# Newsweek Poll: Majority of Americans Believe the Bible to be Historically Accurate



## RandomPhantom700 (Dec 11, 2004)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/

"Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmasthe Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the Eastis historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible."

Now, I realize that public opinion polls aren't exactly the most accurate measures on the face of the planet, and that fundamentalism being high in America almost goes without saying, but the sheer percentages brought up just make me wonder whether this whole democratic exchange of ideas thing is working. Thoughts?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 11, 2004)

Well, they didn't ask me.

Considering that historical evidence shows that older religions had the some of the same stories (different names in some cases), there is not evidence outside the bible of Jesus's existance, etc..... I take it all with a grain of salt.  People are easily programmed, and to me, all this survey says is that they hit a large group of "believers".  

I think what it indicates is that people are more willing to take things at face value, than to take the time, do some research and think.  Then again, people in this country aren't taught how to "Think", but how to regurgitate pre-approved thoughts.

It's one of those funny things....millions of people wander through the "Holy Land" each year on religious pilgrimiges....but how little archeological evidence is there that any of those people/places/events really exist? Why is it that certain events in the time-frame of the bible do not line up withing any reasonable life-span for a normal human?  Why do so many of the stories also appear in older now 'extint' faiths?  Certainly the Romans would have some information recorded, especially on who they executed or tried.  Certainly the Jews should have something recorded on the execution of such a noticible 'pretender'? Etc.

People believe what they want to believe, what they are told to believe, period.  Most lack the ability or willpower to question, fearing censur from friends/family/employers, etc.  It is why we have all the big Christian holidays off...and not the Jewish, Muslem or Pagan.

Personally, I think it's all myths.  But thats my opinion.  For those who do believe, more power to you.  I'm not saying you shouldn't...just that you should look deeper into things.  The search will enrich you incredibly, even if we both arrive at different final determinations.   (Heck, if all you get is 1 traditional dish to serve at the holidays it's still a little something, right?)


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Dec 11, 2004)

I'm a Christian, and as such, the Bible is obviously an important book.

This, however,



> In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate.


stunned me.

Every word?  Including, oh, Revelations?

I am really surprised, actually.

But maybe my traditions and opinions are a little different.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 11, 2004)

The problem with polls is that the results are too often easy to control or otherwise skew.  I mean, 1 outta 1 Bobs surveyed here believe that waking up before the crack of noon is a sin...but howmany employers will change?


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 11, 2004)

There are some ancient historians that  make reference to Jesus as a historical person.  Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus in their writings.

I don't believe that Jesus was invented and was not a real man that taught a philosophy of life, but the question is did he do all the things that are attributed to him, or do all the acts that he did.  Remember the gospels are not biographies of Jesus (what biography would talk of a birth, skip 12 yrs to a story, and then another 18 yrs until he was 30.) they were sermons written for a specific audience to illustrate certain points that would have been important to them. For example, Matthew was written for a mainly jewish audience and spends great length connecting OT prophecies to events in Jesus' life, whereas John was written for a greek thinking audience and talks about logos and truth and concepts that they would find important.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 11, 2004)

If you do a search here, you'll see that both Tacitus and Josephus have been pretty much rebutted.

Your comment though on the targets of the writings is interesting, and one I had not thought of previously.  My question here is, what of the other Gospels?  To who were the Gospels of Mary and Thomas directed?  1 idea that I saw previously indicated the Thomas' were infact mostly a recording of his own corespondence with I think Peter or Paul. (The letters we here refered to so often in service).


----------



## Xequat (Dec 11, 2004)

Holy crap, 55 percent?!?!?!  That many people actually believe that some guy had a talking donkey?  Methuselah actually lived to be 969 years old?!?!?!?  Noah actually got two of every animal onto one giant boat and none of them ate each other and they all reproduced successfully when they landed (heh, that would lead to incest, right?)?!?!?!  

Don't get me wrong, the Bible is great.  But Jesus taught through parables, so why shouldn't we believe that the Bible is one great parable or stack of parables?  The message is what's important.  But how come only two of the four (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) even mention Jesus' birth and they have conflicting stories?


----------



## Xequat (Dec 11, 2004)

As to what you were saying about target audiences, there were pagans back in the day, so here's an interesting site (first one I found from a search on "Mithra").  http://www.vetssweatshop.net/dogma.htm

It draws a lot of similarities between Jesus and the Pagan god Mithra.  Even in Catholic school, we were told that some people believed that Jesus was born around March, but there was already a holiday set up for December, so the Church just decided to celebrate Christmas then so as not to disrupt anything.  Just think how quickly Kwanzaa would have been laughed out of the Hallmark store if it were supposed to be celebrated in June.  No, the guy that invented it in the sixties wisely decided to put it alongside Christmas and Hannukah when people were already celebrating anyway.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 11, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Well, they didn't ask me.
> 
> Considering that historical evidence shows that older religions had the some of the same stories (different names in some cases), there is not evidence outside the bible of Jesus's existance, etc..... I take it all with a grain of salt.  People are easily programmed, and to me, all this survey says is that they hit a large group of "believers".
> 
> ...



Well said, Bob. I concur 100%.  :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 11, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> There are some ancient historians that  make reference to Jesus as a historical person.  Tacitus and Josephus mentioned Jesus in their writings.



Go with Kaith on this one, dude. I've rebutted these many times on at least two different threads.

To keep it simple:

- Both the wording and literary context of the Josephus (circa 95 CE) references, as well as the inability of early Christian apologetics to reference them, leads one to the opinion that they are Christian forgeries. This is especially evident when they were once in different forms than the ones we have now (reference Origen's citation of Josephus).

- In the reference in question, Tacitus (circa 120 CE) incorrectly refers to Pontius Pilae as a 'procurator' when historical evidence demonstrates his accurate title was 'prefect'. Ergo, Tacitus was _not_ relying on primary historical sources or records but going on the word-of-mouth of others.

- Neither Josephus nor Tacitus are primary sources, both writing several generations after Jesus was supposed to have died (Josephus more than 60 years removed and Tacitus nearly 100 years removed).



			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> I don't believe that Jesus was invented and was not a real man that taught a philosophy of life, but the question is did he do all the things that are attributed to him, or do all the acts that he did.  Remember the gospels are not biographies of Jesus (what biography would talk of a birth, skip 12 yrs to a story, and then another 18 yrs until he was 30.) they were sermons written for a specific audience to illustrate certain points that would have been important to them. For example, Matthew was written for a mainly jewish audience and spends great length connecting OT prophecies to events in Jesus' life, whereas John was written for a greek thinking audience and talks about logos and truth and concepts that they would find important.



The preceding claims are inaccurate, I'm afraid.

The three synoptic gospels --- Mathew, Mark, and Luke --- were apparently the scripts for mystery school plays. J.M. Robinson discusses this theme in his _Pagan Christs_ work. Namely, the text of the synoptics is written and framed in such a way that it seems to be intended for the audience of a play (in this case, one of the mystery plays that were quite popular at the time). 

Such giveaways include the rapid-fire sequencing of events that are supposed to take place in more than a year's time, the unlikely occurence of certain events (such as the Sanhedrin meeting in the dead of night to try a heretic), and oddity that is the recording of Jesus' monologues spoken when ALL the disciples are asleep!! An sleeping "eyewitness" couldn't record a monologue, but the audience at a performance could hear one just dandy.

Not to mention, none of the gospels were written for Jewish audiences. They all evince an ignorance of Palestinian geography, an ignorance of Jewish laws (such as Jesus telling women they can't divorce --- apparently forgetting women didn't have divorce rights in Jewish laws of the time), and the inaccurate Greek translation of the Old Testament (Septugaint) that any native Jewish rabbi (such as the ones Jesus supposedly "repudiates") would laugh at.

The simple, sobering truth is there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the Gospels have anything to do with the life of a historical person. Cultural bias (or just flat-out ignorance) is the only motivating factor here.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 11, 2004)

Xequat said:
			
		

> As to what you were saying about target audiences, there were pagans back in the day, so here's an interesting site (first one I found from a search on "Mithra").  http://www.vetssweatshop.net/dogma.htm
> 
> It draws a lot of similarities between Jesus and the Pagan god Mithra.  Even in Catholic school, we were told that some people believed that Jesus was born around March, but there was already a holiday set up for December, so the Church just decided to celebrate Christmas then so as not to disrupt anything.  Just think how quickly Kwanzaa would have been laughed out of the Hallmark store if it were supposed to be celebrated in June.  No, the guy that invented it in the sixties wisely decided to put it alongside Christmas and Hannukah when people were already celebrating anyway.



Oh, pshaw. 

Those "in the know" have known about the clear parallels and similarities between the Christ story and the Hellenistic mystery schools for well over a century now. Even church fathers like Justin Martyr and Tertullian admitted this stuff (albeit via the silly justification that is 'diabolical mimicry').

Personally, I think Dionysus is the closest match. Mithras is close, though. In any case, the Christians undoubtedly borrowed from many traditions and schools in their creation of Iesous Kristos.

Even in terms of "Christian" philosophy, the parallels with Platonism are clear (especially in the Pauline epistles). Hell, Clement of Alexandria called Christianity "perfected Platonism". That should tell you something.

The "Jesus fish" is an Egypto-Pythagorean symbol, denoting unity of opposites in that it is two perfect concentric circles that merge at a particular angle (90 degrees, I believe). Same with the "cross of light". Another solar deity symbol.

Oh, pshaw.


----------



## GAB (Dec 11, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well said, Bob. I concur 100%. :asian:


Yes, My 2 cents worth.

Regards, Gary


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 11, 2004)

> The preceding claims are inaccurate, I'm afraid.
> 
> The three synoptic gospels --- Mathew, Mark, and Luke --- were apparently the scripts for mystery school plays. J.M. Robinson discusses this theme in his _Pagan Christs_ work. Namely, the text of the synoptics is written and framed in such a way that it seems to be intended for the audience of a play (in this case, one of the mystery plays that were quite popular at the time).


What are Robinson's credentials? I am not familiar with him.  I looked up the book on amazon and noticed that it was through kessinger publishing which reprints alot of old books dealing with the occult, and it was originally published in 1911 before alot of texts were available.  The reason I point this out is, the "sermons theme" came from a professor I had in college, Dr. Fred Burnett, who was one of the original members of the "Jesus Seminar" that went through all the old texts, etc. to try and determine what Jesus really said, or might have said etc (as an aside, he quit the group when they expanded membership and became more PC with the project).  



> Go with Kaith on this one, dude. I've rebutted these many times on at least two different threads.


I'll have to look more into historical research on josephus then.  I had not seen anything in print stating their inaccuracies.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> What are Robinson's credentials? I am not familiar with him.  I looked up the book on amazon and noticed that it was through kessinger publishing which reprints alot of old books dealing with the occult, and it was originally published in 1911 before alot of texts were available.



I was mistaken, actually. The name of the writer was J. M. Robertson.

As for his "credentials", they are summarized here:

http://www.thoemmes.com/404.asp?404;http://www.thoemmes.com/encyclopedia/robertson.htm

Robertson was one of those wacky "freethought liberals" we hear so little about today, and had a great influence on T. S. Eliot. At one time, he was a member of England's Privy Council (earning the title of 'Right Honorable').

As for the dating of his works (as well as his "credential"), its irrelevant to the discussion at hand. The argument that the synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke) were originally mystery play scripts is not in any way impacted by the discovery of Dead Sea Scrolls or the Nag Hammadi Library.

Anyone with a decent translation of the New Testament can crack it open and evaluate this claim for oneself. You don't need a degree or some title to do so. Jesus Christ' "monologues" are there, plain for all to see. As are the rapid-fire pacing of the story, the flow of events told in an almost Shakespearian manner, and the incredulous events that are supposed to be "historical" (such as the Sanhedrin meeting in the dead of the night).

