ALERT ALERT ALERT!!! THIS POST IS FALSE!!! I apologize for spreading incorrect information. I believed it to be true when I posted it. Zarove below has proven me incorrect. I apologize for being taken in by an article that actually came up from google scholar. Looking at the footnotes of my “peer reviewed” article should have clued me in. I did not read that carefully. I will not further spread this myth.
Understand that I still do not believe either the Horus myth or the Jesus myth. However, I now also know that it is a myth that the two myths are the same.
Thank you Zarove for setting me straight.
Here for posterity is my original post:
In the spirit of the Bush-McCain Challenge, which shows that most people cannot tell the difference between Bush and McCain, I ask weather you can tell the difference between Horus and Jesus. So, guess which one was:
- Born of a virgin?
- Baptized at age 30?
- Had 12 disciples?
- Was crucified?
- Was resurrected 3 days later
- Was associated with the astrological sign Pisces, the fish?
- Was known as The Lamb of God?
Did you guess either one or the other for any of these? If so, you are incorrect. The correct answer to all of the questions above is both!
Check this comparison of the Lives of Horus and Jesus for many more identical or highly similar traits.
Now watch this great video showing the ways in which the Judeo-Christian religion (deliberately singular) is really just a resurrection of Egyptian astrology.
Oops. I almost forgot to clarify why I classified this not only as religion but also in the category humor. This may confuse some people. I’m sorry for that. The reason is quite simply that I find it amusing that a couple of billion people believe this crap. In fact, most people that do would wince at the suggestion that they believe in astrology. And yet, it is so.
Is this just my sick sense of humor? (probably)
November 1, 2008 at 08:38 |
Here’s a peer reviewed paper that supports the bulk of the claims of this video. I confess that I have not read it in its entirety as it is rather lengthy. Even someone with only a passing interest in the subject should probably skim this paper though. It makes some very interesting points.
The Origins of Christianity and the Quest for the Historical Jesus Christ
Among the more interesting, just from a quick skim are:
May 13, 2009 at 07:42 |
That “Peer reviewed” paper was never actually peer reviewed, and he Author, Acharya S, is not really an expert on the worlds religions.
The Essay is also on her “Truth Be Known”Website,a nd she wrote it and oublised it thee, before releasign her book, “The Christ Conspiracy”.
Incidentlaly, the similarities between Jesus and Horus on her site and in her books, as well as on othe rplaces ont he internet, share the same source, and thats not Ancient Egypt. Generlaly the Similarities are from either Kersey Graves’s “The Worlds 16 Crucified Saviours”, or Gerald Masseys work. Neithe rman was a traiend Egyptologit, and both have been discredite dlong ago.
If you dont ebelvie me, then try this. Try findign a book that actually recounts the Myth of Horus, and read up on it. A book thats not about exposing the turth of Christianity.
You’ll find that the actual myth of Horus has nothign in common with Jesus.
May 14, 2009 at 06:26 |
Zarove,
I think rather than vaguely suggesting that I search for a book, you would do better by providing a link to one. Or, with the wealth of information on the internet, perhaps a link to an article you consider authoritative on the subject.
You may be entirely correct in your post. However, I see no reason to take your word for it. Nor do I see reason to do your job in researching your side of the debate.
This is not how it works.
Feel free to contradict my statements. Just back up what you say with other credible sources. Thus far, you have merely contributed more books and articles supporting the claim that Jesus is Horus. Would you like to try posting some sources that support your side of the debate?
Feel free.
May 16, 2009 at 06:20 |
this is weird. I try to post and keep gettign s message that says “Discarded”…
May 16, 2009 at 06:21 |
Note: I cut this post in two to see if it works now.
Just google up the myth of Horus, its not relaly hat hard to do.
I dotn mean “Jesus horus” or “HJesus parrallels horus”. I mean, just Horus.
If you insist on links, here are a few. The last oen will be ot Primary spruces.
http://www.egyptianmyths.net/horus.htm
this may say “Magiclaly concienved” but dont jump to the conclusion that htis is a Virgin Birth. Its not. She had sex with her husbands partially revived corpse.
Now try this.
http://www.pantheon.org/articles/h/horus.html
Here is another.
http://www.egyptartsite.com/hormyth.html
Try Encarta.
http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_761562755/Horus.html
The link includes a link to Religiosu tolerance which repeats the parrallesl claims, but thats due to it beign generated by comuter generated search engunes.
Religiosu Tolerance lists its soruces as Acharya S and Geralnd Massey.
May 16, 2009 at 06:21 |
No independant source that simply recounts the myth of Horus actually notes the similarities. IE, you wont find any soruce that says he was Born of a VIrign, or Crucified. In fact, Crucafiction didnt even exist at ghe itme the worship of Horus reached its Zenith.
Here is a site I know you’ll reject out of hand. its a CHristian site, which debunks not only Horus’s parrallels to Jeuss, but many others. Becaus its Christain I bet you’ll just asusme it ignroes evidnece or is hidign the truth. Thats what I usually get. STill, I’ll presetn it. I know, I knw, its Biased… but dont you htink adhering to the idea that Jeus sis a Plagersied Pagan myth is itself the result fo Bias agaisnt CHristainity? Or at the very least a Bias can exist that woudl cause peopel to beelive it.
http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/JesusHorus.html
Now for the Coup De Gracie, the actual ancient Egyptian texts.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/index.htm
You won’t find mention of Horus’s Virgin Birth, his teachign at the temple at age 123, his gathering of 12 disiples, his beign Baptised by Anup the Bpiser, or his tmeptatin int he wilderness.
As to his Passion, Crucafition to atone for the worlds sins, and ressurection promising new life, it is also abscent form the original sources.
Is this sufficient?
May 16, 2009 at 09:23 |
Zargove–well done. I googled (horus) and got the wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horus and YOU ARE RIGHT. While evidently there are severeal different “horus’s” that could be a source of divergence, wiki says Horus had a father and mother. Your statement that crucifiction was a later developed technique of killing people also rings true to me.
Its so much more “fun” to belittle religion to just think of them as all the same. Should I ignore the facts and just believe it anyway because I want to?
May 17, 2009 at 11:46 |
Zarove, as you can see above, I have now noted that the information that I was spreading was false. Thank you for correcting me. Though I liked thinking that Horus and Jesus were one because it amused me, I would rather be correct than amused.
One minor point that I would like to make to you, however, is that the latest version of the firefox browser has built in spell checking. I would recommend using it. It will make it easier for you to make your points, especially when they are good, such as this, if you have fewer typos in your replies.
http://www.mozilla.com/en-US/
Happy posting and thanks for stopping by.
May 17, 2009 at 08:31 |
I thank you for the correction. And I happen to be Dyslexic, so, the spellign is just part of that.
May 17, 2009 at 09:59 |
One last thing. I don’t mean to outlast my welcome, but you said in an earliest post that you find is unlikely Jesus ever existed at all, and in this post, you now still refer to it as the Jesus Myth.
I’ll explain why if you’d like.
