gain something in order for what we post to be correct, or valid? We don’t.
I read your stuff about “Passion O T C” and DVD’s and the rest… I will not get into an debate about Christian dogma. The message or intent of many brilliant schemes are often misinterpreted and misused. This does not make the system bad, this does not mean we should revise the past, revise the message, or revise the system. The brilliance of capitalism is abused by robber barons, and by corrupt persons leading corporations like Enron, this does not mean that capitalism is to blame. Similarly, we can’t blame Christianity for stupid and/or corrupt people.
Separately, I don’t where you get your stats about “44% of Americans” but I doubt the veracity of it for several reasons. Rather than expand on that, I will let you provide a source first. Lastly, I disagree that the belief in an immanent return of Christ is “patently dangerous”. I don’t think it plays a part on deciding on whether a mythological or literal appreciation of the bible is necessary.
Sources? Samples? Scholarly findings? I cannot presently locate any archaeological examples to counter this; however, I am certain I have read it in a few books. I will have to get back to you. In the meantime, could you provide some actual findings with their sources?
Still, that leaves an open door for possibility… highly improbable? Sure. Impossible? No.
(2) We do not have an exact established year of birth for Jesus. Though potentially, it could have been as early as 6 B.C. Herod died in 4 B.C.
(3) Quirinius may have ruled Syria at two different times. There is a coin that dates Quirinius as prefect in the region as early as 12 B.C.
(4) If the customary practice of having a census approximately every 12 years holds, then 6 B.C. could have been where one census was held by Quirinius and another in 6 A.D..
(5) Combine the above and the time frame is just about right. Certainly it is probable.
Paul would not have testified that a vision “died” for their sins. It makes for poor judgment on Paul’s behalf otherwise. Not to mention Peter’s and James’, et al.
I take the Krishna stories seriously too. They merit their own investigation on the veracity of the stories, the witnesses, the archaeology.
Sidenote: On your " freeway allegory". I think it was a bad one. Perhaps we should try another?
Believing that we do not have free will is a big waste of time… The point I am trying to make is that you can’t decide this, I can’t decide this. Every person decides for themselves. And what is more, there is ample debate that free will exists and that it does not exist.
I am not passionate for literal belief. I am passionate for the truth. AND FOR THE LAST TIME, this is not about me. Literal belief has its truths and so does mythological beliefs and interpretations… there is truth in a lot of things with which I disagree but I refuse to ignore those truths because of my personal disagreements.
I am not arguing the rules of Christianity, only that it is theologically consistent. Literal or mythological, it is consistent. Do you deny this?
I can write about the horror of 9/11 without specifically stating “this was a real event that happened in the physical world.” 9/11 was pretty haunting spectacle, and I do not need to specify “real event” to you because you are already familiar with the event. Just as 9/11 is common knowledge among us, the physical resurrection of a real Christ was common knowledge to the disciples to which Paul, Peter, & James wrote. CONSIDER THE AUDIENCE.
How does this equate to a redaction of 1 Corinthians? It doesn’t. Also, while I WILL NOT DO SO HERE, I could argue the redaction of Genesis. I repeat that I WILL NOT DO SO HERE. Also, the piece that date’s back to 45 A.D. is the most important piece: Chapter 15. It is the earliest creed of the first disciples.
I will not address conspiracy because: (a) that is another thread, (b) it’s bullshit (c) no one has tangible, credible evidence that would lead to a conspiracy. (d) we are speculating on bullshit about burial sites, and “true” stories of Christ. (e) the probability of conspiracy is possible but again, that is another thread.
Bullshit. More likely is that a man like Paul testified to what he witnessed, saw, and heard from other direct witnesses.
The “El Centro” comparison is simply how I may mention my birth town, but I’d be damned if I even know the next town over. I was born in Chalate, El Salvador… I don’t even know the names of any other towns other than the major ones! Why must Josephus mention Nazareth?