Its quite evident to anyone who evaluates the text in an even quasi-objective manner that this is clearly the skeleton for a play of some sort.



			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> The reason I point this out is, the "sermons theme" came from a professor I had in college, Dr. Fred Burnett, who was one of the original members of the "Jesus Seminar" that went through all the old texts, etc. to try and determine what Jesus really said, or might have said etc (as an aside, he quit the group when they expanded membership and became more PC with the project).



No offense, but I take the claims of the Jesus Seminar with a grain of salt. The absolute lack of scientific justification for many of the various claims in the "historical Jesus" field are absolutely apalling. It is perhaps the only scientific field where religious belief actually determines the direction of academic discourse, as opposed to logic and evidence.



			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> I'll have to look more into historical research on josephus then.  I had not seen anything in print stating their inaccuracies.



A lot has been written, actually --- for well over 100 years, I might add. This is hardly new material.

Laterz.


----------



## punisher73 (Dec 12, 2004)

> Anyone with a decent translation of the New Testament can crack it open and evaluate this claim for oneself. You don't need a degree or some title to do so. Jesus Christ' "monologues" are there, plain for all to see. As are the rapid-fire pacing of the story, the flow of events told in an almost Shakespearian manner, and the incredulous events that are supposed to be "historical" (such as the Sanhedrin meeting in the dead of the night).
> 
> Its quite evident to anyone who evaluates the text in an even quasi-objective manner that this is clearly the skeleton for a play of some sort.


I'm not really sure what the argument is here. We are both saying that they are not biographies and were written for an audience.   I agree with how they are written and the fast pace is more in line with that than biographical sketch, which I have already stated the gospels are not, but that still does not preclude that they were written for a target audience to illustrate a specific intent, which is my original argument.



> No offense, but I take the claims of the Jesus Seminar with a grain of salt. The absolute lack of scientific justification for many of the various claims in the "historical Jesus" field are absolutely apalling. It is perhaps the only scientific field where religious belief actually determines the direction of academic discourse, as opposed to logic and evidence


Which is why the Dr. I referenced left, he was interested in actual research.  I think credentials are important when discussing this type of material because we both could cite sources of things (especially in this type of discussion) that could show either idea supported.  I think it boils down to a scholars credentials and who you trust more, since I think there are NO impartial scholars in this field and that both sides all have an agenda which I take into account.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 12, 2004)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> I'm not really sure what the argument is here. We are both saying that they are not biographies and were written for an audience.   I agree with how they are written and the fast pace is more in line with that than biographical sketch, which I have already stated the gospels are not, but that still does not preclude that they were written for a target audience to illustrate a specific intent, which is my original argument.



The argument is that the synoptic Gospels, at least in an earlier form than what we have now, appear to be scripts for mystery plays. 

Now, this doesn't mean that they were _originally_ scripts for plays. I personally think that, originally, the synoptics were merely collections of non-time/place sayings and actions attributed to 'Jesus Christ' and his 'disciples' --- perhaps similar to the Gospel of Thomas and the much-vaunted (and hypothetical) Gospel of Q.

I would agree that a 'message' is being taught, if that is what you are referring to. This is in line with my contention that they are very much _mystery_ plays --- the whole mechanic of which was to initiate either the audience or the participants into the _mysteries_ of a religious school.

The idea that the Christ Story is actually a Mystery Play is also supported by some of the authentic Pauline epistles. For example, when Paul tells the Galatians that Jesus has been openly laid out and crucified before their eyes --- and its unlikely most, if any, of the Galatians would have made the trot to Jerusalem --- this would make sense in terms of a mystery play enactment. Paul also seems to echo this in his own case, when he claims to have been crucified and resurrected with Christ --- very reminiscent of an initiatory ritual of a Mystery School (in which the initiate participates in the death and resurrection of the Man-God, such as Osiris).



			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> Which is why the Dr. I referenced left, he was interested in actual research.



And, more power to him. 

I in no way meant to insult your professor in my earlier criticism, but I was critiquing the general trends I see in the whole "Historical Jesus" discussions. I think they are rife with presumptions, cultural bias, and a general lack of evidence --- not to mention outright projectionism. 

Its no coincidence that the most popular academic theory of 'Jesus Christ' now is that he was an uber-Jewish political insurgent/activist. Y'know, that wouldn't go nicely hand-in-hand with the recent civil rights movements in the West, or the establishment and alliance with the state of Israel, neh?? 

Yup. Just ignore that Jesus-as-political-rebel basically flies in the face of Gospel accounts (and therefore has no literary evidence whatsoever to support it) --- "give unto Caesar what is his". Also, the purported uber-zealotry Jesus was supposed to have in Judaic religion seems kinda weird when he put forward distinctively non-Jewish ideas like foresaking one's family, friends, and possession to follow the Way (which sounds strikingly Pythagorean-Platonic); becoming a wandering preacher-guru (Cynicism and Pythagoreanism?); surpassing the Law in lieu of Spirit; the idea that marriage isn't the greatest thing in the world and celibacy is awesome (Pythagoreanism); and, the whole idea of Divine Redeemer just screams mystery school (whence we get mystery plays, both public and private).  



			
				punisher73 said:
			
		

> I think credentials are important when discussing this type of material because we both could cite sources of things (especially in this type of discussion) that could show either idea supported.  I think it boils down to a scholars credentials and who you trust more, since I think there are NO impartial scholars in this field and that both sides all have an agenda which I take into account.



That's all well and good, but I can't count the number of times I have seen bad ideas being supported by people with good credentials. I mean, the credentials are nice and all --- but, it really comes down to the meat of the arguments. Discourse should involve the message, not the messenger.


----------



## Satt (Dec 12, 2004)

You know, this could make a good MT poll too. Just my 2 cents. I just can't make polls yet.


----------



## Melissa426 (Dec 12, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> For those who do believe, more power to you.


Thanks.
My beliefs do empower me and millions of other Christians.

(1)Speaking about what you believe regarding the history of the birth of Jesus.
This morning's sermon at church was from Matthew 1:18-25, about Joseph discovering his betrothed was pregnant.According to Jewish law, he could have had her publicly judged and stoned; instead he decided to just divorce her quietly. (This is before the angel came to Joseph in the dream to tell him that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit).  
 The gist of this is that people hurt us and wound us deeply all the time... words, actions, deeds.  Do you respond with anger, give like for like, want to hurt them as much as or even more than they hurt you?  Or can you show mercy as Joseph did?  
I guess I don't consider this hard to believe.  And, yes, I know that it is just one passage of the whole story. 

(2) If archeological proof of a "historical Jesus" were found, would it change your opinion about his divinity, his message, his life?

(3) Just out of curiousity, why sometimes BOB and sometimes KAITH?  if you don't mind my asking 

Peace,
Melissa


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 12, 2004)

I usually dont weigh in on these types of threads, but I'm just a little curious about this one post. First however, let me give you my background. I will not take a stand on one side or the other here, but I was raised verly legalistically "christian". I mean to the point that we didn't have a TV, I was homeschooled until high school, and by the age of 12 had to be able to quote verbatum many books (in their entirety) of the bible in english (king james version), greek or hebrew. That being said, I have quite a bit of bible knowledge for what its worth. Dont try to assume my position, because chances are, you will be wrong. 

   Here is what I'm curious about....


			
				Xequat said:
			
		

> But how come only two of the four (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John) even mention Jesus' birth and they have conflicting stories?


 What is conflicting about the stories here? I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just curious as to what you see as conflicting.

   7sm


----------



## TonyM. (Dec 12, 2004)

Betcha fewer than 10% of adults have ever read the bible cover to cover, so it's pretty stupid to poll people on their opinion of it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> Thanks.
> My beliefs do empower me and millions of other Christians.


 I'm glad.  I've seen it said often that those with an active faith achieve more than those who either are just 'there' or don't really believe anything.  (Not refering to athiests here, but the 'eh' folks)



> (1)Speaking about what you believe regarding the history of the birth of Jesus.
> This morning's sermon at church was from Matthew 1:18-25, about Joseph discovering his betrothed was pregnant.According to Jewish law, he could have had her publicly judged and stoned; instead he decided to just divorce her quietly. (This is before the angel came to Joseph in the dream to tell him that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit).
> The gist of this is that people hurt us and wound us deeply all the time... words, actions, deeds. Do you respond with anger, give like for like, want to hurt them as much as or even more than they hurt you? Or can you show mercy as Joseph did?
> I guess I don't consider this hard to believe.  And, yes, I know that it is just one passage of the whole story.


 There are many IMO good lessons contained in the Christian Bible.  One of my favorite lessons is the 'turn the other cheek' one, as well as the love and respect shown by how the 12 and Jesus interacted.  Lessons in love, trust, humility, etc.  I'm also a fan of Og Mandino ("The Christ Commision" is one of my favorite books btw) who uses much of the same parable style.  The lessons contained within, waiting to be drawn out IMO, are not diminished by the historical and archeological inaccuracies.



> (2) If archeological proof of a "historical Jesus" were found, would it change your opinion about his divinity, his message, his life?


 That's actually 3 questions. 
 - His Divinity? No.
 - His Message? It depends on the evidence.  
 - His Life? It depends.

 Case in point: I saw a (I think History Chanel) special on Jesus, which painted him as a revolutionary, trying to change his society.  It also strongly suggested that Judas was not a betrayer, but in fact the parties 'money man', and that his turning over of Jesus to the Elders was in fact at Jesus's request....that Jesus and he were in fact best of friends.  The suggestion was that his painting as "The Great Betrayer" was caused by the tragic ending, and anger from the other disciples.  There are also the other Gospels to be considered, many of which have supposedly been buried for centuries by the Church as they paint a different portrait of Jesus that the 'official 4'.



> (3) Just out of curiousity, why sometimes BOB and sometimes KAITH?  if you don't mind my asking


 Good question.
 In fact, that was a great! question....I'm gonna copy it to my 'hello' in the Meet N Greet forum  and answer it there.



> Peace,
> Melissa


 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 12, 2004)

One should like to see the tangible proof that:

a) The world was created and populated in six days;

b) Adam and Eve really existed;

c) There really was a Great Flood and an Ark;

d) Joshua made ths sun stand still;

e) God made the Nile run red with blood;

f) Jesus was the Son of God.

The real question is: why isn't faith enough for people? Why do they insist upon having evidence that does not, and probably cannot, exist? Why isn't the world enough for them, given that there's plenty of room for faith in the Universe that we can easily see around us?


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 12, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One should like to see the tangible proof that:
> 
> c) There really was a Great Flood and an Ark;
> 
> e) God made the Nile run red with blood;


 I have seen reference to a great flood in many different texts, and vaguely remember seeing some archeology show where they pointed at certain evidence of flooding.  Unfortunately, it's been quite a while.

 As to the Nile running red bit, I dunno if God did it, but I do recall there being some more mortal reason...something to do with runoffs and red clay.

 The rest, I can't comment on.


----------



## mj_lover (Dec 12, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I have seen reference to a great flood in many different texts, and vaguely remember seeing some archeology show where they pointed at certain evidence of flooding. Unfortunately, it's been quite a while.


I remember seeing something on that. They discovered that there was a big flood around the period the bible discribes in the middle east area, where the bible originated. It by no means coverd the earth, but to people back then, their "world" was allot smaller then ours, as they did not travel as much, or had the tech to discover other places.


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 13, 2004)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/
> 
> "Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmasthe Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the Eastis historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible."
> 
> Now, I realize that public opinion polls aren't exactly the most accurate measures on the face of the planet, and that fundamentalism being high in America almost goes without saying, but the sheer percentages brought up just make me wonder whether this whole democratic exchange of ideas thing is working. Thoughts?