May 18, 2009 at 01:02 |
Zargove–if you can link to sources disproving Jesus as Myth as effectively as you disposed of Jesus is Horus, I certainly and other readers of this blog would greatly appreciate it.
It also amuses “me” to see Scott’s worship of “peer reviewed sources” taken down a notch. You see, I’m just a small miserable person (smile!)==or more to the point, its good to be reminded that “labels” do not guaranty quality or accuracy. I’ve seen the roots of christianity in earlier myths subject so often, I was taken in too. Now, I’ll have to pay more attention. I’m sure there are “some” roots, but is not all wholesale copying?
I think being dyslexic would be MORE REASON to use spell checker, not less. Still, I would rather have your transposed expertise than no comments at all. Can you confirm in a dyslexic secure manner that it is god you believe in and not dog? ((smile==joke!!)) I’ll look for your comments on other threads as well.
May 18, 2009 at 01:23 |
Actually there are no pagan roots to Christianity. The idea originated with the History of Religions school which has been long since abandoned by Schoalrhsip since the ealry 20th Century.
Christianity began as a sect in Judaism, and all ofthe material in Christianity develped from Jewish thinking and the Life of Jesus of Nazareth.
Pagans don’t enter into it. The Jews where highly Xenophobic and didn’t really merge with the surrounding culture,a nd in Palistine thy made up the majority. You just didn’t find that many Pagan Influences in the region.
Remember, these are the same Jews who where willign o die for heir beleifs, and eventually whop rose up agaist the Roman Empire, and lost, in 70 AD.
They’d have rather died than bow a knee to Zeus.
Yet we’re expected to beelvie the Early Christains did? Even though the early Christaisn whre Jews themselves? Dispite the fact that, until the Purge of Jews in 70 AD, the vast majority of Christaisn where Jewish? (It didn’t become a Gentile-Dominant Religin ethniclaly until after this.)
COme now, thats just absurd.
I’ll explain more tomorrow if you’d like, and if its OK withhte site administrator. I’m not poign this to brign anyoen down a peg, I just relaly hate how bad the schlarhsip has gotten these days surrouding Jesus. The idea that he’s a Myth has gained a certin level of Credibility on the Internet, but I am glad to seeits fading. It was big back about 4 years ago.
Still, it crops up, as d the claims that CHristainity emerged form Paganism, or that it has storng Pagan infleices that mingled with Judaism.
Noen fo that is true.
Even from a purley seular perspective in which I asusme Miralces can’t happen and in which I deny things like the Virgin Birth and Ressurection as actual events, I’d be forced to conclude thzt Jeuss himself existed as a man in History, and that the Religion he founed came out of Judaism.
But Im tired right now so Ill explain later if thats OK?
May 18, 2009 at 06:04 |
I’ve certainly never stated that Christianity emerged from Paganism. Both are equally invalid to me, though definitely different. Christianity did incorporate elements of pagan holidays into their own. Easter is a pagan ritual to the fertility goddess, hence the eggs and bunny. But, the myth of the resurrection is far from paganism.
As for the existence of Christ as a living human, please read this first since you have a strong interest in the subject and then feel free to debate.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
As you can see, I don’t mind being proven wrong. I just need proof.
I will cut you some slack on spelling due to your dyslexia. However, I really would recommend a spell checker. At a certain point, the number of typos becomes very hard to actually read and I need to try to figure out what you are saying, sometimes with questionable success.
In the article, I think the really strong points are:
1) Jesus is never mentioned by historians of the time, either Jewish or Roman. Nor is there any mention of a particularly controversial rabbi making the rounds and stirring up trouble.
2) The time between the supposed time of Jesus until the writings about him makes just a single author available who may have remembered him in person. All of the other writings were by people who were born long after Jesus’ death.
3) The San Hedrin meeting on the eve of a Passover seder to make an important decision is as likely as the SCOTUS meeting on Christmas eve. It was strongly against their religion and the rules of their court to do so.
4) There is no mention in any historical writing of a controversial crucifixion around the time of Jesus.
There were other good points in that article as well. I haven’t read it recently. These are just from memory from reading it about a year or two ago.
If you can dispute these four points adequately, I may recant a bit on the Jesus myth as well. I will still consider it a myth, just as I would most other biblical characters in the absence of corroboration.
Understand that if you convince me he existed, it will just make him an interesting philosopher among many for me. It will not raise him to the level of a deity.
BTW, since you also commented on my Republican health care post, I think you might enjoy commenting on a post I wrote claiming, essentially, that Jesus was a flaming liberal and that voting like Jesus would be voting for probably the most liberal candidate available at any time. But, let’s keep that conversation on another thread.
Thanks again for stopping by. Don’t worry about wearing out your welcome.
Here’s the other thread for incorporating Jesus-like behavior into one’s voting.
How Would Jesus Vote?
Oh, and remember, I am an antitheist. So, convincing me of anything about Jesus is unlikely to change my behavior in any way.
May 18, 2009 at 06:18 |
“Actually there are no pagan roots to Christianity.” – - hah, hah. “Everything has roots.” I guess you think that Christianity having its roots in the Jewish Religion means that it has no roots in paganism? What then are the “roots” of Judaism?
I will guess further, until you respond with links rather than arguments and worse bald conclusions, that later holiday selections of the established church we see today are “not from pagan roots?” Besides Easter, I recall that of those experts who speculate, Jesus was probably born in the summer months, but given the lack of documentation, the Christians moved it to Winter for greater appeal?
But the DEFINITION of what is a ROOT vs a non-root is key. THE ONLY WAY you can say that Christianity has no pagan roots is that you accept many many key ideas as “the only way it could be.” But those only ways are in fact human perceptions born of culture which is what a root is.
A quick initiation to this by example is:
http://protestantism.suite101.com/article.cfm/is_christianity_based_on_paganism
A fun read.
May 18, 2009 at 10:03 |
bobbo,
From wikipedia:
I had thought paganism included only pre-Christian Europe. If we include all polytheistic religions, then yes, there is paganism in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion. So, I guess it just depends on how you define pagan. I would have used the more narrow definition, which I think is also the one Zarove was using. This would be where the Father Frost (Santa Clause) and Easter fertility rituals would have come in much later.
Technically though, the santa clause and easter bunny crap is more tradition than religion, though that might be splitting hares, so to speak.
May 18, 2009 at 11:18 |
I’ll be back later on Jesus existing. I’m a bit busy now, but will say this.
I’ve read the Rational Revolution aritlce, and several others on why Jeuss was a myth before. However, Im also actulaly studying this mateiral in COllege. I have a dual major in Psycology and THeology.
I’ve studied the major world religions and their traditions, as well as their origins. I am also studying at a Secular University, or was until this semester. Since I’ll be traveling, I am doign summer coruses with Liberty University, which is a Christian University. Hwoever, noen of the courses I have for this summer are direclty tied to my major, I’m just cleairng off soem of the “You need them but their useless” portions, and the online programmes offered at Liberty ar emore extensive than most other schools.
Otherwise, I study at the University of Tennessee, and have been accepted in Cambrisdge in England, but for reasons apart form acadmeics coudl not attend.