Revisionist bullshit. All of the believers of Christ were called disciples. Some of the disciples were apostles.
9/11 (September 11th).
Jealousy? Copy cat? Who knows…
You miss the point of the miracle. It is intended to convince not to spare people from death. Much like Jules (a fictional character played by a physical Samuel L. Jackson whom I’ve never met in person but is known to many people who would testify that he is a “real” life person ) he said the miracle was what happened inside him… how it changed him. Not whether god actually came down and stopped the bullets but rather how it changed Jules’ perspective.
I will pick the books you suggested up sometime… Reading books is always a great piece of advice.
Finally! You admit there is a difference between them! Thanks! And Bravo! =D> (that’s a sincere thanks).
I won’t debate your personal thoughts on the matter but I think it is reasonable to conclude otherwise. I like pink unicorns and purple dragons.
You have big brass ones… there’s of course millions of other types of agnostics, but you want to put them into compartments.
I consider myself an atheist. Is there a possibility there’s a god? sure, just as likely as anything else I can’t see.
I especially like this one:
““I don’t know jack shit about theology, but since I don’t want to believe in god I will just say I am agnostic like everybody else””
As far as knowing about religion (generalization ahead) I think the ratios are more like this:
Atheist - Agnostic - Religious. Generally speaking I think the average atheist knows more about religion than the average religious person. ILP defies this law of averages when it comes to the religious, as those who know the very least about religion are also going to be the least inclined to philosophize about theology.
Well, no problem. It’s best to know when to admit you are wrong…
yes, I had to.
Theological truth yes. Literal truth? I don’t think so. You run into problems like the census issue, it was either at 6 BC or 6 C.E. which would make Jesus either 38 or 26 for his crucifixion… while that’s not far off from the supposed age of 30 - 32, it doesn’t deal with the fact that no census has ever asked someone to return to the land of their distant forefathers FOR TAX PURPOSES. It’d be like a US census asking you to return to the homeland of your forefathers…
Well, again, that’s not an important footnote, because you have to first prove what you want to be a literal truth, and then try to prove that.
Since the gospels were written so late (even by traditional standards) we have to look at them more as myth than fact. Does Paul talk about the resurrection of his god? yes… but no more so than other apostles of other religions did. The mithras apostles talked about how mithras died for the sins of the many, the dionysus’ cults witnessed their risen savior god. Hell, people in Ireland witnessed Leprachauns, and people in this country witness UFO’s and Aliens.
Does that make any of those “literal” truths? If we went to Ireland right now, we could probably find at least five people willing to testify that they physically saw a leprechaun. Is this a tangent from the bible? No… The only difference is age, and that the author of the epistles much like Smith and Mohammed wrote down his visions.
Like Sodom and Gohmorra? they certainly did find a city that was burnt by sulfur pellets… does that archaelogically prove the event as described? No. It proves that a city in that area, got destroyed by a gas eruption. The story probably got passed down from generation to generation and one city became two, and it became the wrath of god that destroyed it.
From a true historical standpoint is what the bible says important? Not unless you find a story about how upsetting god can destroy a city historically important. The same could be said of other events that become even more fuzzy. In Joshua it exclaims that Joshua won Jericho… in the very next book, we find out that the jews have not yet captured jericho several generations after Joshua has died.
The history in the book (especially the OT) has been so mixed with mythology that the “true” history of the events described is no longer plausible or important. The mythology is still important.
"hebrews 10:35 So do not throw away your confidence; it will be richly rewarded. 36 You need to persevere so that when you have done the will of God, you will receive what he has promised. 37 For in just a very little while,
“He who is coming will come and will not delay.*
38 But my righteous one will live by faith.
And if he shrinks back,
I will not be pleased with him.” 39 But we are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed**, but of those who believe and are saved.