It isn't the 'fundamentalists' that made this biblical 'folklore' popularly accepted so much as the Victorian creation of the "Christmas Tradition" that people buy into now.  Christmas trees, the manger story...drummer boy....

you name it.

I bet that there are just as many people who believe in the American 'folklore' that surrounds Paul Revere, the Liberty Bell, the Boston Tea party and so on...


----------



## rmcrobertson (Dec 13, 2004)

One should like to see tangible proofs, as with any scientific theory, of the sort that support evolution.

Certainly, noting a vague recolletion of something that one thinks one saw once ain't gettin' it.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 13, 2004)

I totally agree.  However, mentally fried as I am from the recent server issue, plus my memory failing with age, I was hoping someone else might have seen the same and could 'nudge' me.   I've got 1 of the things on tape...will check them ASAP.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 13, 2004)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Betcha fewer than 10% of adults have ever read the bible cover to cover, so it's pretty stupid to poll people on their opinion of it.



I have.  Several times, in fact.  It's one of the reasons why I'm an atheist.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 13, 2004)

Melissa426 said:
			
		

> My beliefs do empower me and millions of other Christians.



'Empower' might not be the right wording here...



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> This morning's sermon at church was from Matthew 1:18-25, about Joseph discovering his betrothed was pregnant.According to Jewish law, he could have had her publicly judged and stoned; instead he decided to just divorce her quietly. (This is before the angel came to Joseph in the dream to tell him that Mary had conceived by the Holy Spirit).
> The gist of this is that people hurt us and wound us deeply all the time... words, actions, deeds.  Do you respond with anger, give like for like, want to hurt them as much as or even more than they hurt you?  Or can you show mercy as Joseph did?
> I guess I don't consider this hard to believe.  And, yes, I know that it is just one passage of the whole story.



I wonder, then, if you believe the story that Zeus impegnated the virgin Cybele with a divine lightning to give birth to the godman Dionysus to be "not hard to believe" also??  



			
				Melissa426 said:
			
		

> (2) If archeological proof of a "historical Jesus" were found, would it change your opinion about his divinity, his message, his life?



Nope. Logical fallacy to think one legitimizes the other. 

The "Christian" message can work without recourse to historical proof (as proponents of 'diabolical mimicry' the centuries over have demonstrated), and the historical proof can be established without recourse to the "Christian" message.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 13, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> What is conflicting about the stories here? I'm not trying to say your wrong, I'm just curious as to what you see as conflicting.



Well, set aside that the actual details of Mary's pregnancy and Christ's birth differ in the various accounts --- it could just be the completely contradictory patriarchal lineages found in Matthew and Mark.

Heh. Apparently, Joseph had two daddies. Hey, who said the Bible teaches homophobia??


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 13, 2004)

Ok, the 2 videos I've got are "The Face of Jesus" (where they do that neat cgi-clay thing to a scull from that time period), and Discovery Channel :: Jesus: The Complete Story.

The CGI work in both was phenominal.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 13, 2004)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> I'm glad.  I've seen it said often that those with an active faith achieve more than those who either are just 'there' or don't really believe anything.  (Not refering to athiests here, but the 'eh' folks)



Personally, I'd trust one of the much more prevalent quasi-deists within western Christianity over the "active faith" types.




			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> There are many IMO good lessons contained in the Christian Bible.  One of my favorite lessons is the 'turn the other cheek' one, as well as the love and respect shown by how the 12 and Jesus interacted.  Lessons in love, trust, humility, etc.  I'm also a fan of Og Mandino ("The Christ Commision" is one of my favorite books btw) who uses much of the same parable style.  The lessons contained within, waiting to be drawn out IMO, are not diminished by the historical and archeological inaccuracies.



Which is all well and good, but nothing you won't get from reading Plato.




			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Case in point: I saw a (I think History Chanel) special on Jesus, which painted him as a revolutionary, trying to change his society.



Yes. This is in keeping with the "Christ Projectionism" I mentioned earlier. They coincide neatly with the civil rights movements throughout the West, as does emphasizing the "Jewish-ness" of Jesus (and downplaying the clear anti-Semitic threads within scripture) since our alliance with Israel.  



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> The suggestion was that his painting as "The Great Betrayer" was caused by the tragic ending, and anger from the other disciples.  There are also the other Gospels to be considered, many of which have supposedly been buried for centuries by the Church as they paint a different portrait of Jesus that the 'official 4'.



Naw. That's a load of poopy. 

Many Osiris-Dionysus stories feature a close friend (sometimes a brother) who betrayed the godman. Nothing new about it. In fact, many of the details of the Judas thread are pilfered directly from Plato's recounts of Socrates' arrest and betrayal (in which a 'disciple' of his paid 30 silver pieces to let Socrates walk, to which he bluntly refused).

Actually, some of the non-canonical threads about Judas portray him as a 'twin brother' of Jesus. It has to do with the gnostic relationship of the divine Self and the mortal ego (which 'denies' or 'betrays' the true Self).

Laterz.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 13, 2004)

> Many Osiris-Dionysus stories feature a close friend (sometimes a brother) who betrayed the godman. Nothing new about it. In fact, many of the details of the Judas thread are pilfered directly from Plato's recounts of Socrates' arrest and betrayal (in which a 'disciple' of his paid 30 silver pieces to let Socrates walk, to which he bluntly refused).
> 
> Actually, some of the non-canonical threads about Judas portray him as a 'twin brother' of Jesus. It has to do with the gnostic relationship of the divine Self and the mortal ego (which 'denies' or 'betrays' the true Self).



Interesting....I'll have to go read up on my Greek historys again....


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Dec 14, 2004)

read a book called "the jesus mysteries"
it pretty much puts under one cover all of the correlations between osiris-dionysus-jesus. inner mysteries of pagan religion, the greek stories that are almost imitated perfectly in the bible.

shawn


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 14, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, set aside that the actual details of Mary's pregnancy and Christ's birth differ in the various accounts --- it could just be the completely contradictory patriarchal lineages found in Matthew and Mark.
> 
> Heh. Apparently, Joseph had two daddies. Hey, who said the Bible teaches homophobia??


 Could you point me to the exact location of these conflicting stories?

 7sm


----------



## loki09789 (Dec 14, 2004)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> read a book called "the jesus mysteries"
> it pretty much puts under one cover all of the correlations between osiris-dionysus-jesus. inner mysteries of pagan religion, the greek stories that are almost imitated perfectly in the bible.
> 
> shawn


Look, also at the parallels between the accounts/legend/history of Alexander the Great's life and the 'hero' tale of the Christ and some interesting parallels show up.

Again, I think the majority of misconceptions about Christmas and understanding is the Victorian 'traditions' that we live with today.

Combine that with the fact that most people don't actively pursue anything beyond an elementary school level of philosophical/theological understanding and you have some idea as to why things are as they are on this topic.

People 'like' things like Santa Claus and the story of the three wisemen (actually they were Pagan astrologers, but hey, 'wisemen' is easier to swallow than the idea that the Messiah was 'ratified' by three star watching 'Heathens' to the modern Christian mentallity), and want to hold onto the 'spirit' of Christmas and not the 'reality' of the seasonal observation.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 14, 2004)

You mean the fact that "Santa Claus" is actually a Coke Cola revamp of a European Diefication of the pagan earth spirit, often refered to as the Green Man?

*whistles innocently*


----------



## Satt (Dec 15, 2004)

Are you telling me there is no Santa???!!! Crap I knew it!!!!!!! I'm gonna call my mother right now and give her a pice of my mind!!! LOL.
:idunno:


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Dec 15, 2004)

Ok, quick question:

Woman in a white dress, veiled, long flowing train, carrying a bouquet of flowers.

Who is that?

A woman getting married, or a pagan godess?

It's both.

The former is in the form of the later.

The godesses name?

Bride.  (Pronounced Breed).
You may have heard her called Saint Bridgit too.  An old Irish fertility god, made into a saint and absorbed into the Christian faith.  :wavey:

"Everything you know is wrong....- Weird Al"


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 15, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Could you point me to the exact location of these conflicting stories?
> 
> 7sm



Matthew 1: 1-18
Luke 3: 23-38

Both contain completely contradictory patrilineal geneologies for 'Jesus Christ'.

They make no sense anyway.

Y'see, the whole point of the geneologies was to 'prove' Jesus is a direct descendent of David (thus fulfilling Messianic prophecy) through his father, Joseph.

But, here's the catcher, either:

A) Jesus is the literal son of Joseph, is of the same bloodline of David, fulfills the Messianic prophecy, but is _not_ the literal Son of God (via Virgin Birth)...

or

B) Jesus is the literal Son of God, born of the Virgin Birth, _not_ the son of Joseph, and therefore _not_ of the same bloodline as David, and therefore _not_ fulfilling Messianic prophecy.

You can't have it both ways.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2004)

That is a very, very good point. But in order for either of those to be true, wouldn't we have to accept that God (the literal or figurative father of Jesus) would have had to contribute DNA to father a son? I dont think Christians believe that God imparted DNA to Jesus, and in such beliefs, couldn't Joseph's DNA still been used? If you believe that God created you and your DNA, why wouldn't you believe that he could create Jesus using your DNA? Now if God contains no DNA because he isn't human, than Jesus couldn't be the literal son of God (at least not literal by human standards), but in order for a baby to be born (at least a human baby on planet earth) there has to be DNA from a mother and a father (human). So somewhere Jesus must have gotten some male DNA, where did he get it from if not from Joseph? 

  7sm


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 15, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> That is a very, very good point. But in order for either of those to be true, wouldn't we have to accept that God (the literal or figurative father of Jesus) would have had to contribute DNA to father a son? I dont think Christians believe that God imparted DNA to Jesus, and in such beliefs, couldn't Joseph's DNA still been used? If you believe that God created you and your DNA, why wouldn't you believe that he could create Jesus using your DNA? Now if God contains no DNA because he isn't human, than Jesus couldn't be the literal son of God (at least not literal by human standards), but in order for a baby to be born (at least a human baby on planet earth) there has to be DNA from a mother and a father (human). So somewhere Jesus must have gotten some male DNA, where did he get it from if not from Joseph?
> 
> 7sm



Well sure, but you have to remember that the event, as interpreted now, is regarded as a *miracle*.  Common sense, scientific accurracy, laws of nature and logic are suspended, literally, by God.  I'm guessing that one of the side benefits of omni-whatever is the ability to do stuff like this.

So no.  DNA is not required from the father's side at all.  Heck, given the somewhat nebulous boundaries that define what's allowable in a miracle, I'd imagine that it's as likely as not that he could've been running around with NO DNA whatsoever.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 15, 2004)

Well, I was just trying to stay within the boundries of the two "possibilities" mentioned, but I agree with you, if you regard it as a miracle then it doesn't matter about the lineages. But isn't that a little vague at best? What then about the the fulfillment of the prophecy? Was Jesus Joseph's son, thus fulfilling the prophecy; if he had NO DNA whatsoever?

7sm


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 16, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> Well, I was just trying to stay within the boundries of the two "possibilities" mentioned, but I agree with you, if you regard it as a miracle then it doesn't matter about the lineages. But isn't that a little vague at best? What then about the the fulfillment of the prophecy? Was Jesus Joseph's son, thus fulfilling the prophecy; if he had NO DNA whatsoever?
> 
> 7sm



Specifics destroy the mystery.  Mystery is one of the most powerful cornerstones of religion and religious faith.


----------



## 7starmantis (Dec 16, 2004)

qizmoduis said:
			
		

> Specifics destroy the mystery. Mystery is one of the most powerful cornerstones of religion and religious faith.


   How so? If the cornerstone to religion is mystery, than why are there Christian archeologists and historians, and scientists? Why actively seek to prove or disprove the bible, Koran, or any religious writing? If its mystery that holds religion together, than these people are tearing religion apart?