I may get bakc into Queens University in Belfast, Northern Irleand in 2010, but no promises.
So, this is where My position tends to come from.
So Im not relaly arguign apologetics here. All im arguiing at the moment is that Jeuss existed as a man. In fact, in Jeuss Myth debates I adhere to a policy of Secular argumentation, because its just easier, and prevents peopel form shouting Bias. I happen to be a Christain, but this doenst mean Im biased. I can udnerstand other poitns of view besides my own, and can even argue agaisnt what I beleive. Im skilled ind ebate, after all, and successfully debated agasint Jesus’s divinity, even though I beleive in it. ( I also can counter my own argument, but the person chosen to defend it just wans’t up tot he same level. Not to brag.)
Anyway, the problems you listed are actually exagerated and oftenignroe actual historical proccess.
When dealign with Ancient History, we shoudln’t expect to find a plethra of records, least of all about someone that is only a minor figure. Many times we have only one or two vauge references to someones existance. Phythagerus, for example, is virtually unknown to us outsid of two or three peices of fragmentary evidence. Disoite his fame in formulating certain mathematical principles, virtually nothign is known of his life. Socratese is another famosu example, who, like Jesus,w a sonly written about after he died, by only one man, his student plato. WHy not assume Socratese was a myth?
Besides, the Composition of he NEw Testament isn’t as simple as the Myther pages make it out ot be. Pauls writtings where from ten eyars after-the-fact, and dispite the myther claim that he never mentions an Earthly Jesus, he actulaly does say Jesus as Born fo the Seed of David, and mentions Pilate, and other useful features of Jeuss’s Earthly existance. I’ll elaborate mroe later.
Then there are the other EPistles, such as those of John and James. CLealry those where written by witnesses to his ministry, as no one really challenges them. Johns Gospel is written by the same author as the three epistles. (Revelation may not have been, but thats another matter and doesnt matter considering it doenst contain Historical informaiton, but allegorical imagry.)
Also, its a bit silly to Critisse the Gospels for when they where written. I knos it sounds amazing to our modenr ears ot elarn that they where written soem 40 years after the fact, and its easy to fall into the thinking that this casts doubt, but hats just not relaly a good line of reasoning.
In our mdoern era, where writting is easy, most peopel are literate, and we have the printing press, and for that matter the internet, used here, we often forget that the Ancient World lacked all of this. Most peopel where illiterate, there was no printing press, and everythign had tobe laboriously written by hand. Paper and Ink where dreadfully expensive, and typically not accessable to the general public.
Most events that took place in Antiquity wheren’t written about the same day, or even in the same month they occured. Hannibals invasion of ROme, for example, was written abut only a century after the events occured.
Alexanders conqueasts face the same prblem, in which no one seemed to bother to writ about him in his own lifetime, and it took decades for us to see anythgin on him at all.
The same is true of the Sack of Carthage by the Romans, or the Conquest of the Sabines.
Noen of these events are considered mythical, and yet neone where written about until a century or mroe had passed.
In relative terms, the 40 year Gap between the GOspels and Jeuss’s actual life is a virtual newsflash. Its recorded much sooner than we’d exepect in the Ancient world. Sooner than Alexanders conquest of the world was, sooner than Romes Sack of Carthage, sooner than the Latin Conqwuest of Italy, sooner than the subjugation of ROmania, sooner than Hannibal…
Yet I somehow doubt you find those mythic.
Why shoudl we Jeus then?
Thats just how the Ancient world worked,a nd t makes sense if you understand it.
As I said, most peopel where illiterate, and htose who could read wodul still have to know how to write, and those who could write woudl still need access to paper, ink , and a pen. (Pens where easy to come by. A Feather and your Done.)
They just didn’t keep logs and diaries like today.
The culturse was by and large an Oral one, which values living witnesses over written text anyway. And before soemone mentions CHiense whispers, unlike our modern culture, the Ancients Emphaisses memory and accurate retelling of events. Oral Cultures that exist today in places like the Moutnain of Tibet, or in Central America, are capable of transmistting laerge bodies of informaiton withotu writtign anythign down with an amazing degree of accuracy. Its at elats as accurate as written documents if they are by hand.
COnsiderign this, and hte fact htat the CHristain COmmunity was of signifigant size (Some 5000 or so likely) the oral transmission can easily be relied upon, until the text is written.
After all, if someone mke sa mistake the community can correct him.
That said, even if noen fo the Four GOspels where written by witnesses to Jeus’s Ministry we can be assured they at leats cme from the Oral Record, and where compiled mainly int he itnerest of preserving the story as thr original witnesses died off.
Which is the usual route for these events. WHent he original witnesses began to die, they’d write down the story. The Livng witnesses in the past where more valued than a peice of parchment was, for hey saw it with their own eyes an coudl be questioend.
Only when the original Generation began to age and die off woudl anyone think to write it all down.
So we’d expect it to be written of much later.
Also, Other than Lukes Gospel, which traditionally doens’t even purport to be by an eyewitness but rather by soemone who compiled the sources he coudl find, including private interviews, to write his own Biograohy, the three GOspels we have where liekly written by those in the Christian COmmunity from early on. If not direct witnesses, then companions t those who where.
The Christan Community was sizable enugh to make sure transmission of the story was sound, but 5000 isnt a lot of people when we have them spread accross all of Palistine.
SO what your complaining abiut in that regard is just not sound argumentation. If you try to check any Ancient event, you’llsee that often the Earliest record of events iwas written eyars after the fact.
If we reject Jeuss as lilly myhtic because of this,a nd use the fact that he was only writtne of years later as evidence, we’d be compelled to do the sme with all other events in Hisotry, and htus 95% of Ancient Hisotry woudl have to be rejected as Spurious, or at leats treated as thoguh it liekly was not acurate, since thats how all of them are, and most of the events took longer to write about han the life of Jesus.
Als, regardign the last point, about there beign no record of Jeuss’s death (Made here and in the Rational Revolution artilce), its really a nonpoint.
We dont have any ROman Records at all. Even though thousands of peopel whee Crucified, we have no records of anyoen beign Crucified, other than referencestothe practice by observers.Noofficial court papers, and no regestries, have ever been found.
In fact, we have no Roman Records of any kind. After the Fall of the Western Empire in 410 AD, no one copied them. The only things we have rpeserved as the Great works of Literature. THey wher epreserved, Ironiclaly, by Monks. THis is Ironic since they will be accused laer of desotyring all of the works ofliterture they coudl find. (Its a Historicla myth but ah well.)
Peopel thoguth that dedicatign their lives tot he rpeservation of the Bible, Church Fathers, and Philosphers liek Plato was a worthwhile pursuit. THey even preserved the Iliad and Oddessey, and many other Greek classics, because they thought the stories had merit even if they did not follow the religions. But who woudl want ot spend their lives copyign Beurocratic paperwork?
Besides, unliek toda they didnt have adequate storage. By the time CHristainity became promenant in abotu 315 AD, 300 years or so after Jeuss, the Records kept by the ROmans in Palistine woudl surley have perished either by the Sack of Jerusalem in 70 AD by fire, or by simple neglect. (THe ROman didnt dedicate their life to rpeserigng old records either.)