Note that he doesn’t say “returning” or “second coming” it’s “he who is coming”. Note in this same verse, the truth to Paul’s lie. “And will not delay” - I still contemplate whether this contradicts other statements where he does say “second coming”
** Note that this was transformed into a statement by christ in the gospels. Jesus states “those who have seen me and speak against me will be forgiven, but those who speak against the holy spirit are condemned to hellfire.” "
the “will not delay” bit is the important piece of the puzzle. Most of the epistles speak of the “coming soon” bit, as “within the lifetimes of many of you”
Well from your arguments here I would disagree with that, I don’t think you would look at the other religions I’ve mentioned with the same equality, or else you would see that I am right and Jesus is no different than other Saviour gods.
who’s version of the truth, and at what cost? How fully versed are you in other religions of this era? Do you truly know how the christian church developed into what it is today?
why? Why else would you debate? To spread the truth? So you are prostelyzing for christianity?
Think about this… if you are an atheist you don’t believe in god or jesus, thusly don’t believe that this statement is true:
“christ was crucified and resurrected and died for our sins”…
Yet according to your point B, you are pushing this as “truth”. Sure you don’t have to argue a point you truly believe in, You learn and grow alot more from doing so. And it’s nearly impossible to lose a debate from the standpoint you have, as you don’t really believe in what you are saying anyways.
That and it’s a walking contradiction, you state you are speaking and arguing for the truth, yet don’t believe any of what you are saying… or do you?
Yeah, I don’t think that can be said in this case, it’s simply a matter of interpreting the book differently, and when you do so with a literal “truth” stent, you are ensured to come up with crazy ideas about how to live life, like the christian scientists who only believe in faith healing…
take the following example of interpreting whether christ was peaceful or not (this is one of but many examples)
Is this from a parable? yes… it’s pretty clear the “king” in this parable is jesus/god.
and one to be like a child/peaceful/in a state of learning:
Unless you think little children are meant to form armies for the lord and kill those who waste their faith, how do you deal with such contradictions? Jesus of the gospels had some clear inspired speeches… he also has MANY gems like Luke 19… And what would one expect? Looking at the OT it is filled with violent acts against neighboring nations for the “lord”.
Well that’s a matter of opinion, I think capitalism lends itself to robber barons and the ultra rich corrupt. The ultimate company in a capitalistic environment is a monopoly. Both Walmart and Microsoft are close to achieving that goal… Microsoft would’ve 7 years ago, if the government didn’t step in and charge them with monopolistic actions. Walmart will be there in the next 5 - 10 years, where the majority of goods are bought from a walmart.
And let’s not forget the absolute ludicrous abuses that were happening towards employees until the “socialistic” unions came in and changed their behaviours. Did they go about it in the wrong way? I would say yes, but they accomplished much in the way of giving employees better pay and better benefits.
(dammit thirst, you got me sidetracked)
This again goes back to your knowledge of the founding of the modern church… the books we have were only chosen because they support the catholic doctrines of trinity and divineness of jesus… Like I said, many other writers had opinions on the jesus fellow, and there’s is WAY different than the Jesus the catholics chose, and thusly different than what modern christianity worships today. One that keeps popping up though is that “jesus - god - holy spirit” are not a “triune state” personage, and are either three seperate persons that act as one, or three seperate personages. This isn’t a modern belief, The decision to enact the trinity was won by ONE VOTE. That vote was by Emperor Constantine.
I’m not propagating that the teachings make people act in any sort of way, it’s certainly based upon which interpretation of the book you believe which is dependant on which church you goto and the beliefs of it’s pastor. So even though they are not completely mistaken in a literal interpretation that promotes evil behaviour (see manson - and luke above) they definately THANKFULLY, do not represent a majority of christians. I would say currently that “soldiers for christ” represent a small minority of christians, though I’m certain that will grow… Ever heard the song “onward christian soldier”…
Here’s another interesting related tidbit. Christians who believe in the rapture and the second coming of christ, are warned that the antichrist will be a peacemaker, and that in someway, someone who tries making peace between the nations/religions is evil.