 7sm


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 16, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> That is a very, very good point. But in order for either of those to be true, wouldn't we have to accept that God (the literal or figurative father of Jesus) would have had to contribute DNA to father a son? I dont think Christians believe that God imparted DNA to Jesus, and in such beliefs, couldn't Joseph's DNA still been used? If you believe that God created you and your DNA, why wouldn't you believe that he could create Jesus using your DNA? Now if God contains no DNA because he isn't human, than Jesus couldn't be the literal son of God (at least not literal by human standards), but in order for a baby to be born (at least a human baby on planet earth) there has to be DNA from a mother and a father (human). So somewhere Jesus must have gotten some male DNA, where did he get it from if not from Joseph?
> 
> 7sm



Mantis,

Please note the notion of _virgin birth_. Joseph is not supposed to have contributed to Jesus' birth at all. Yet, according to Jewish law, bloodlines are determined through patrinlineal descent.

Jesus is either the divine Christ or the mortal Messiah. Can't have it both ways.

Unless, of course, we are dealing with reality here and simply acknowledge that the whole story is a mythical allegory that attempted to combine Jewish religion with Hellenistic mystery cults.


----------



## heretic888 (Dec 16, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> How so? If the cornerstone to religion is mystery, than why are there Christian archeologists and historians, and scientists? Why actively seek to prove or disprove the bible, Koran, or any religious writing? If its mystery that holds religion together, than these people are tearing religion apart?



The majority of Christians researching Christian archaelogy and history are attempting to vindicate their faith before others (or, perhaps, to themselves). Its a mass-conversion scheme.


----------



## qizmoduis (Dec 16, 2004)

7starmantis said:
			
		

> How so? If the cornerstone to religion is mystery, than why are there Christian archeologists and historians, and scientists? Why actively seek to prove or disprove the bible, Koran, or any religious writing? If its mystery that holds religion together, than these people are tearing religion apart?
> 
> 7sm



Most people are compartmentalized.  Most of the religious scientists are content to separate the mysteries of faith from the mysteries of the universe and the world around them.  The mystery is there, but it's not a worldly mystery, if that makes any sense.  Their goals don't revolve around proving or disproving articles of faith, but rather simply learning how the universe - God's universe - works.

The literalists, on the other, cannot do this.  To them, the universe itself is the mystery.  It was created by God (or whatever) in a very mysterious and powerful fashion as described in their scriptures.  Observations and theories and all that which seemingly contradict their views have a powerful affect on their faith.  Science literally shakes them to the core; rocks the very foundations of their faith.  Science places limits on God's power. It channels the actions of their deity into the realm of the mundane; the non-mysterious.    The bible says "God spoke, and there was light".  Science says (as we understand it right now) - "A vast cloud of molecular hydrogen salted with various other heavier elements gravitationally condensed until the pressure and temperature was great enough to ignite a H->He fusion reaction at the center of mass, forming the Sun.  The leftover detritus eventually (or simultaneously) condensed into planets of various types and sizes.".  The average christian understands that the Bible was written by ancient, primitive nomads with no understanding of physics and science, and that it exists as an allegory.  Atheists and non-christians (probably) consider it to be pure gabble.  The literalist, on the other hand, sees the scientific explanation as a DIRECT ATTACK on his/her faith.  Unfortunately, they can't respond simply by disagreeing.  They need to reinforce their own faith by proving the science wrong.  The only way to prove the science wrong is to offer an alternative explanation, in scientific terms, using the methodologies of science.  In doing so, they do themselves harm, by seeking to explain the mysteries they so desparately cling to.  

It's difficult for me to explain this in a way that makes sense, because I don't think it makes sense.  To me, the worldview of a literalist is so alien as to be nearly incomprensible.  What I wrote is probably completely off-base, so you should consider it to be my utterly uninformed opinion.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 12, 2005)

Y'know, its funny....

I was just thinking about this poll in Newsweek and I seem to recall something similar coming up in a local newspaper in the Palm Beach area in Florida (a red state, by the way).

Funny thing is, though, that the opposite trend was evinced. A good chunk of people, in the +60% margin, seemed to think the virgin birth never happened (although many still believed Jesus to be the "son of God"). Even had a pastor in the article moaning and whining about people having a "pick-and-choose" approach to religion.

In any event, it kinda makes me question the scientific veracity of this poll. Shocking, I know.


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 12, 2005)

Every word of the Bible is 100% true,

 Especially the part that says everyone on Martial Talk should send me 1 dollar.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 13, 2005)

Technopunk said:
			
		

> Especially the part that says everyone on Martial Talk should send me 1 dollar.


 Hey, that's always been MY favorite part, too! I wanna get into heaven so... (digs in pocket, pulls out 20 bucks) Will this suffice?

j/k


----------



## raedyn (Jan 13, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I was just thinking about this poll in Newsweek and I seem to recall something similar coming up in a local newspaper in the Palm Beach area in Florida (a red state, by the way).
> 
> Funny thing is, though, that the opposite trend was evinced. A good chunk of people, in the +60% margin, seemed to think the virgin birth never happened (although many still believed Jesus to be the "son of God"). Even had a pastor in the article moaning and whining about people having a "pick-and-choose" approach to religion.
> 
> In any event, it kinda makes me question the scientific veracity of this poll. Shocking, I know.


 Or it might be a case of getting different answers depending on what question you ask. Like there might be people who would agree to the general statement "the bible is literal and historically accurate" but if you ask them about specific parts like the man living for 900 years, they might say they doubt the literal truth of it. Surveys are tricky that way. What question and how it's asked can have a huge impact on your results.


----------



## Ray (Jan 13, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/
> 
> "Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmasthe Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the Eastis historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible."
> 
> Now, I realize that public opinion polls aren't exactly the most accurate measures on the face of the planet, and that fundamentalism being high in America almost goes without saying, but the sheer percentages brought up just make me wonder whether this whole democratic exchange of ideas thing is working. Thoughts?


Fundamentalism.  If I recall the sociological definition, it refers to people who believe in a literal interpretation of their scriptures and believe that it is the only valid interpretation.  But whenever I think of the "fundamentals" my mind is always drawn people who excel at something (like athletes) because they practice the fundamentals until the fundamentals are like instinct.

Events either happened or they didn't.  American history, for example, was taught from a certain viewpoint when I was young and now has other viewpoints included.  I suppose that how we interpret any history is determined by what we believe.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 13, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I suppose that how we interpret any history is determined by what we believe.


 Yes! One of my grade school teachers used history texts that were 50 years old. When I complained that they were outdated she told me "history doesn't change". But that's preposterous! The texts acutally referred to North American Indians as 'savages' and portrayed them as such - and my class was about 40% - 50% Aboriginal (cree, sioux, etc). History through the lens of the 40's is different than the lens of today.


----------



## GAB (Jan 13, 2005)

Hi all,

Reading this reminds me of a time back when I was talking Bio 101.

Talking to another who was getting a good grade and comparing ideas thoughts and generally talking the talk.

He says I just get good grades because I need them to go on to another college. I am a 7th Day Adventist and don't believe much of this...

Brainwashed comes to mind....I said really? You don't believe the information that we are studing? Not most of it,he replied...

Many years later and in a very different setting I got a similar response from a Jehovas Witness... Sad, in my way of thinking. So what is real???

Bed time stories from a Book by Carl Sagan, or the Bible?

Regards, Gary


----------



## Ray (Jan 13, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Yes! One of my grade school teachers used history texts that were 50 years old. When I complained that they were outdated she told me "history doesn't change". But that's preposterous! The texts acutally referred to North American Indians as 'savages' and portrayed them as such - and my class was about 40% - 50% Aboriginal (cree, sioux, etc). History through the lens of the 40's is different than the lens of today.


I would say that "history doesn't change but our interpretation of it does."


----------



## Cryozombie (Jan 13, 2005)

raedyn said:
			
		

> Hey, that's always been MY favorite part, too! I wanna get into heaven so... (digs in pocket, pulls out 20 bucks) Will this suffice?
> 
> j/k


As a Legaly Ordained Minister in the Universal Life Church, I would be most happy to accept your donation of 20 dollars in exchange for a Plenary Indulgance, forgiving you for all Sins, Past, present and Future.

However, as a Christian, I must warn you, MY word is not the final say in that matter.


----------



## Bester (Jan 14, 2005)

I was talking to the Lord the other day, and I asked him many questions about Life, The Universe, and Everything.

He didn't say much.

But, I saw an eagle fly by with a serpent in it's tallons, and as it flew by a single feather dropped from it's wing. As it fell, I counted the flutterations and the number was in fact 42.

I have no choice but to believe that the Late Douglas Adams was in fact the Second Coming, and we all have missed our chance at redemption.  

I sought more proof, and lo, I found it.  While driving by Lake Erie I searched the horizon, and again counted 42 white caps on the lake.  More proof.

I now open the "Church of Doug Adams" to membership.  Let all True Believers travel to their local book store and buy the Holy Books and seek the Word of Doug for them selves.

I now go to fit this fish in my ear so that I may talk to Dolphins.

Faloop.


----------



## donald (Jan 15, 2005)

The bible is meant to be taken literally, but if you go to it with a disbelieving attitude. You're not going to see the message in its entirety. The main idea presented is that there is a GOD in heaven, that HE is the creator of ALL that there is, and that HE wants us to know HIM, on HIS terms. All of this is to be taken by faith. We are given free will.  We can, if we choose to, reject the truth of the bible; by faith. I believe, that Jesus Christ is Lord. The only begotten Son of The Living GOD. This is by faith. That the evidence presented in The Bible is accurate,i.e. creation. I know that there have been, and are, many who use the Bible to sell there lies. There have been, and are, many who inaccurately "divide the Word of Truth" for their own profit. That is their decision. In the end we WILL know the truth, everyone of us... 

By His Grace,
1st John1:9


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 15, 2005)

so which version of the bible do you use?

shawn


----------



## Kane (Jan 15, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/
> 
> "Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmasthe Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the Eastis historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible."
> 
> Now, I realize that public opinion polls aren't exactly the most accurate measures on the face of the planet, and that fundamentalism being high in America almost goes without saying, but the sheer percentages brought up just make me wonder whether this whole democratic exchange of ideas thing is working. Thoughts?


I don't think the Bible is literally accurate, but some of the words may have double meanings. It is very plausible to test the supernatural in it, but I guess some of the writings are eye-witness. There is nothing wrong in what those Americans think, I think many people who posted in this thread think it is wrong that they think the Bible is historically accurate


----------



## donald (Jan 16, 2005)

B.C.B.,

Was your post directed to me? I use believe the Judeo-Christian Bible to be The Word of GOD. I primarily use the New King James version. I also use the N.I.V., and the N.L.T.. Are you a student of The Bible?

By His Grace,
1st John1:9


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 16, 2005)

I just read a book by Randall Helms entitled "Gospel Fictions."  I thought it a literate and convincing argument for the idea that the Gospels are fictional mystery plays.  They follow a literary style not uncommon at the time.

I never could understand the lack of harmony between the four Gospels.  Helms explains why.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 18, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I just read a book by Randall Helms entitled "Gospel Fictions."  I thought it a literate and convincing argument for the idea that the Gospels are fictional mystery plays.  They follow a literary style not uncommon at the time.
> 
> I never could understand the lack of harmony between the four Gospels.  Helms explains why.
> 
> ...



Yup. 

Sounds similar to the argument used by J.M. Robertson in _Pagan Christs_. Mystery plays were very common at the time --- particularly in Alexandria, which is probably where Christianity was born. Both the literary themes and the 'monologues' in the Gospel story lend credence to the idea that they were originally play (as oppossed to eyewitness or even hand-me-down accounts).

If'n you don't believe me, read some of the _Bacchae_. Its alarming how similar it is to the Gospel account.