We have no Roman Tax Sheets, though we know thei existed, only six or so Roman pay slips for the military, even though millions had been made, a handful of official letters, and thats it. No actual records. The Rolls of the Senate, the Court Records, and the Militar documentation all vanished to disuse or fire.
Knowign this, I have to ask just how strange it is that w don’t have a Tial Record for Jeuss, or references to a Controversial Crucafiction?
And just how COntroversial wa sit to Crucify a Rebel Rousing Rabbi? THat was routne in the time period.
As to the final point about hte San Hedron, well guess what? Peoel break the rules all the itme. Look at the United States. We hold the Constitution to such a great regard we bind our whole soiety by it, yet both Democrats and Republicans routinely ignore it.
THe Patirot Act is one exampel of this, but not th eonly example. Obamas attempt to set up regulatory baords for the Auto Industry and now for Broadcasters is another example.
Just because osmehing is ilelgal doens’t mean Govenrments dont do it.
Its even mentioned in th Binle that this wa san unusual and unjust trial, so your relaly not provong anythign here.
Anyway, Ill be back to present wy Jeuss existed. It wont have the errors in speling. I get this question a lot so Ill just do a formal aritlce in Works, save it to my PC, and present that.
You’ll be th firts to get it.
May 18, 2009 at 12:16 |
Zarove,
I do not assert that Jesus was a myth. I merely state that I don’t know and find it the more probable of the alternatives. I’d say I think the odds are about 60-40 favoring Jesus as myth. I’ll be curious why you think otherwise as you have clearly given it a lot more thought than I.
I would also state that I do not assert that Pythagoras or Socrates are not myths. However, their stories are well within the stories of normal human life. There are no claims of them working miracles. There are no claims that they are deities. So, I see less reason for doubt.
Ordinary claims require ordinary evidence. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Scientific claims require scientific evidence.
If you claim that Jesus was a normal (albeit, perhaps brilliant and charismatic) human being, I will require only ordinary evidence.
Those who claim that Jesus worked miracles should be prepared to provide extraordinary evidence.
Those who claim that Intelligent Design is a valid scientific theory should be prepared to provide scientific evidence.
So, if you are to make the case that Jesus existed as a flesh and blood human being, I will require mere ordinary evidence. It seems likely that you will succeed in at least tipping the scales to the balance point of 50-50, if not farther since you have studied the subject a lot more. I have no personal attachment or deep seeded belief that Jesus did not exist. So, it won’t be a huge shock to my system to change on that point.
That many historical people existed and did not have anything written about them is a fairly persuasive argument. However, it would argue only for the existence of a homebody, not a leader who caused enough trouble to have warranted an emergency meeting of the San Hedrin on a Jewish holiday with so many Romans interested in the outcome.
So, I think at best, you are arguing for a very different person than the Jesus of the bible, even if the name is the same.
I think given the five historians writing of the day’s events in the region at the time, one cannot argue for an important and radical leader who went unnoticed and unwritten about for years. These people were indeed recording history in real time, unless my understanding is incorrect. (I’m citing the same source, but particular paragraph, not for you, but for others who may not have the patience for the entire lengthy article.)
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#8
I would pay specific attention to Philo and Pliny who seem rather unlikely to have ignored the radical leader described in the bible.
Would you please provide links for some documentation on the events of which you speak that were written so much later than their occurrence? I would actually like to read a few. 2 or 3 at random should be enough. I find lots of information about Carthage and its destruction but little about how we know it even happened.
I think another thing that would help you make the case for Jesus as flesh and blood would be historians writing about him in the same way that other historical characters are written about.
Perhaps I just don’t know how to study history, but I do not know how historians validate or invalidate particular claims.
If, as you state, there are no Roman records, please dispute this point in particular. I don’t know whether you are correct or this article to which I linked is correct. The article states that 200 manuscripts from Pliny are preserved.
Also, the article claims that Velleius Paterculus wrote a compendium of Roman history that still survives today. Is this false as well?
As for how controversial it was to crucify Jesus, apparently, if the bible is to be believed, controversial enough to require the Sanhedrin to violate their own rules. Again, I cite the same article for those who do not wish to read all sections.
http://www.rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm#5
I found this quite convincing. If you do not, please explain why. Here’s a bit more on the Sanhedrin.
http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/jesus/sanhedrin.html
May 18, 2009 at 01:13 |
Im workign now so, as I said, I’ll write bck later, but I would like to note that “extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” may be a great quote from Carl Sagan, but its wrong.
Extraordinary claism require oly ordinary evidence.
If I was standign next to you, and said I coudl shoot energy beams from my hands, I’ve just made an extraordinary claim. But all I’d need ot prove it is to aim my hands at a target and blast. Dispite the fact that I can shoot enrgy beams beign in and of itself extraordinary, the evidence I presented is no more extraordinary than the evidence I woudl give you if I claimed I coudl cross the street or wave my hand.
Evidence for extraordinary claims need not be itself extraordinary, only convincing.
Besides, I’m arguign in favour of a Historical Jesus, not nessisarily everythign else. If you start with a Materialistic and Naturlaistic mentality that precludes the possibility of Muracles, ghen the evidence I present for Miralce sbased soley on Historical methodology woudl never be that convincing. I’d have to employ Scientific and Philosophical arguments. Neither of which are required here, since all I have to do is present you with the reasons Historians aggree that Jesus existed.
Those reaosns maily rest in the fact that Jeuss’s life story doens’t rea dlike a myth, and the emergence of CHristanity seems ot focus on real evnts, as opposed to mythic ones. I’ll go into detail perhaps tomorrow on this, if ot tonight, and explain why.
Still, for my purposes here, I just want to clear up the isconception. We cans ave for another day discussiosn about hte valididty of the THeology, Miracles, and suchlike.
All I’m intereste din here and now is the Historical valididty of the arguments.
I may even toss in Easter, which wasn’t, by thr eay, a Pagan fertility festival featurign rabbits and eggs.
That claim is an old and debunked one, which makes no snese.
If you htink abitu it, those who claim this say CHristaisn stole two Holidays, Saternalia and Easter. Saternalia was renamed Christmas, in order to reflect the new menaing of the Holiday, Yet Easter retaisn the name of the Pagan fertility goddess its suppose to honour? Why woudln’t the Early Christains have renamed the Holiday too?
Actually, the only evidence that there is any Pagan connection to Easter is fromt he Venerable Bede, who said the Celts named the Holiday Honourign Jesus’s Ressurection after the month it fell in. The Celts used a Lunar Calender so Easter fell n the same month every yewar, unlike in our SOlar Calender. This Month was named after an obscure Celtic goddess named Oestera. THis is again at leats accordign to Bede.
But we know nothign about Oestera. We have only oen reference ot her in Antiquity, and htat is Bede himself. The Celts left no writtigns of her and no monks refered ot her.