it was a study commissioned by the authors of the left behind series, done by George Barnas. I have no reason to doubt that, as it seems to me about 4.4 out of 10 people believe in the rapture.
absolutely it does. Unless you don’t give a rats ass about the future of the planet, or the future of our economy. and I garauntee you, anyone who thinks they are going to be raptured up within their lifetime (like reagan did, who made the brazen statement about the redwoods.) will not care about either of these things. In FACT, most of these same christians, think that we can speed up the coming of christ by going to war and destroying the planet. Do you think it’s completely for oil that Bush decided on Iraq? Iraq plays a central role in the eschatology of the rapturist.
you’ve found it in a few books? Unfortunately I don’t currently recall where I saw the bit. It did state they’ve found several ossuaries from before and after the first century that had the legs sawed off, and didn’t mention any such crucifixions that occured differently…
It’s apparently has something to do with the way the nail enters the foot, it makes it impossible to do any sort of sliding out of the nail. Certainly if they were able to the size of the wound would be incomprehensible… about 2.5 - 3 inch hole, probaby torn flesh, broken bones, etc.
sure… it’s highly improbable an asteroid will hit today. Likely? no.
It’s highly improbable that for whatever reason they decided to crucify christ differently than all the other people at the time, it’s also Highly improbable the jewish authorities would have anything to do with said crucifixion. It’s highly improbable such a trial would happen on passover eve.
Sooner or later you’ve got a stack of highly improbables that make the gospel account awful hard to trust as a literal interpretation of what happened.
Return to their current homes… not to the home where their great great great great great great great great grandparents lived.
so that would date Jesus at 38. A little older than what we are supposed to believe but no unreasonable. If you ignore the problem with number 1.
Did he rule during the genealogy? does it matter? If we date Jesus to the first part of the first century we still have to deal with the problem that none of his disciples wrote anything of his life on earth… which according to the earliest dating of pauls writings (45 CE according to you?) was a mere 12 years after the “death” of christ.
12 years, and all that anybody remembered was the last three events from christ’s life?
It’s much like the “prophets” from the OT, they took an event that happened then placed characters in those events. Much like shakespeare did with Caesar, or James Cameron did with the titanic.
I’m not surprised that they got alot of the details about that era right as they pulled it straight from the scholars who wrote about the timeframe they wanted to place Jesus into.
well the first one is closer to the traditional birthdate presented by theologians, who say Jesus was born between 4 BCE and 0 CE. It still doesn’t deal with the “home” issue. (unless of course you reply that “home” is a vary vague term and can mean to return to the home of your great ancestors, because that’s where they’ll actually be collecting the tax from.)
It’s far more probable that a man LIKE christ lived 100 years earlier, and later theologians moved him into the first century. an epistle from the first century (can’t remember where exactly) places christs death 100 years earlier under a king that lived during that time.
it imo did make poor judgement on his part. Remember that Paul himself never physically saw christ, and we have no reason to believe that the ONE statement in corinthians where he claims the others saw christ is not a redaction (later addition). Certainly HAD they physically seen christ they would’ve stated so, instead of referring to him the same way Paul usually does in his writings.
(as a vision… the same way JS refers to moroni, the same way mohammed refered to allah.)
What makes Paul’s vision any more truth worthy than that later “visionaries”?
Seriously? To what benefit? The stories serve a purely mythological purpose, as I’ve stated before… sure we can find a city that’s been rained on with sulfur but there’s little historical truth to garner from the bible unless you believe the literal god rained the hellfire on that city.
otherwise such writings serve little benefit to those trying to garner what actually happened to the people.
maybe. I’ll have to contemplate on that one.
I feel compelled by an invisible force, because I have no free will, yet there is no god controlling my actions.
Sounds like a pretty exciting existence, where can I sign up?