We see further proof when Paul tells the Galatians that Christ has been openly laid out and crucified before their very eyes. Makes no sense, considering the Crucifixion was supposed to happen in Jerusalem --- unless, of course, he is referring to re-enacting a mystery play. Paul himself references this when he says he has been "crucified and resurrected" with the Lord, hinting at participating in the play himself.

Funny thing, though, that Paul chastises Christians that identify with a merely outward, literal, or 'physical' intepretation of Christianity. He calls them 'hylics', 'sarkics', 'outwardly Christian' and all sorts of meanly veiled stabs. 'Letter killeth' and all that...


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 18, 2005)

donald said:
			
		

> B.C.B.,
> 
> Was your post directed to me? I use believe the Judeo-Christian Bible to be The Word of GOD. I primarily use the New King James version. I also use the N.I.V., and the N.L.T.. Are you a student of The Bible?
> 
> ...


my point precisely......you use and believe a version of the bible which was translated, abridged, and expurgated to suit a time and someone's particular agenda (just as martin luther wanted to bring an easy to understand bible to the common people printed in a common language, translating and changing words that he thought were more suitable in his opinion) regardless of the "real" meaning or intent behind the words. am i a student of the bible? you could say something like that.....i cant quote verbatim passages anymore, but i think i get the gist of it. do i believe it as true and real history of the world.......not in the least.
do you believe in the ancient gods of rome and greece and believe that their story is real history of the world.....i would guess no.
the stories of the bible are simply one religion's way of carrying on the teachings of their particular belief system through stories of great trial and tribulation and perserverence through adversity....per ardua ad astra
and then the new testament comes along telling more stories that have been around since ancient times speaking of a mythical godman coming and teaching the "new" (read old) way of thinking.
are my opinions going to do anything to your faith or your belief in the bible as history......absolutely not.
but that is what faith is.......being able to blindly follow and believe without reservation that that is the way things are.
i believe that human beings need only have faith in one thing......themselves.
if people strive to give a bit of themselves, help someone in need and love without reservation their fellow man, we'd have a pretty decent place to live in.........which i think is the whole point of the "teachings".

shawn


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

> the stories of the bible are simply one religion's way of carrying on the teachings of their particular belief system through stories of great trial and tribulation and perserverence through adversity....per ardua ad astra



I would argue that the stories of the Bible are also more than just that --- at least if you pierce beyond the surface significance --- but that goes into something most members of said religious traditions have great difficulty grappling with (and most agnostic/atheists don't care enough about to bother with).

Ta ta.


----------



## AC_Pilot (Jan 20, 2005)

If one understands the minor translational errors in the King James Bible it indeed is accurate history.. and in fact + - 99% of the prophecies contained therein have already been fullfilled to the letter. If you have not studied these prophecies and secular history and if you don't believe enough to even want to study the book then you'll never know this. Some final prophecies are unfolding before our eyes but most are blind to this. All is as it should be :asian:

BTW, the bible is *not* a Judeo-Christian" document. Christ *condemned Judaism* and said that they were blind people and in fact totally evil. Christians reject Babylonian Judiasm completely. The bible is an *Israelite* document for the eventual salvation of all believers through the teaching of the *impending Kingdom of G-d on earth.. thru the sacrifice and leadership of our master, Jesus the Christ, king of kings.* Jesus was not Jewish, but was of the tribe of Levi through Mary. G-d was his father, not Joseph. Jesus was an Israelite who rejected and condemned Judiasm.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> If one understands the minor translational errors in the King James Bible it indeed is accurate history.. and in fact + - 99% of the prophecies contained therein have already been fullfilled to the letter. If you have not studied these prophecies and secular history and if you don't believe enough to even want to study the book then you'll never know this. Some final prophecies are unfolding before our eyes but most are blind to this. All is as it should be :asian:



I have studied the subjects in question, and I still say your claims are full of poo.

Every "prophecy" recorded in the Bible has either:

A) Not happened.

B) Was "predicted" decades or even centuries after the event it proposed to prophesy.

And, I sincerely doubt anyone here has read an accurately translated Bible.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 20, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> I have studied the subjects in question, and I still say your claims are full of poo.
> 
> Every "prophecy" recorded in the Bible has either:
> 
> ...


yayyyyyyyyy!


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 20, 2005)

AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> BTW, the bible is *not* a Judeo-Christian" document. Christ *condemned Judaism* and said that they were blind people and in fact totally evil. Christians reject Babylonian Judiasm completely. The bible is an *Israelite* document for the eventual salvation of all believers through the teaching of the *impending Kingdom of G-d on earth.. thru the sacrifice and leadership of our master, Jesus the Christ, king of kings.* Jesus was not Jewish, but was of the tribe of Levi through Mary. G-d was his father, not Joseph. Jesus was an Israelite who rejected and condemned Judiasm.



Babylonian, huh??

There is just as much --- if not moreso --- astrological imagery and symbolism in the New Testament as there is in the Old. Twelve disciples, anyone?? "Fisher of men" (Pisces), anyone?? Christmas day, anyone?? Easter day, anyone?? Jesus fish, anyone??

This is nothing new. Academics have known about the Pagan overtones of Christian religion for decades.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 24, 2005)

*BTW, the bible is not a Judeo-Christian" document. Christ condemned Judaism and said that they were blind people and in fact totally evil. Christians reject Babylonian Judiasm completely. The bible is an Israelite document for the eventual salvation of all believers through the teaching of the impending Kingdom of G-d on earth.. thru the sacrifice and leadership of our master, Jesus the Christ, king of kings. Jesus was not Jewish, but was of the tribe of Levi through Mary. G-d was his father, not Joseph. Jesus was an Israelite who rejected and condemned Judiasm*


<sniff>  Hey, did someone let an anti-semite in here?  Open a window.

Jesus wasn't Jewish?  

1.  He preached in the Temple as a child.
2.  His ministry targeted the Jews.
3.  He advocated upholding the laws of Moses.
4.  He was, according to the scriptures, of the seed of David.  Don't try and dance around that one...it is written very clearly.
5.  He was tried by a Jewish court, supposedly.
6.  He honored the sabbath.
7.  He debated Jewish theologians, who wouldn't have wasted their time with a gentile.
8.  Your "prophecies" come from Jewish literature.
9.  James, the brother of Jesus, was Jewish...as was Saul/Paul.  Note Acts and the issues concerning dietary laws.
10.  He referenced Jewish literature in his teachings.
11.  Early Christianity was a completely Jewish movement that included gentiles following Jesus' death (again, refer to Acts).
12.  The concept of a "messiah" is Jewish.  His followers considered him the messiah...as does 2,000 years of Christian tradition.
13.  "Messiah" translates to "anointed one."  In Greek "anointed one" is translated as "Khristos," or "Christ."  
14.  A number of his life events were structured on stories taken from the Torah and other Jewish literature...a detail I'm willing to debate.  I'm sure Heretic would love to jump in on that one.

I could go on, but I have to go teach.

Jesus was a Jew...regardless of whether you believe him to be God incarnate or not, the man was jewish.  Two millenia of Christian doctrine supports that, the scriptures clearly indicate it.  You're likely the first Christian I've run into who disputes that.

I'd suggest perhaps reading the Bible would be the first order of the day for you, AC_Pilot.  Completely.  Cover to cover.  It appears you're using _Cliff's Notes._ 

But be forewarned...if you go after the jews on this forum, by my father's sword I will lay into you such as I've never done before here on MT.  I daresay others will join me with matched passion.  Be careful.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bester (Jan 24, 2005)

AC_Pilot said:
			
		

> If one understands the minor translational errors in the King James Bible it indeed is accurate history.. and in fact + - 99% of the prophecies contained therein have already been fullfilled to the letter. If you have not studied these prophecies and secular history and if you don't believe enough to even want to study the book then you'll never know this. Some final prophecies are unfolding before our eyes but most are blind to this. All is as it should be :asian:


 The bulk of the prophacies have not come true, were writen about then-current events, etc. 
 Fact - There is no evidence that Jesus ever existed.
 Fact - Certain events mentioned in the bible and certain people refered to could not have occupied the same point in the time stream.
  Both of these have been discussed to death here and in other threads.



> BTW, the bible is *not* a Judeo-Christian" document. Christ *condemned Judaism* and said that they were blind people and in fact totally evil. Christians reject Babylonian Judiasm completely. The bible is an *Israelite* document for the eventual salvation of all believers through the teaching of the *impending Kingdom of G-d on earth.. thru the sacrifice and leadership of our master, Jesus the Christ, king of kings.* Jesus was not Jewish, but was of the tribe of Levi through Mary. G-d was his father, not Joseph. Jesus was an Israelite who rejected and condemned Judiasm.


 *Passes AC some mustard for his foot*
 You need to stop smoking that hobbit pipe weed. 
 - The Bible is a Jewish book, at least the bulk of the Old Testament is.
 - There was no condemnation of the religion, just the corruption in the leadership.
 - Christians do not reject it, they have adapted it to their needs.
 - The Christian Bible has it's roots in Judaism, and the various pagan faiths it has adopted ritual, tradition and history from.
 - GOD, god, God, and OHMYGAWD! are all ok to say here.  If not, may Andy Warhol strike me down.
 - Jesus was Jewish.  He was also married. (There are Jewish laws on who may wear a beard...Jesus is always depicted with a beard, therefore, he was married. 
 - Mary was his mother, Joseph was his biological father.
 - I know nothing of the brand of jeans he wore.

 Now, shall we all continue and maybe allow things to get ugly?

 If you need me, I'll be dancing naked in the woods waiting for a vision.  Hope it was better than the last one.  That was just some cop telling me to put on some pants.  Oh wait, that was real.  I had the court date.  Damn.  Need better pipeweed. :rofl:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 24, 2005)

Oh, good. Anti-Semitism.

WARNING: if these, "the Jews," this and "the Jews," that posts continue, I will be making my first official complaint about another poster.

I have, "AC Pilot," specifically in mind. An open mind is one thing, and the promotion of out-and-out religious hatred is another. Grow up, stop posting, or face my wrath....yeah, there's a big worry. Oh well.

CUT IT OUT.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Jan 24, 2005)

give em the wrath, robert!!


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 24, 2005)

No, YOU give 'em the wrath!!!

These Old Nobodaddy types scare me. It'll be interesting, though, to see if he comes back and denies everything--one supposes that he won't, since he's already made a number of these sorts of remarks.

However, to repeat: the idea of sitting on yer smug *** in heaven while the majority of all the people who have ever lived writhe in unending torment is a profoundly repulsive, fundamentally immoral, sick idea. One believes it to be antithetical to real Christianity, furthermore.

Indeed, it's one of the few true obscenities.


----------



## Tgace (Jan 24, 2005)

Illuminati conspiracies..
Anti-Semitisim..
Prophecies..
Women "issues"..
Heavily armed..

Ya know Robert, even though you may have disagreements with some of us more "conservative" types here..you have to admit that not all of us are on these "extreme" ends.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 24, 2005)

Of course not. Whoever this guy is--and one feels a little guilty about even saying cut it out--he's just some fairly wacky fundamentalist. Hopefully, the real problem is that he hasn't thought through what he's saying--though unfortunately, one suspects that he really does mean it.

You're just wrong, because you disagree with me...wait a minnit. That sounds wrong, somehow...


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 24, 2005)

Do I...do I sense AGREEMENT from the conservatives and liberals on this issue of anti-semitism and fudamentalist extremism?

Bi-partisanship on Martialtalk.  Gad.  

I need to go lay down for a bit.  My head is spinning.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Tgace (Jan 24, 2005)

Theres conspiracy theorists and then theres....well.....