Hence we dont relaly know what sort of goddess she was, and assignign the idea of her as a Fertility goddess ranges from soem of the same sorts of soruces as the Horus-Jeuss bit comes form. THe name sounds vaugly liek Ishtar so apparnelty it was Ishtar…
Of coruse thats all nonsense.
Easter was the Earliest hristain Holidya ot be Celibrated, and we have evidence of its celebraiton form the seocnd century. It was also connected to Passover. In fact, Easter falls on the Fits Sunday after the Firts FUll Moon after the Vernal Equinox. THis Full Moon is itself Passover. Easter is linked inseperably to Passover, and n NonGermanic Languages its nto even called “Easter”. Its called Pasche or Paska or some such.
And some even doubt the Venerable Bedes inepretation and trace the world to an old Germanic word Oelster, meanign Ressurection.
Still, there is no actual evidence that Easter was rooted in Paganism.
The Easter Egg was just a later addition because Lent ended, thus allowing peopel to eat dairy and meat aain,and I beelive came frmt he same naiton as CHstmas Trees, Germany. (The CHristmas Tree itself isnt Pagan, it started in the 1600’s amongst Lutherans of all people.)
The Eadster Bunny is just a marketable cute thign created for Easter, not related to anything.
As to CHrustmas, even though the holiday itself was originally pagan (Saternalia), the thigns associated with it wherent. Christmas Trees where a fad that stuck in Germany started for no reaosn at all, and Saint Nicolas was a real man, a Bishop in Asia Minor (Modern Turkey) who later became asosicated with the Festival due to his Generosity.
But Ive said too muh and will bne back later, back to work, I’ll post more evidence when I get the chance.
May 18, 2009 at 01:33 |
Oh, and you seem to not understand when I say “Records”.
I mean actual Official Roman Records. I’m not refering to Historians, I’m referign to actual Roman Records kept by the State.
At any event, you metion that Jeuss warrented atention to the extned that the San Hedrion wodl violare its own rules, and warrented ROman Attention as well. However, this is only partially correct. The San Hedron was concerned, ROme was not.
Rome didn’t care about Jesus. Pilate initilaly didn’t want naythign to do with him and sent him to Herod Aggrippa, who sent him back to Pilate. Even Herod didn’t care. Pilate then spoke to Jesu and foudn nohtign particulalry threatenign to the stte in him and wanted ot release him. His mainconcern was over the growing Crowd that wante dhim killed, and he washed his hands of it afterard.
I cna’t see form any of this a perspective that see’s the average Roman concerned about Jesus or payign attention to him. The Jews wante dhim dead for Blasphemy, in that he clamed to be one with God, and for claimign to me Messiah. Do you reallythink the Romans cared about that once Jesus said “My Kingdom is not of this world” and proved he didnt intend to lead a rebellion?
Executing Jesus as a conveneince or Pilate, not soemthign he did because he personally took notice of Jeuss prior to his trial.
It was eaiser t give the Jerusalem Jewish Population its desire for his life than to risk them rioting.
But form a ROman Perspective this was routine. It snot liek the Jews where an easy lot to control, as they never truly accepted ROman Rule fully.
Also, you must know that Pliney didn’t actually live in Judea, right? WHy woudl a ROman Senator, who lived several hundred miles away, care about someone who, from a Roman PErspective, was a minor figure who gaiend a followign in an obscure backwater of the Emoire and managed to get killed? Woudl he even be aware of such a mans existance?
It snot like he was going to clock on the evenign enws and see a report form a correspondant about some guy name Jeuss tossing merchants out of the Temple…
Jeuss wan’t signifigant enough to attract that much local ROman Attention, much less woudl messengers run at top speed to ROme to report on him.
At the time, he was simply an unimprtant Rabbi in Palistine, who got a following and lvied in that remote outpost of Empire.
They’d not even have bothered telling Rome about him, and Pliney mist likly just never heard of him.
The trouble with Christ Myuthers is that they seem not to relaly realise this, and pretend that Jeuss had to be a big deal to everyone if he existed, forgettign that even the NEw Tstament cntradicts this.
Now Im pulling htis form memory, and writing whle in a bit of a hirry doign soemthign else so its a bit sloppy, but Ill make the case in installments. Ill begin with why Jeuss was most liekly real. ( 50-50 nothing.) THen Ill adress spacific concerns.
May 18, 2009 at 09:21 |
Scott–well done. Ordinary, extra-ordinary, scientific. Very cogent and logical.
Zargove. You know, simply dismissing an argument is not an argument in and of itself? You do that a little bit and then catch yourself sometimes.
Your example of shooting energy beams from your hands is a good example. First you simply dismiss but then you go forward with your argument which was well done. So–every word in a discussion has to be defined. What does “ordinary” or “extra-ordinary” even mean? We have to add a second element after definitions which is context. Regarding energy beams, you switch context. Jesus and Socrates are historical issues requiring ordinary evidence. You demonstrating to us your energy beams is NOT HISTORICAL. So, in your example, you indeed shoot energy beams to the amazement of Scott and myself. WE are convinced by your ordinary evidence. Now, I’m so amazed I go off and live in a cave and die 50 years later never having told a soul. Scott becomes your adherent and studies for years to shoot energy beams himself but never manages it BUT decides to write his memoirs describing the events. Sadly, you have died, I have died, Scotts writes up two different versions of what happened, no one else witnessed the events. What do scholars say 100 years from now? Just what Scott said: Extra Ordinary Claims ((those not within common human experience)) require extra-ordinary evidence and there is NONE PRESENT.
Contra–we could define extra-ordinary evidence as a real time current DEMONSTRATION! And isn’t that many people’s constant and reasonable complaint about the deities? They create a universe and then go dormant as if they didn’t even exist. Rather extra-ordinary outcome given they love us so much.
It becomes almost irrelevant whether Jesus existed or not. If he did, he was just a man, not even an Elvis of his age. Much better to make dead men gods as they can’t be questioned. Very logical, almost necessary to the formation of any religion. Imagine if the Dali Lama never died?==we’d all be Buddhists for sure.
May 18, 2009 at 09:28 |
Speaking of Elvis and being famous, known and unknown, it JUST occurred to me there is a disjunction. I would think anyone that could walk on water, resurrect the dead, turn water into wine, feed the multitudes with a single fish would hardly live and die in near anonymity to become famous only by the efforts of a follower.
It makes sense to me that ANYONE who could do what Jesus supposedly did would be VERY VERY famous during his lifetime. More evidence in my mind, it was all made up.
May 18, 2009 at 09:43 |
Zarove,
I think I was clear that in order to substantiate the claim that Jesus actually existed as a flesh and blood human, all I would require is ordinary evidence.
Given the work you did in disproving the Horus == Jesus myth, I am surprised to see no links in your post.
Please understand that anonymous blogger opinion, even one who has been reputable in the past does not constitute even ordinary evidence.
As for the pagan fertility ritual of easter, I’m not married to the idea. I got an earful when I made the mistake of wishing a happy easter to a couple of born-agains. The went on and on about easter as a pagan ritual to the fertility goddess and asserted that they only celebrated the resurrection. I really couldn’t care less about this.