Isn’t that what I said regarding the gospels and such? There is ample debate both ways, I’ve read both sides and think the side against presented a better argument. I’m certainly not as good as them at presenting that side, and that’s one of the things I “learn” from debates such as this.
for what? the truth is what? I believe that christ existed 100 years before, and I think there is ample evidence to prove that truth. I think we can also ascertain from the lack of an apocalypse that both John (revelations), and Paul (epistles) were false prophets. The end wasn’t nigh… Christ never returned (came).
Just what truth are you propagating, and how can you not see the contradiction of propagating a truth that you don’t even believe?
You’ve yet to show me any useful literal interpretation of the bible.
Literally consistent? If you really want to go down that road we can, before we proceed with that, present me with something that is a useful literal interpretation from the bible, here are the rules:
Present a literal truth that helps the cause of christianity.
Present a literal truth that helps the everyday atheist.
Present a literal truth that doesn’t contradict true history or science.
present a literal scientific truth.
You may be able to fill at least one of these criteria…
Since I don’t write history, I wouldn’t know how they would write it… I imagine it would be alot more fact based than what we have in the bible. I also think it would present a conclusive evidence that it happened in the year 2001…
Like if I was writing it, I would write it somewhat similiar to the following:
In the first four years that George Bush was president there was a terrible attack on the World Trade Center that reduced the building to rubble. Earlier in the same year there was a 7.1 quake in the Pacific Northwest on February 28th.
A historian, though writes differently than a story teller… if you were to weave a tale of warning from the event it would be very different.
As for “I really saw it happen in real life”, People don’t talk like that anyways. What I would expect from an actual disciple though is, a parable… “Remember what christ said on the hill to the 3000 people…”
What we have is christ simply “talking” to these people in the present tense (as in visions/dreams/ etc.)
Yes consider it indeed… if it was such common knowledge why did Paul repeatedly point out the resurrection and crucifixion? If it was common knowledge why mention the last three events of Jesus’ life at all?
Consider that the churches Paul (and other apostles of paul) were writing to churches that already were in existence, and probably believed in the “teacher christ” and not the “god christ” that Paul believed in. That is why he hammers the resurrection home.
certainly it doesn’t there, I was using that example for Nazareth… If I were going to show a redaction for 1 corinthians, it would be “who killed Goliath?” - Later traditions pinned it on David, even though it was one of the soldiers in the army. (and the bible says this, and has two contradicting stories, about the event.)
Why would you do that? I don’t think you’d get very far considering that gen 36 (and much of the other genealogy.) is near verbatim of 1 chronicles 1. It’s more likely that the priestly sect that cared more about “direct lineage” created the genealogy then placed it into the book of genesis.
Of course, this is about JC, not about the book that is one of the founding principles for even early christianity.
Then we’re back to the problem of why no one mentioned his other earthly acts… A mere 12 years later, surely if you were trying to preach about the man JC and you witnessed him 12 years ago, you’d state something like, “remember when Jesus was tempted by the devil in the desert for 40 days, he did not give into temptation, we must do the same.”
it relates to what we’re talking about.
wow, that’s a strong argument. And you even bulleted it.
the evidence of redaction is within the bible.
why did you put “true” in quotes?. And why is it “bullshit” about burial sites? because of all the ossuaries found for crucified men, they had their feet cut off? because the nail shatters the bones and makes removal impossible?
All the so called conspiracies (why are you using that semantics? to try and lessen their value?) relate directly to what we are talking about. I think the real problem is that you don’t have a good argument against the redaction or the ossuaries, or the catholics burning records of the rabbinical jesus from 100 years earlier. (form talmud records.)
you are using that word alot, it carries little weight in this debate though. You can no more prove that Paul testified from direct witnesses than you can that Joseph Smith spoke to god, or Mohammed spoke to god… and no, that doesn’t make their testimonies any more valid, it makes the christian one less valid to the serious historian… the mythologist can still look at christ as an important story.
did you romp around El Salvador alot? Josephus did, he romped over there in Japhas to conquer it, and for some reason ignored the burial ground that is now called Nazareth. hmm… I think I know why. Because it was a burial ground and everyone lived in Japhas?