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 24, 2005)

*Jesus was not Jewish, but was of the tribe of Levi  through Mary. G-d was his father, not Joseph. Jesus was an Israelite who rejected and condemned Judiasm.*


Some notes on the Levites...or the tribe of Levi:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09206a.htm

http://www.templebethelaptos.org/windows/levi.htm

http://www.keyway.ca/htm2002/levites.htm

It ought to be noted that Levi was Moses' great grandfather.  Moses singled out the tribe of Levi to be priests and were responsible for guarding and serving the Tabernacle (see Numbers 3:21-37).

Now, if they aren't Jewish...what are they?  Norwegian?  Dutch?  Latvian?

This reminds me of the time that an Evangelical with 25 years experience tried to tell me that the Gospel of John was written by John the Baptist.  I had fun with that, too.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bester (Jan 25, 2005)

Ok, you know theres a serious issue when I, HHJH, RmcR, et-all are in agreement on an issue.


Oh, and HH?  My money is on Dutch.


----------



## tongsau (Jan 25, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Well, they didn't ask me.
> 
> There is not evidence outside the bible of Jesus's existance..
> 
> ...



Bob,
You depress me with your lies. No evidence? You must be joking. Outide the bible you have 18 books still from that era and only 4 don't mention him. Once again you are doing what you warn against. The existence of the man Jesus was and has never been a valid question. Too much evidence exists. The question is "Was he who he said he was?"
Even the Discovery Channel has been left to do stories on how each miracle could be performed scientifically. They don't reject the Virgin birth, because they can explain it away as some freak of nature. They don't deny the crucifixtion. They don't deny that the body is missing and that many witnesses claim to have seen him afterward. Are you hearinng me? "Science doesn't argue that he was alive after the torture. They claim he wasn't dead or something. 
You can't get around the fact that he existed and convinced his 2 brothers that he was God. Thats gotta stand for something. And many others to die for him.
You don't believe he is the Creator, then you say he is?
A man? How'd he do that?
A liar? Why didn't anyone figure it out?
A fool? How did he get so smart?
Tell me you don't believe that some crazy guys wrote the New Testament letters?


----------



## tongsau (Jan 25, 2005)

punisher73 said:
			
		

> What are Robinson's credentials? I am not familiar with him.  I looked up the book on amazon and noticed that it was through kessinger publishing which reprints alot of old books dealing with the occult, and it was originally published in 1911 before alot of texts were available.  The reason I point this out is, the "sermons theme" came from a professor I had in college, Dr. Fred Burnett, who was one of the original members of the "Jesus Seminar" that went through all the old texts, etc. to try and determine what Jesus really said, or might have said etc (as an aside, he quit the group when they expanded membership and became more PC with the project).
> 
> 
> I'll have to look more into historical research on josephus then.  I had not seen anything in print stating their inaccuracies.



Went to school until he was 13. Became editor of a 

"One of the controversies for which Robertson became best known was his advocacy of the view that there had never been an historical Jesus, and that the Christ story was entirely mythological. But his assertion that the Christ legend was based upon a lost morality play dealing with human sacrifice was not supported by convincing evidence."

One major problem with this is the follow up of the letter of ACTS of the Apostles. - by Luke.
BTW lineage would make for a boring play. Which is the beginnings of Matt and Luke. The only problem with lies is that they have to be woven carefully. The truth however is much more twisted. Telling time in 2 formats, recounting the story from a different tellers perspective to expand the story. Repeated events by different people "feet washing".

For instance if I was to tell you the truth about me it could sound very confusing. I might begin by telling you I am the first born. I have 2 sisters. I don't know one of their names. I am the youngest. My mother only had one child.

If I told you those facts without explaining them in detail you would think I was crazy. My mother married a man with a daughter who was put up for adoption. They adopted my next sister and had me a year later.


----------



## tongsau (Jan 25, 2005)

TonyM. said:
			
		

> Betcha fewer than 10% of adults have ever read the bible cover to cover, so it's pretty stupid to poll people on their opinion of it.



I would even venture to guess that that is a pretty high estimation.
I would say in each church less than 4%. If you are lucky. Many people think they have after 20 years of being a Christian. I consider reading the whole bible when you have actually read it within say 5 years or less. And within the last 10.


----------



## tongsau (Jan 25, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> One of my favorite lessons is the 'turn the other cheek' one, as well as the love and respect shown by how the 12 and Jesus interacted.  Lessons in love, trust, humility, etc.


You mean like how they fought over who was the greatest? The Gospels infact paint a terrible example of the diciples. They were making all kinds of mistakes. Rejecting people because of their age, ethnicity etc. It wasn't until later such as Acts that we see how they changed.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> Case in point: I saw a (I think History Chanel) special on Jesus, which painted him as a revolutionary, trying to change his society.  It also strongly suggested that Judas was not a betrayer, but in fact the parties 'money man', and that his turning over of Jesus to the Elders was in fact at Jesus's request....that Jesus and he were in fact best of friends.  The suggestion was that his painting as "The Great Betrayer" was caused by the tragic ending, and anger from the other disciples.  There are also the other Gospels to be considered, many of which have supposedly been buried for centuries by the Church as they paint a different portrait of Jesus that the 'official 4'.
> :asian:


Practically speaking there are half truths to everything you said. He was a revolutionary "I didn't come to bring peace, but a sword!" Treasurer, yes, he was both. At Jesus request, "What you must do, do it quickly." Not as request, but known, and allowed. The same way all injustice is allowed: for His purpose to be fulfilled. He could have stopped him. Friends, yes Jesus greeted him with the term Friend upon being betrayed. The text states that immediatly Satan entered him. "He was possessed". And forgiven. Some scholars place his death at the exact moment of the earthquake. The tree fell while he tried hanging himself. The moment Jesus was said to be dead.

Another Proof in the mix. The earthquake ripped the veil of the Holy of Holies, a historical fact.
There is no more sacrifice. If you could start this up again for a length of time in Jerusalem you could begin to proof that Jesus wasn't God.


----------



## tongsau (Jan 25, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> *Jesus was not Jewish, but was of the tribe of Levi  through Mary. G-d was his father, not Joseph. Jesus was an Israelite who rejected and condemned Judiasm.*



Jesus was of the line of Shem. Making him a Semite. Thus Jewish by both Mary or Joseph. Take your pick.
Mary's cousin, Elizabeth married a Levite and had "John the Baptist".
Jesus was a decendant of Judah, who recieved the blessing of the messiah.

Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
Matthew 1

The Genealogy of Jesus
1A record of the genealogy of Jesus Christ the son of David, the son of Abraham: 
******2Abraham was the father of Isaac, 
*********Isaac the father of Jacob, 
*********Jacob the father of *Judah* and his brothers, 
*********3Judah the father of Perez and Zerah, whose mother was Tamar, 
*********Perez the father of Hezron, 
*********Hezron the father of Ram, 
*********4Ram the father of Amminadab, 
*********Amminadab the father of Nahshon, 
*********Nahshon the father of Salmon, 
*********5Salmon the father of Boaz, whose mother was Rahab, 
*********Boaz the father of Obed, whose mother was Ruth, 
*********Obed the father of Jesse, 
*********6and Jesse the father of King David.


If you know anything abou the intricate details of what comes next. I apologize for simplifying it. After David Mary and Joseph's lineage split to prove the virgin birth. Jer 22. Solomon vs. Nathan "Jehoiachin curse on Joseph" blah blah blah. This is pretty technical so I won't add it unless asked.


----------



## tongsau (Jan 25, 2005)

RandomPhantom700 said:
			
		

> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6650997/site/newsweek/
> 
> "Sixty-seven percent say they believe that the entire story of Christmasthe Virgin Birth, the angelic proclamation to the shepherds, the Star of Bethlehem and the Wise Men from the Eastis historically accurate. Twenty-four percent of Americans believe the story of Christmas is a theological invention written to affirm faith in Jesus Christ, the poll shows. In general, say 55 percent of those polled, every word of the Bible is literally accurate. Thirty-eight percent do not believe that about the Bible."



to complete it:
In the NEWSWEEK poll, 93 percent of Americans say they believe Jesus Christ actually lived and 82 percent believe Jesus Christ was God or the Son of God. Fifty-two percent of all those polled believe, as the Bible proclaims, that Jesus will return to earth someday; 21 percent do not believe it. Fifteen percent believe Jesus will return in their lifetime; 47 percent do not, the poll shows.


----------



## tongsau (Jan 25, 2005)

Of course the toughest thing to get around is the new found prophesy in Genesis about Jesus. The typology of Isaac and Joseph. Themes finished in the gospels that Old Testament Judaism didn't have answers for.
Rebbecca saying "let the curse fall upon me" Symbolic stealing of the birthright from the first born. Being rejected by your 12 brothers and falsely accused and imprisoned with 2 inmates and later restored to sit at the right hand of the King. Tell me how Jew's understand this. It was prophetic of what the Biblical Jesus did. Some of this hasn't been discoverd until very recently. And there is no denying that Genesis came way before Jesus.


----------



## tongsau (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry, Last tonight.
Forgot Ruths marraige to Boaz as the symbolic relationship that only Christians teach the meaning. This is one of my favorite, simple typology stories. Ruth decendant of a sexual deviant girls who sleep with their father to secure their line is redeemed by a man from "Bethleham" and he is named the only other redeemer other than Christ in scripture.
There are many of these symbols that Judaism can't explain as well as many symbols that Christians miss because they weren't grounded in the themes of the Jewish lifestyle. Oh the things they could teach you. I have known a few Messianic Jews and they have an automatic profound knowledge if they are converts. Like Paul. The passover feasts will blow you away. The days coincide with the triumphal entry, crucifixion burial, resurection etc. God spent thousands of years creating a story that weaves amazing unfoldings. I guess that is why they call it "HisStory"


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 25, 2005)

*You must be joking. Outide the bible you have 18 books still from that era and only 4 don't mention him. * 

And those would be?

*
The existence of the man Jesus was and has never been a valid question. * 

It has been a valid question since the first century, C.E., when Paul engaged doubters in open debate.

*Too much evidence exists. * 

Really none at all.  Show us what you mean, and some here will dismantle your claim.  Show us Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus...and we'll debunk the claims that these men validated the existance of the "historical Jesus," at least as presented in the Bible. There is very little extra-biblical evidence confirming the events as transpired in the New Testament.  While I personally have no doubt Jesus existed, I do not for a moment think the Gospels historically accurate.

*The question is "Was he who he said he was?"*

A moot point if he didn't say who he was.  We have no proof he said "Who do you say I am?" 

If the authors of the Gospels are writing mystery plays, a literary convention of the era, then these are at best historical fictions.  It is perfectly possible (many consider probable) that Matthew, Mark, Luke and John never met Jesus.  In the latter case with John it is extremely unlikely the two crossed paths, given the dating of the Gospel to the early second century.  

Even Christian scholars admit that the Gospels' authors are anonymous (read Strobel's "The Case for Christ").  We don't know who wrote them, and we don't have the original documents.  We have copies of copies of copies...all hand written and all subject to possible interpolation by later scribes.

*Even the Discovery Channel has been left to do stories on how each miracle could be performed scientifically. They don't reject the Virgin birth, because they can explain it away as some freak of nature. They don't deny the crucifixtion. They don't deny that the body is missing and that many witnesses claim to have seen him afterward.*

The fallacy of authority.  _The Discovery Channel_, eh?  We should rely on cable entertainment for validation of our scholarly theories?  The Discovery Channel is concerned with ratings, not truth.  They know the religious makeup of their market.  They're not about to shoot themselves in the foot.

*
Science doesn't argue that he was alive after the torture. They claim he wasn't dead or something. * 

Science argues nothing of the sort.  Please show me where the directors of _The Discovery Channel _ have peer reviewed articles in scientific journals.

*
You can't get around the fact that he existed and convinced his 2 brothers that he was God. Thats gotta stand for something. And many others to die for him.*

Yes, you can get around it.  Quite easily.  