I’ll wait for some links showing the ordinary evidence that Jesus was more than allegory.
Showing that other historical figures did not have real evidence just makes me question their existence as well. It does not prove that Jesus existed.
bobbo,
Your last post makes a lot of logical sense to me. Unfortunately, it does nothing to prove the non-existence of Jesus as human. If Zarove can supply some real evidence rather than mere logic, it will do a lot to convince me.
Sorry Zarove, I have fairly strict standards of evidence. You haven’t met mine yet.
Still, you succeeded on the Horus/Jesus issue. I’ll wait to see how you do on this.
May 18, 2009 at 09:58 |
I udnerstand. I didnt mean to dussapoint, btu as I said, I was bust and workign at the time. I’ll present the case tomorrow, which shoudl be quieter for me. ( I dont actulaly work tomorrow.)
That said, for this thread all I’m doign ix presentign the secular case for Jesus. I don’t need to explain why Jesus coudl do all of those amazing things. SOme thigns may have been exagerated or added later as the legend grew, in the same way George Washingtons Cherry Tree was not a real event, but Washington surley lived as a man.
On the miralces, though, Only a handful of them are actually dramatic, and some of them witnessed by few. When jeuss walked on Water, for example, only his Apostles saw him. Eben if they tld everyoen they knew, which wodl not have been many at the time, many wodl dismiss it as a fishermans tale.
The Feeding of te 5000 was amazing only if you saw him and what he had to work with. If your in the back row of the event, all you see is some gy handing you soem bread and soem fish, and may not know where it came from.
Just as an example.
As to my case, A lot of it will be me presentign logic, rather than links. The logic, though, is internally consistant and hwat Schoalrs tend to use themselves. I will try ti pst links though.
Also, there are books about hte Historical jesus from Historians, but I cant htink of them offhand, so Ill just use Amazon.
I’ll have to break my post into multiple parts though, so my plan for now is just to present the case as is, and hten to follow up with links to other soruces.
I’ll begin by tellign why Jesus was real, in the same fashion that the Rational Revolution site tries to argue he is not, and tell why their argumetns arne’t valid.
So just gitve me a bit. I just couldnt do it today due to oher obligations.
May 18, 2009 at 11:07 |
Zarove–”logic” is NOT EVIDENCE.
You have a clear choice–argue there is EVIDENCE for an historical Jesus, OR argue it is logical that an historical Jesus existed.
Don’t confuse the two.
May 21, 2009 at 09:54 |
Zarove,
Let’s at least hear the logic and see if it is as or more sound than the logic of the link. I’m curious whether you’ll be able to convince me. Perhaps valid logic will at least sway me somewhat in your direction.
June 27, 2009 at 11:00 |
Just because every little detail is not the exact same doesn’t disprove this comparison. It’s highly peculiar how many similarities there ARE. Besides, it’s quite easy for a myth to be passed down and altered. And to make a human be born from a virgin? That is a very strong “truth” to make people thus believe…
“The Pagan Christ is forthright in declaring that counter to precedent, Christianity launched a hostile takeover of the ancient salvation myths. Many early church fathers, in an attempt to declare exclusive rights to this mythological Jesus, made him an historical biblical person”
http://www.tomharpur.com/books/books_thepaganchrist.asp
June 27, 2009 at 08:26 |
Yea, but when a major point of comparison is directly contradicted, that particular example (Horus) fails.
Don’t trip over your own certainty–especially in a discussion of religion?
June 28, 2009 at 09:03 |
Meow,
I agree that there are many similarities. For example, both are completely nonsensical and ridiculous myths. However, I think it is now clear that the myth that the Jesus myth derived almost exactly from the Horus myth is now proven to be a third myth.
Let’s eschew all mythology from our thinking, especially if we want to be rational creatures rather than merely rationalizing ones. I’ll miss this myth. It was a fun one. Once I know it’s false though, I can never go back.
July 19, 2009 at 10:50 |
watch zeitgeist! this movie is all about how jesus and every messiah/christ before him were nothing more than some anthropomorphic horoscope derived solar messiah. and it talks of HOW it is these similarities came to be like the virgin birth, dec 25, the 3 kings, 12 disciples/brothers, beginning ministry at age of 30, etc# loved this movie…just mind a few minutes of mean bully/billy goat athiest opinions before it hops to the facts and YOU WILL lOVE IT. (and after that parts it gets into 9/11 and other VERY interesting conspiracies.)
July 20, 2009 at 06:43 |
nick,
Actually, that was where I got the idea for this post. It turns out though, that the source of this comparison is one article with no supporting data and no real footnotes.
Sorry to disappoint. Zeitgeist got it from a bad source, as did I.
As for the conspiracy theories in Zeitgeist, frankly, they’re quite ludicrous if you do any research on them at all.
July 29, 2009 at 05:18 |
You are under the misconception that the Bible says he was born of a virgin. It doesn’t.
What the Bible says is the father of Jesus was someone other than the man his mother married.
This was unacdceptable for the Church fathers. On the basis of a mistranslation and twisting Jewish idiom into a Greek mould they upgraded his birth to something acceptable to the Greek mind.
You may find these articles on virgin birth of interest and coming from an unusual angle
http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=14&Itemid=26
and, similarly the debate on TheologyWeb:
Forum — General Theistics 101
Thread — Does the Bible teach that Mary was a virgin when Jesus was conceived?
http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/forumdisplay.php?f=160
July 29, 2009 at 03:58 |
T Crosthwaite == Mary wasn’t a virgin huh? Good stuff. Everything I think I’ve heard about christian religion is wrong.
Its fun. Worthy of a life time of study. I will google the Catholic Position. I’m going to assume its not bible based?
Not to much effort to be given—mostly waiting for my own personal angel to deliver the truth to me.
Wow, many “new ideas” this week. Most of it bad, but still new. Live long and prosper.
July 29, 2009 at 04:09 |
St. Luke (1:34-35)
Yep, bible seems to cover just about every answer to any question.
Cracks me up. Lets see. Do I believe in Miracles? – - – - – - No.
Still VERY possible to build a religion on that. Just wouldn’t look like anything we see today.
July 29, 2009 at 08:59 |
T Crosthwaite,
Thanks for the additional information. I’m always interested in more bible misconceptions, so to speak, and mistranslations as well as just plain inconsistencies. Thanks for sharing.
September 8, 2009 at 08:11 |
Just to elaborate on the misconception that the Bible says Jesus was born of a virgin.
The New Testament is almost wholly a Jewish affair. Jesus was a Jew, so were the disciples, so was Paul.
Following the destruction of Jerusalem in 70AD custody of what became known as the New Testament soon passed into the hands of other peoples in the Roman Empire.
The early interpreters of the New Testament, whose views have been handed down to us, were predominantly from a Greek culture and particularly ill-equipped to interpret Jewish writings. Their interpretations twisted the Bible into a Greek mould and in the process distorted what was said.
These distortions have been reinforced by incorrect and selective translations.