so:
How often have you been to El Centro and the surrounding area? Josephus and the “travel guide” were designed by people intimately familiar with the areas.
there were ALOT fewer towns in this day and age. Any town that had a name would’ve been on a local map. You aren’t looking at it from their point of view and your El Centro example is invalid because it’s a modern city surrounded by much larger metropolis’. If we are to believe the tale that Nazareth existed and is not a redaction, than we must look at it from their POV. There was Japhas, than another town (besides nazareth) maybe 20 - 30 miles away. So are you telling me that in the age when there were no roads and you had to walk or ride a horse from place to place they are going to avoid mentioning ANY town?
it doesn’t hold water.
You (this is an estimate) have probably rarely traveled around El Centro, and even if you have the analogy is like comparing the area of LA and San Diego to a sparsely populated area in Northern Canada. The area of Northern Canada that is not very densely populated and has small towns, miles and miles apart from each other is a much closer analogy to this era.
you aren’t thinking like a first century person… put yourself in their shoes. You have no car. you are in a desert. water is absolutely vital. a town, even if it’s not much bigger, the same size or a little smaller than Japha would be VITAL information for a soldier, traveler, merchant.
well I’m not the one who did the revisioning, the church is. If you can find a place in the first century writings (the epistles, revelations) where they EVER refer to themselves as disciples I’ll retract this statement.
okay GWB. See my examples about parallels to his life or statements of allegory that connect you to his life.
the christians? probably, considering they came later.
uh, okay…
could you rephrase that, so it makes a little more sense?
cool! (if you’ve got any books you’ve read, feel free to bounce them at me.)
Finally! You admit there is a difference between them! Thanks! And Bravo! =D> (that’s a sincere thanks).
[/quote]
well, as much proof as age permits. If 100 years from now we find writings of those who beared witness to the spaghetti monsters risen form would you claim the same?
I like Blue Dragons myself. But hey, it’s a “free” universe.
I will not be discussing my personal thoughts anymore so any questions following this that addressed my personal thoughts, and not the available facts, were ignored.
Unless he was crucified in 27 A.D., in which case he was only 33. Just about perfect age.
(1) Exceptions were made to returning to the homeland.
(2) Nothing at all like the U.S., it is not common practice here/today whereas it was more common in the days of Rome.
(3) Homeland was a lot closer typically since the average person didn’t travel too far from their homeland.
They were not written that late and especially not by traditional standards. Many sources are copies that are separated from the original by hundreds of years and we don’t doubt their reliability despite the fact that their may not be available cross references.
Deciding to look at them as “myth” is making the decision before taking a look at the evidence. It is like deciding on a guilty verdict and only listening to any evidence that suggests guilt. The rest was propaganda at its best… I have shown how Imagined Pasta Monsters don’t compare. Others can decide for themselves. I wonder how many Irishmen would go to their death claiming that they saw Leprechauns. I bet just about anything that it would be zero (0).
No, but it sure helps.
There is a complicated explanation, but I wil give you a short version:
(1) If death comes, you will receive what god has promised.
(2) The Christians were soon persecuted, death was not delayed.
(3) Even if this does not apply (and it most certainly can) the author is in no way made a liar.
NOTE: You have already admitted that Hebrews does mention a second return. I do not need to address this as it is obvious the author of Hebrews wrote about a fleshy, real, Jesus that died and was resurrected and that would return again. Your other note about Jesus’ statement was a false accusation that is unsupported by anything you have provided.
That’s bullshit. I am beginning to study Islam and I have studied Judaism pretty extensively. Someday, Hinduism.
The truth, it has no versions. Cost? I don’t know. Versed? Well versed. Expansion and spread of Christianity? Yes, well known.
I am an atheist you idiot. I seek truth. There is truth in many things besides a godless universe. The truth is its own reward. I am not addressing the rest of the questions, they are personal… you are trying to make this about me. It’s not about me. Argue the facts, stick to the facts.