1.  None of these "witnesses" can be cross-examined.  
2.  We have no way of knowing whether he actually had two brothers.  For all we know the four Gospels and _Acts_ are historical fictions.  
3.  Scholars acknowledge that Paul didn't write all the Epistles.
4.  The Canon, the current Bible that you're reading, was assembled over a period of at least a hundred year following the purported death of Jesus.  It has no foundation in history insofar as dating from Apostolic times.  Bishop Clement in a letter to the church of Corinth dated around 97 CE makes mention of three of the four synoptic Gospels.  He doesn't reference John because it hadn't been written yet.  Paul makes no mention of the Gospels at all, giving pretty clear indication he hadn't heard of them...which makes sense given the earliest one, Mark, is estimated to have been written some seven or more years after Paul's death.
5.  As for people dying for him...well, people died for Hitler, the Emperor of Japan, David Koresh, and for others.  True believers will often die for a cause.

*
Tell me you don't believe that some crazy guys wrote the New Testament letters?*

The "Jesus: Lunatic, Liar, or Lord" argument?  Can we have two other options?  How about "Legend" and "Lore?"

Please understand I am not trying to minimize anybody's faith here.  But when you start claiming somethint is provable and factual...when you start making an appeal to reason over faith, then I'm going to hold your feet to the fire.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 25, 2005)

*
Another Proof in the mix. The earthquake ripped the veil of the Holy of Holies, a historical fact.*


Really? 

What Roman or Jewish texts confirm THAT little tidbit?  



Regards,


Steve


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Jan 25, 2005)

tongsau said:
			
		

> Bob,
> You depress me with your lies. No evidence? You must be joking. Outide the bible you have 18 books still from that era and only 4 don't mention him. Once again you are doing what you warn against. The existence of the man Jesus was and has never been a valid question. Too much evidence exists.


 Too much evidence that has been systematically and scientifically disproven. If you have other evidence, please, by all means provide it.



> The question is "Was he who he said he was?"


 That assumes he did exist, and that he himself stated that.  Not that someone else either made him up, nor 'put words into his mouth'.



> Even the Discovery Channel has been left to do stories on how each miracle could be performed scientifically. They don't reject the Virgin birth, because they can explain it away as some freak of nature. They don't deny the crucifixtion. They don't deny that the body is missing and that many witnesses claim to have seen him afterward. Are you hearinng me? "Science doesn't argue that he was alive after the torture. They claim he wasn't dead or something.


 Science doesn't have to.  I can build both a case proving his existance, and disproving it. The Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc all cater to certain audiences, and certain biases, depending on what they wish to push at that moment.  Case in point: I've seen the -same- Nostradamas special 3 times, but each time it had been edited a little different, depending on how they want us to 'feel' about the last 1 Iraq wars.   



> You can't get around the fact that he existed and convinced his 2 brothers that he was God. Thats gotta stand for something. And many others to die for him.


 And it states that where?  Please, an outside the bible referene only here.



> You don't believe he is the Creator, then you say he is?
> A man? How'd he do that?
> A liar? Why didn't anyone figure it out?
> A fool? How did he get so smart?
> Tell me you don't believe that some crazy guys wrote the New Testament letters?


 1- I can prove and disprove it.
 2- If he existed, he was a man.
 3- Because they didn't want to?
 4- Even fools can be wise.
 5- Crazy guys?  No.  


 If you are going to insist that I am a liar, then be prepared to provide verifiable evidence of your rebuttle. I made statements based on my current knowledge base. A KB that validates a position that Jesus did not exist, the disciples also did not exist, that the new testament and old are rewrites of older pagan legends or other faiths that existed at that time, and that much of the Christian church is based soley on power and wealth accumulation. This KB was built over 20 years through debate with biblical researchers, reading the works of noted Christian writes such as Og Mandino, and CS Lewis, reading several different editions of the Christian Bible, as well as discussions here and elsewhere concerning the historical events, people and timelines in question.

 Believe what you wish to believe, but understand that science and history will not always back up ones beliefs.


----------



## tongsau (Jan 25, 2005)

Josephus names James, the brother of the "so-called" Christ as the leader of the Jerusalem Church, was stoned to death as a jewish heretic in 62 A.D.
3 decades after the crucifixtion.  http://www.wagoneers.com/LivingByFaith/Joseph-Jesus-James.html


http://users.binary.net/polycarp/jesus.html
The Romans saw the Jewish people as merely one of many ethnic groups that needed to be tolerated. The Romans held the Jewish people in low regard. The Jewish leaders were also eager to forget about Jesus. Secular writers only took notice after Christianity became popular and began to disturb their lifestyle.

...Flavius Josephus, who lived until 98 A.D., was a romanized Jewish historian. He wrote books on Jewish history for the Roman people. In his book, Jewish Antiquities, he made references to Jesus. In one reference he wrote:

About this time arose Jesus, a wise man, who did good deeds and whose virtues were recognized. And many Jews and people of other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. However, those who became his disciples preached his doctrine. They related that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Perhaps he was the Messiah in connection with whom the prophets foretold wonders. [Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, XVIII 3.2]

Even though several different forms of this particular text have survived through the twenty centuries, they all agree with the above cited version. This version is considered to be the closest to the original - the least suspected of Christian text-tampering. Elsewhere in this book, Josephus also reported the execution of St. John the Baptist [XVIII 5.2] and St. James the Just [XX 9.1], even referring to James as "the brother of Jesus who was called Christ." It should be noted that the past tense in the clause, "Jesus who was called Christ," argues against Christian text-tampering since a Christian would prefer to write instead, "Jesus who is called Christ."


Another Jewish source, the Talmud, makes several historical references to Jesus. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, the Talmud is "the collection of ancient Rabbinic writings consisting of the Mishnah and the Gemara, constituting the basis of religious authority for traditional Judaism." Although not explicitly referred to by name, later rabbis identify the person as Jesus. These references to Jesus are neither sympathetic to Him or His Church. Also these writings were preserved through the centuries by Jews, so Christians cannot be accused of tampering with the text.


The Talmud makes note of Jesus' miracles. No attempt is made to deny them, but it ascribes them to magical arts from Egypt. Also His crucifixion is dated as "on the eve of the Feast of the Passover" in agreement with the Gospel (Luke 22:1ff; John 19:31ff). Similar again to the Gospel (Matt. 27:51), the Talmud records the earthquake and the tearing in two of the Temple curtain during the time of Jesus' death. Josephus in his book, The Jewish War, also confirmed these events.


By the beginning of the 2nd century, Romans were writing about Christians and Jesus. Pliny the Younger, proconsul in Asia Minor, in 111 A.D. wrote to Emperor Trajan in a letter:

...it was their habit on a fixed day to assemble before daylight and recite by turns a form of words to Christ as a god; and that they bound themselves with an oath, not for any crime, but not to commit theft or robbery, or adultery, not to break their word, and not to deny a deposit when demanded. After this was done, their custom was to depart, and meet again to take food... [Pliny, Epistle 97]

Special attention should be made to the phrase, "to Christ as a god," an early secular witness to the belief in Christ's divinity (John 20:28; Phil. 2:6). Also it is interesting to compare this passage with Acts 20:7-11, a biblical account of an early Christian Sunday celebration.


Next the Roman historian, Tacitus, who is respected by modern scholars for historical accuracy, wrote in 115 A.D. about Christ and His Church:

The author of the denomination was Christ[us] who had been executed in Tiberius time by the Procurator Pontius Pilate. The pestilent superstition, checked for a while, burst out again, not only throughout Judea...but throughout the city of Rome also... [Tacitus, Annals, XV 44]
-end quote


Quoted from JCNT:84, re: Mt 27.51: 
"The parokhet in the Temple. Exodus 26:31-35 describes this curtain as it existed in  the desert Tabernacle. It separated the Holy Place from the Holy of Holies. Only the  cohen hagadol was allowed to pass through it into the Holy of Holies; and that he could  do only once a year, on Yom-Kippur, to make an atonement sacrifice for his sins and for  the sins of the Jewish people. When it was ripped in two from top to bottom it  symbolized the fact that God was giving everyone access to the most holy place of all  in heaven, as taught explicitly at MJ 9:3-9, 10:19-22 [that's "Hebrews" for us goyim, ;>)]. 

The Talmud bears an amazing witness to the work of Yeshua in altering the system  of atonement. The background is that on Yom-Kippur, when the cohen hagadol sacrificed a bull (Leviticus 16), a piece of scarlet cloth was tied between its horns. If it later  turned white, it meant that God had forgiven Israel's sin in accordance with Isaiah 1:18,  "Though your sins be as scarlet, they will be white as snow."

"Our Rabbis taught that throughout the forty years that Shim'on the Tzaddik  served,... the scarlet cloth would become white. From then on it would  sometimes become white and sometimes not.... Throughout the last forty  years before the Temple was destroyed... the scarlet cloth never turned  white." (Yoma 39a-39b)

http://www.christian-thinktank.com/jesusref.html
Jesus lived His public life in the land of Palestine under the Roman rule of Tiberius (ad 14-37). There are four possible Roman historical sources for his reign: Tacitus (55-117), Suetonius (70-160), Velleius Paterculus (a contemporary), and Dio Cassius (3rd century). There are two Jewish historical resources that describe events of this period: Josephus (37-100?), writing in Greek, and the Rabbinical Writings (written in Hebrew after 200, but much of which would have been in oral form prior to that time). There are also sources (non-historians) writing about the Christians, in which possible mentions are made (e.g., Lucian, Galen).

Of these writings, we would NOT expect Velleius to have a reference to Jesus (i.e. the events were just happening OUTSIDE of Velleius' home area), and Dio Cassius is OUTSIDE of our time window of pre-3rd century. Of the remaining Roman writers--Tacitus and Suetonius--we have apparent references to Jesus (discussed below), even though the main section in Tacitus covering the period 29-32ad is missing from the manuscript tradition. If these are genuine and trustworthy 'mentions' of Jesus, then we have an amazing fact--ALL the relevant non-Jewish historical sources mention Jesus! (Notice that this is the OPPOSITE situation than is commonly assumed--"If Jesus was so important, why didn't more historians write about Him?" In this case, THEY ALL DID!).

Of the Jewish resources--Josephus and the Rabbinical writings (e.g. Talmud, Midrash)--BOTH make clear references to the existence of Jesus (even though the details reported may be odd). So ALL the Jewish sources refer to Him.

In addition, there are three OTHER candidates for historical 'mentions' of Jesus that fall in the 2nd century: one Roman (Pliny the Younger) , one possibly Syrian (Mara Bar Serapion), and one Samaritian (Thallus). [We can also include here the writings of Celsus, Galen, Lucian]

other links.
http://www.bib-arch.org/


----------



## tongsau (Jan 25, 2005)

Peter refers to Lukes gospel as "Scripture" in his letter. John's Gospel was written after the initial 1,2,3 John and the Revelation. It's possible that not many people had copies of it by 97 for Clement to read and comment.
There are other webs of support to the Luke from Paul. It is a mistake to believe that Mark's gospel is first. James wrote his letter before his brother Mark did. While it is very possible that Luke did not know the Christ he obviously recounted the story from Mary's perspective. Since only his gospel hints to being retold by Mary in many places. Although he doesn't make this clear for a specific reason.
To say that Mark doesn't know his own brother is a pretty stupid statement. I have no comment.
John? Christs first disciple? Never met? how ridiculous.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

What one would like to see is some sort of empirical proof that Jesus was the only begotten Son of God---because not only isn't there any such proof, such proof is by definition impossible to produce.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> [Jesus was a Jew...regardless of whether you believe him to be God incarnate or not, the man was jewish.



Actually, if we are going with the Bible alone, we have no evidence to indicate Jesus was Jewish at all.