The virgin birth is a prime example. To mention just a couple of points. The prophecy in the Old Testament says “young woman,” not “virgin” as it was mis-translated until fairly recent times. There are dozens of cases in the Bible of the Holy Spirit, or the Spirit of God, “coming upon” someone, but only in Mary’s case is it interpreted as God inpregnating that person. (Other examples are given in the virgin birth articles on my website.)
I might mention that there are other people in the Bible with the same name as Jesus, but inconsistent translations obscure this. There are also other “christs,” which simply means “anointed,” but the word is left untranslated where it refers to Jesus giving the impression that he is the only “christ.”
It might also be pointed out that the term “God the Son” does not appear in the Bible. The term “son of God” does and it is applied to Jesus and others. It refers to an ethical relationship between God and a man, nothing to do with the man being divine.
September 8, 2009 at 03:07 |
T Crosthwaite==from your interesting website: http://www.wallsofjericho.info/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=20&Itemid=28
==I disagree. The phrase you quote: “The angel told Joseph not to be afraid to take Mary as his wife, “for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit”. (Matthew 1:20) Because of their mindset, many mistakenly take these words as alluding to a virginal conception.
However, the angel was not talking about the manner of the child’s conception. If one discards prejudice and applies the rules governing grammar, it is seen that the phrase “of the Holy Spirit” refers to the child in Mary’s womb, not its conception.” //// I don’t think “grammar” can be used to that end. CONTEXT also applies? Plus if the fetus is “of the Holy Spirit” what does that mean except how it was conceived? Typical religious dogma X MEANS Y. No doubt at all. Too bad every little slice of humanity takes the same attitude but applies different meanings.
What I was looking for was the analysis of the orginal language==not the 4-5 times removed KJ version or whatever.
Arguing about what an English Translation says really is the height of – - – of – - – of – - – well, its even kind of hard to pick the right word just how wrong that is.
The “Holy” word of god. As put thru the meat grinder. Well Done.
September 8, 2009 at 06:22 |
bobbo
You say you are looking for an “analysis of the originial language, not the 4-5 times removed KJ version or whatever.” Fair enough. However without any such analysis you have no inhibition in interpreting the “KJ words.”
You have quoted from the article ‘Joseph and the Birth of Jesus’ that appears on my website. The article continues:
“The angel said a similar thing to Zacharias about the child Elizabeth would carry in her womb (‘He will also be filled with the Holy Spirit, even from his mother’s womb’), and no one suggests a virginal conception in that case. (Luke 1:15)”
As for this and the other virgin birth articles on the website, you will have seen they all deal at great length with CONTEXT.
The question that could be asked is this: Have we been conditioned to read words in one way when they apply to Jesus, but in a different way when the same words are applied to others in the Bible?
On this question, it might be worth re-reading my previous post with regard to the words “Jesus,” “christ,” and the “Holy Spirit/Spirit of God coming upon someone.”
And how many people confuse the biblical term “son of God” with the non-biblical term “God the Son”?
September 9, 2009 at 05:00 |
Christians read doctrinal concepts of Holy Trinity, Incarnation, and Virgin Birth into the Bible narratives simply because their minds have been thoroughly conditioned in this vein by their theologians for the past 1800 years. They approach the Bible with specific conditioned connotations, preconceptions and mindsets of expecting to find their church doctrines there, so is it any wonder that they find exactly what they expected to find as they read their Bible???
Matthew’s Gospel, text 1:23 is a prime example of misunderstanding due to preconceptions and warped mindset. This text is one of the foundations upon which the spurious doctrine of virgin birth is built, and close analysis will show that Matthew’s meaning in this text does not fit the use which the “Christian” churches have made of it. As it stands, Mt 1:23 is based on a gross mistranslation of the prophet Isaiah from Hebrew into Greek (the LXX) made in ALEXANDRIA about 500 years AFTER Isaiah had died.
It is important to understand that Matthew sees in the personal life of Jesus of Nazareth a RECAPITULATION of the history of the nation of Israel.
Matthew sees Jesus as a composite of values found in Israel’s history – and “virgin birth” or “Jehovah God Incarnate” does NOT fit these values.
The real significance of Mt 1:23 is not to be found in the LXX mistranslation of Isaiah’s words spoken 750BC, but that once again Jehovah God was visiting and supporting his people.
This theme wends its way through Hebrew Scripture of God being with or visiting his people in the sense of giving them sustenance or support when they face difficult times or oppression. Such a time was in Isaiah’s days (750 BC) when the land of Judah was under attack by the confederate forces of Ephraim and Syria. The prophet Isaiah had given King Ahaz a sign through a child appropriately named IMMANUEL (With us God) as a living chronometer for the king to mark off the years of oppression. Matthew used Isaiah’s sign of 750BC where God was with his people, as a RECAPITULATION of God again visiting his people, but this time in the teaching person of Jesus of Nazareth.
Certainly, Jesus of Nazareth personified the values of God, in that he lived these values and also expected all people to do likewise (that is the essence of his sermons). However, to personify or live God’s values is NOT to be God incarnate.
The doctrines of apotheosis (incarnation of the gods into human form) and virgin birth certainly do not embody Hebrew values. These are doctrines of revamped paganism unheard of by Jesus of Nazareth or his disciples.
Les Kelly, Tasmania.
September 9, 2009 at 06:23 |
If TC and LK are correct and Jesus never sinned then theres no original sin – ’sin in the flesh’ (Christadelphian version)does it mean we are all responsible for our own descisions?
September 9, 2009 at 11:57 |
T Crosthwaite == thanks for your completely polite, yet unreasonable, response.
Now I know in a very real sense that many, but not all, issues can only be explained by reference to other issues/relevant facts that are not contained “within” the presented fact pattern. Nonetheless, the current givens should be fully explored before turning to these other issues. Just way too easy to lose track of what is actually being discussed, to have strawmen and red herrings introduced into a given issue to do otherwise as you suggest here.
YOUR analysis as presented is based on the english translation. You do NOTHING BUT acknowledge and accede to that criticism by complaining that I do the same. Thank you.
I am NOT a bible scholar. I don’t believe in god. I don’t think the bible is anything but made up/complied stories for mass indoctrination. “If” I were the opposite, if I really believed, I would learn the original languages of the bible and study it earnestly. Now, we are only human with restraints on our time. Much easier to just study in the language we already now. I’m with you, but you are advocating bible interpretation by non-original sources. Criticizing me for doing the same is really beyond the pale. Further, as indicated above, I am NOT interpreting the bible===I am only interpreting YOUR interpretation, a totally different process.
I have never read/studied the bible beyond an occasional stay in motels that had the book next to the tv remote. I’d pick it up and read for 2-3 sentences until its opaqueness made me pine for an ad on tv. I’m about as unbiased as to christian teachings as one can get. I have a BS in English Literature studying/parcing great works of literature. Those studies treat a sonnet as a thing standing on its own. Sometimes appreciation is helped by referring to something outside the work but it is very rare. One of the qualities of great literature is that it does stand on its own. No wild goose chase chasing down one outside reference to another to have it make sense.