What do my personal beliefs have to do with the truth? Nothing. An archaeological discovery is true absent of me. I have argued the truth that the bible is not as contradictory as you make it out to be… It is contradictory, just not how you have posited. I have argued that there is archaeological evidence to suggest the gospels and the epistles are not conspiracy, are reliable, are reasonably within the timeframe of Jesus. Where is the lie in that? Nowhere.
On your peaceful Christ stuff… what are you? Some joke who finds the most inane thoughts and posts them randomly to suggest that it somehow is relevant? Christ was as much a war leader as Clinton was innocent of plagiarism.
Of course you blame capitalism for a bunch of shit… the liberal agenda can’t go a day without trying to make us the next forced socialist communist economy… I got you sidetracked?!
I tell you what, I don’t have the patience for these long posts anymore. Pick one thing at a time, one conspiracy at a time. I will find the relevant info that we can argue to death until it is visible that one of is wrong. Then we can move on to the next one… otherwise, I will go blind staring at your posts.
why is it important for the bible to be archaelogically valid?
what’s the likelihood they are talking about actual events, when things like jonah, and jesus walking on water show up?
Is the story of christ the only place where such miracles show up for a historical figure?
now to answer a few points:
well, it’s still my opinion that you have alot less to gain from any sort of debate on this issue with such a strong personal disconnect. Then you claim “truth”, when you yourself believe that there is no constant truth, truth is relative… thus Paul’s visions are just as “holy” as mohammed’s and joseph smiths… (which they are, their all false.)
well who’s to say? remember Peter says it happened 100 years earlier. Other second century scholars placed the date in the mid to early 30’s. Barnabas placed the date of crucifixion at 10 BCE.
There is a difference between “homeland” and “homeland of your long dead fore-forefathers”.
according to who?
why is a census taken.
for taxes.
why would they want to collect taxes in the land of your fore-fore fathers?
They wouldn’t.
Yeah that makes the statement believable.
At the very earliest we are talking EARLY second century. This is easily determined from the language and from the theological changes between the letters and the gospels.
The gospels referred to the church as “church of god”. This dissapeared around 90 - 110 CE. The gospels refer to the church as a “synagogue” which is a more modern greek name for the church. This appeared from 100 - 120 CE. This dates Mark, the earliest gospel 70+ years after the life of christ.
How? simply by stating so? we again fall back to the whole walking on water statement… what is more likely? that god rained sulfur or it was a natural act that early man tried to explain?
Wow… that’s quite the stretch of interpretation!
=D>
Thanks for proving that you can interpret just about anything from the text thirst.
looking back at the “second coming” statement, could one not construe through similiar elastic interpretation that he is speaking of a second vision in coming?
(not that I’m going to) I am however going to show another statement from hebrews that shows how imminent Paul felt the end was.
The end of the ages? clearly this writer (Paul we assume) felt the end of the entire world was near.
then of course in chapter 10 Paul speaks of “the one who is coming is coming soon.”…
Well … did christ come? did he return?
This of course goes back to the relativistic truth you believe in. Do you believe that the dead can be resurrected? To say that Paul is telling the truth, is to say that he is right about the nature of resurrection, and we die to be reborn as spiritual beings.
(Paul goes on in circular speech trying to explain this topic for at least 4 paragraphs here’s a sample)
1 cor 15:42So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; 43it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; 44it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.
Here’s my thought on that. what if the resurrection Paul was talking about was different from the resurrection that the gospels tried teaching us? The resurrection they taught us were a physical resurrection, this resurrection is clearly a spiritual resurrection and Paul clearly tries pointing out that the body is not like the physical body. (and that it’s not our physical form)
food for thought.
So tell me who Arius is. (yes I’m really quizzing you.)
Please!
The point I am trying to make is that you can’t decide this, I can’t decide this. Every person decides for themselves. And what is more, there is ample debate that free will exists and that it does not exist.
)