When you study great literature you find general agreement among experts as to the meaning of those things of import to most readers. Yes, there are some famous disputes and people can question some secondary issues. Not so with the Bible. The experts, as you and Les Kelley and all the Abrahamic Religions demonstrate do not even agree on the basics.
As long as these BASIC disagreements exist, one can gain greater spiritual understanding by studying the Lord of the Rings trilogy–in its original language.
Where were we?? Oh==you have offered nothing to counter the plain reading of the text that Jesus was born of a virgin. Now, because I am actually kind of interested in the subject, I will do the research you refuse/fail to do and find out if the original language called Mary a virgin or “a young woman.”
Dude!
September 12, 2009 at 09:33 |
The problems that arise from the creeds and doctrines of the many denominations and sects of Christendom – virgin birth, incarnation (apotheosis), trinity, original sin, etc, etc, is that they cover all cases of proving the wrong point and are difficult if not impossible to manifest in everyday ethical conduct. They amount to little more than a set of cannonised beliefs. “Christians” profess belief in creeds and doctrines in a similar manner that creeds and mantras are professed in the myths and gods of New Age paganism.
September 12, 2009 at 10:08 |
bobbo sept 9
Kowing now what bobbo is and is not.You are (a).a BS in English Literature’.(good to see you took the ‘Eng Lang Lit Kit)and (b)’Unbiased as to Christian teaching.
You are not-(a) ‘a bible student/reader -’(2 or 3 verses and waiting for a TV ad)’
If you’re being truthful about ‘doing the research’, then I strongly suggest you gain acess to ‘the Hebrew and Chaldean Lexicon’ by William Gesinius, who, in the world of Scholarship, is regarded as THE authority on those languages(no doubt you’ll remember what an ‘authority’ is from your studies to gain your BS in English Lit.
September 14, 2009 at 01:07 |
Stock==I actually did go off and google a few websites regarding “virgin birth” but before I got to a site that analyzed the original text, it hit me it didn’t matter what the Expert might think, or myself before or after reading the Expert. It just doesn’t matter what the truth is when .5-1 Billion people disagree. And thats one major point about religion==whatever is thought about any point, the majority of people in the world disagree and so do many people of the same basic faith that just see things slightly differently.
Its a mess. Much better just to dismiss it and watch commercials for deoderant on tv. Oooh==here’s one now.
September 14, 2009 at 02:08 |
bobbo
‘before you got to a site…’. bobbo, you gave up! After saying you would- you didnt. Oh dear!
September 14, 2009 at 06:48 |
bobbo,
Do you want the truth served up to you on a silver platter?
Getting to the truth of the “virgin birth” story is not as formidable as you might suppose. However, it does require effort, a systematic approach, a command of logic, and the ability to overcome conditioned responses.
The virgin birth articles on my website provide an example of how a layman can go about the task.
But if you value getting to the truth in relation to how many people believe or don’t believe something, then I suspect you will find it more satisfying confining yourself to the role of armchair critic.
September 14, 2009 at 09:18 |
Stock==thats correct. I did not continue on a path that I knew lead no where. A deeper insight really. You probably won’t understand this, but to continue would have been hypocrisy. Don’t you agree that every sunrise allows us to redefine/reevaluate/re-appreciate who we are? And so does every waking minute.
T Crosthwaite === You have spent a lot of time on your website and I do respect that. Jealous even. But to atheists, moreso anti-theists, like myself it really is irrelevant what “exactly” the bible says, or any variation of it. The argument regarding “what it says” only goes to showing internal inconsistencies and doesn’t go to “the truth” at all. Its been a few years since I last looked into “Bible Inconsistencies” and I just forgot I am resolved on this issue, no need to look again. I love words and history so much I just lost my overriding orientation there for a while. I apologize. Keep studying the Bible==there is a kind of knowledge there.
The only truth worth knowing lies in Science and your own heart. To study that, you need Science, and an ability to look within I would say with the stimulus of great Literature, specifically NOT including the Bible, with some philosophy, psychology books thrown in. Works for me, we each have our own path.
September 14, 2009 at 05:04 |
T Crosthwaite,
Like bobbo, I find the bible amusing only as literature and a source of what others believe. That said, I would like to see how my own site has been used in your site. I have not been able to find the page on your site that links to mine. Would you please provide a working link to the source?
Thanks,
Scott
September 15, 2009 at 03:18 |
bobbo,
It seems you want this and that, but you dont want to pay for it. The phrase ,’pseudo intellectual freeloader’ comes to mind.I previously pointed out your stated ‘beliefs’ and ‘not beliefs’. You saying unequivically ‘I dont believe in god’puts you on exactly the same common ground (basis / premis) as those who say ‘ I do belive in god’ and yet you belittle them. Sorry bobbo,you’re not up to scratch in terms of and objective discussion.Your excuse for not persuing your stated intention previously can only and fairly be described as a pathetic piece of phlegmatically phobic philistine philosophising. More effort needed bobbo
September 15, 2009 at 09:17 |
stock,
Actually, you seem to be extremely uninformed about the issue via rational thought and have no understanding of the burden of proof. You make an extraordinary claim that there is an invisible man in the sky watching everything you do. It is your job to provide evidence.
Similarly, if I make a claim that there is a fire-breathing dragon living in my closet, you would ask, if you cared at all, to come and see him. I would then tell you that the dragon is invisible.
You might then respond that you could put powder on the floor and watch for his footsteps. At this point, I would tell you that my dragon always flies around the room.
You might then ask if you could bring a heat detector to see evidence of his fire. I would then tell you that he breathes cool fire.
You see how this works? If you fail to see the similarity in your claim of god to my claim of a dragon, you are probably beyond help.
September 15, 2009 at 05:09 |
Hey Stock==I love a good alliterative character smear. Always looking for the diamonds within the shit. I disagree with your assessment.
Nah. I can only repost what I already said. I love words, but that love is not satisfied by Bible Research.
Are you being very christian in that attack? ((A burden I don’t have to bear.))
September 15, 2009 at 08:03 |
Scott–I don’t believe there is a flying cool heat breathing invisible dragon in your closet===and if there is, I’m AGAINST IT!!!
I think those holes in your clothes that frustrate you so are either there are already when you pick them out of the dumpster, or made by some kind of weevil that hatches their eggs on it.
In all cases, you have provided only an argument, and not proof of your spiritual grounding in this real world. What kind of person you might be without this Dragon is a wholly tangential person. Have faith, be strong. You can be a good person with the moths, and without the Dragon.
Soldier ON!!!!
September 16, 2009 at 03:44 |
scott and bobbo,luv yer both. My lovely wife of 48 years (that’s married to and not her age) are leaving this thriving metrolopis in which we live and going to the country, bush,scrub, veldt for two weeks. keep the thread open. We have not deserted it.
Bobbo, you picked the alliteration! well done.
September 16, 2009 at 09:22 |
stock,
I’ve only ever closed one thread on this blog, and that because it was superseded by a more recent and detailed post on exactly the same topic. I do still reserve the right to invoke Godwin’s Law, however, at my own discretion, of course.