The "Jewish" Jesus:

1) teaches Platonic and Pythagorean moral precepts,
2) apparently can't speak Hebrew and only quotes from the Greek Seputagaint to Jewish rabbis that would laugh outright at such citations,
3) apparently doesn't know a thing about Jewish laws (such as those pertaining to a woman's divorce rights),
4) apparently doesn't know a thing about Palestinian geography,
5) teaches 'divine redeemer' concepts culled directly from Hellenistic mystery schools (such as the Dionysian and Osirian),

and my personal favorite...

6) has a name that is not a Hebrew name but instead a Greek alteration of the Hebrew 'Joshua' so that it numerologically corresponds to 888 (which itself has scores of hidden meanings and significance in Greek gematria).

Also, Christianity was all but dead in Israel in the first few centuries CE. We see it all over the place in areas like Syria, Egypt (especially Alexandria), Asia Minor, and so on. But, Israel itself?? Next to nothing.

If inherited Christian teachings are any indication, Jesus was about as Jewish as I am Chinese. If Christians were actually sensible to their own teachings in a historical light, they would draw upon Plato as their old testamental inspiration --- not Moses.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

tongsau said:
			
		

> Josephus names James, the brother of the "so-called" Christ as the leader of the Jerusalem Church, was stoned to death as a jewish heretic in 62 A.D.
> 3 decades after the crucifixtion.  http://www.wagoneers.com/LivingByFaith/Joseph-Jesus-James.html
> 
> 
> ...



Time to weigh in here...

1) Conerning Josephus, he wrote his books close to 100 CE. This makes his documents nearly 70 years (more than a full lifetime at the time) removed from the events they purport to record. He's what you call a secondary source. And, considering he never cites historical sources for his claims, we can only assume he is going on popular legend at the time anyway.

a) The Testimonium Flavius is universally regarded as a Christian forgery (Christian forgeries, we will find, are amazingly commonplace for a person that is so "unquestionably" a historical reality), even by apologetics.

b) The reference to "James, Brother of Jesus" while accepted by most scholars, doesn't hold out to critical examination. Josephus wrote to a Greek audience, to whom the term "Christ" would have had no meaning. Josephus himself would have had no reason to refer to "Jesus, who is called the Christ" as he never mentions him in any other extant accounts (the Testimonium Flavius being regarded as spurious almost universally).

c) We have no extant copy of Josephus' work prior to the 10th century, and even then it differs from earlier citations of Josephus found in individuals like Origen (late 3rd century). This indicates a perpetual and continual traditon of revision and forgery, which Origen himself complains of even during his days.

2) The Talmud poses problems, as well:

a) It never makes any direct references to "Jesus", only vague allusions that Christian apologetics have drawn upon. The allusions in question are more commonly associated with a mystic/magician named Joshua who was accused of heresy and hung in the 1st century BCE. This Joshua was most likely one of the literary bases for the fictitious Jesus Christ character created in the 2nd century CE.

b) The Talmud itself dates no earlier than the 4th century CE.

c) The rabbi intepreters of the Talmud do not claim it mentions Jesus at all. Only Christian apologetics, who rarely have a sophisticated understanding of Hebrew texts, do.

3) Pliny the Younger writes after 100 CE, and tells us nothing about Jesus. He only mentions the use of Christian rituals of the time.

4) Tacitus, too, writes over a decade after 100 CE --- making him almost 100 years removed from the events in question. In addition, he inaccurately refers to Pontius Pilate as 'procurator' as opposed to his historically proper title of 'prefect'. This indicates Tacitus either was drawing upon popular legends of the time (in which use of the term 'procurator' had become prevalent) or this is another Christian forgery.

5) If Jesus is so historical, why does every event of his purported life --- without exception --- correspond exactly to events found in mystery school myths?? And why are early Christian apologetics like Justin Martyr forced to explain away this coincidences with contrived arguments like 'diabolical mimicry'?? Couldn't he simply quote Josephus and Tacitus to debunk the Christ-detractors (unless, of course, those forgeries had not been written yet)??

6) Why, furthermore, do the docetic/illusionist strands of Christianity (such as the Marcionite and Valentinian schools) --- which deny the literal, physical existence of Jesus on Earth --- seem so abundantly more commonplace in the first two centuries CE?? Why do the genuine letters of Paul reflect this docetism and themselves refrain from ever citing biographical details (or direct sayings) of Jesus??

'Nuff said.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 25, 2005)

Herry - welcome back!  It's good to see you're still in good form.:asian:


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> Herry - welcome back!  It's good to see you're still in good form.:asian:



Mwah. I aim's tah please.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

I would also like to add that the argument that because Matthew and Luke begin with contradictory geneology lists somehow precludes the Gospels' bases in mystery plays is beyond ridiculous --- and evinces a warping and misunderstanding of the arguments in question.

Y'see, the claim is _not_ that the Synoptics in their current form were used as mystery play formulas. We know they were not, as our current forms are the result of perpetual revision and alteration. All 'resurrection' scenes in the Gospels, for example, are additions made to the originals. The original play would have ended dramatically with the Christ's empty tomb, and that was that. 

Rather, the claim is that earlier, proto-Gospels had their basis in mystery play enactments. These proto-Gospels may or may not have included geneology charts. They most likely did not, as Marcion's Gospel of the Lord seems to indicate. Likewise, the earlier proto-Gospels probably didn't include much in the way of time/place associations (the myth --- and make no mistake, that is exactly what this story is --- was supposed to be perennial,timeless, and universal) and, more then likely, did not 'carnalize' or 'Judaize' the Christ figure to any significant degree (reflecting the authentic Paul's underlying docetic-gnostic leanings.

The whole point being, of course, that Christ, the Son of Man (which is just a fancy way of saying Everyman or the Archetype of Humanity, or Adam Kadmon as he is called in Kabbalah), is not supposed to be some Magical Dude That Lived during so-and-so place and so-and-so time. Rather, the Son of Man is to be understood as a symbolic, archetypal, docetic representation of that Thing (or, more accurately, No Thing) that is the birthright and true nature of every man, woman, and child... meh, read Galatians. Paul is alot more straightforward about this sorta stuff.

Does it sound like Buddhism?? Yep. Does it sound like Platonism?? Sure. Sufism, even?? You betchah. Why??? Because the perennial philosophy (as Adlous Huxley called it) wouldn't very well be perennial if'n it didn't pop up everywhere.

Also, on a side note, more and more theologians are increasingly coming to the opinion that Luke was a revision of Marcion and not the other way around.

And, regarding the sequencing of the Gospels (as to which came first), I don't think there's enough evidence to draw any significant conclusions here. The Q theory is interesting, but its really all just second-hand speculation. The Marcion gospel is the closest thing we may have to a source material, as is the Gospel of Thomas, but most mainline Christian thinkers avoid those texts like the Plague.

Gee. Wonder why??


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 25, 2005)

Geez...I get such a kick out of your posts.

Excellent.  I'd give you a greenie, but the engine says "nay," as I've allready given you one.

Can you cite your sources?  That isn't a challenge...I'd love to read this stuff.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

Uh, while one generally agrees with the spirit of "Heretic's," post, and with the doubt about the wisdom of absolutely trusting the Gospels as, well, gospel, it would've been difficult for the Gospels to be based on mystery plays.

Please see: 

http://www.malaspina.org/home.asp?topic=./search/details&lastpage=./search/results&ID=398

and: 

http://artemis.austincollege.edu/acad/hwc22/Medieval/english_mystery_plays.html

The "mystery," and, "miracle," plays are the products of early-to middle medieval culture--1100 or 1200 AD, and after.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Geez...I get such a kick out of your posts.
> 
> Excellent.  I'd give you a greenie, but the engine says "nay," as I've allready given you one.
> 
> ...



Good to know you find my rantings amusing, Steve-o. 

As for sources...

Arguments for the mythicist position of the Historical Jesus debate:

- _The Jesus Mysteries: Was the "Original Jesus" a Pagan God?_, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
- _Pagan Christs_, John M. Robertson
- _The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold_, Acharya S.
- _The Jesus Puzzle: Was There No Historical Jesus?_, Earl Doherty,  http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/jesus.html
- The Lectures of Gerald Massey, http://www.africawithin.com/massey/gerald_massey.htm

Arguments for the gnostic/archetypal intepretation of Christianity:

- _Psychology and Religion_, Carl G. Jung
- _Thou Art That: Transforming Religious Metaphor_, Joseph Campbell
- _Up From Eden: A Transpersonal View of Human Evolution_, Ken Wilber
- _Jesus and the Lost Goddess: The Secret Teachings of the Original Christians_, Timothy Freke and Peter Gandy
- _The Hidden Gospel: Decoding the Spiritual Message of the Aramaic Jesus_, Neil Douglas-Klotz

Arguments for the perennial philosophy:
- _The Perennial Philosophy_, Adlous Huxley
- _Why Religion Matters_, Huston Smith
- _Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World's Religions_, Huston Smith

Hope that helps.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Uh, while one generally agrees with the spirit of "Heretic's," post, and with the doubt about the wisdom of absolutely trusting the Gospels as, well, gospel, it would've been difficult for the Gospels to be based on mystery plays.
> 
> Please see:
> 
> ...



While one most certainly agrees with the notion that mystery plays saw a resurgence during certain periods of the Middle Ages (no doubt due to the influences of Hermeticism, Orphism, and Neo-Platonism on religious culture at the time), the notion that mystery plays didn't exist in the time span of 300 BCE to 300 CE is, well, silly.

One would have to be sticking one's intellectual head in the ground to ignore the existence of the public plays performed in Eleusis concerning the goddess Demeter, or those in Egypt concerning the god Osiris, or even those in Rome concerning the god Mithras (which Justin Martyr himself referenced). O' course, Dionysus would provide the best example, and the Dionysian mystery cult was most likely developed analagous to Pythagoreanism (it is believed by some scholars that Pythagoras "created" the Dionysian cult by importing the Osirian model to a Greek audience).

Even _The Bacchae_ has demonstrable examples of mystery play enactments. It dates to around 500 BCE.

C'mon, now, where did one think the term 'mystery schools' came from in the first place???


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jan 25, 2005)

Thanks for the references.

I provide this in return...it won't teach you anything, Heretic, but you might get a kick out of it.  _Note the author_.  Who would thunk it?

http://www.stanford.edu/group/King/..._of_the_Mystery_Religions_on_Christianity.htm

Wikipedia has a good write up on the mystery religions, too, for those of us (like me) requiring a basic grounding in it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystery_religion


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Thanks for the references.
> 
> I provide this in return...it won't teach you anything, Heretic, but you might get a kick out of it.  _Note the author_.  Who would thunk it?
> 
> ...



Thanks for the return references. 

I've read the essay by Dr. King before, and it just tends to make me respect the man (and liberation theology) all the more. Still, even if the text is familiar to me its always good to have a revisit. 

The wikipedia article essentially reiterates what I was trying to say in my last post about the existence of mystery schools and plays in Hellenistic culture. Thanks for the resources.

Ta.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Jan 25, 2005)

It's fascinating to see that the ideology of religion doesn't really vary much from one to the next.  I'd never heard of Mithraism prior to reading your (Herry) posts and those of one or two others (nods to HHJH), which I suspect was intentional due to the great similarities in the description of Mithra and the Almighty as interpreted by my religion.  So, too, the references to Christ and Mithra having caves as a recurring theme and the eerie convergence (to my way of thinking) of Mithraic holy days with those of Christianity.

Tell me again why *some* think their religions are unique (in the sense that they're different from others).  Seems to me, the more I read of other religions, the more they sound like mine in more ways than not.

As always guys, provocative!:supcool:


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

kenpo tiger said:
			
		

> It's fascinating to see that the ideology of religion doesn't really vary much from one to the next.  I'd never heard of Mithraism prior to reading your (Herry) posts and those of one or two others (nods to HHJH), which I suspect was intentional due to the great similarities in the description of Mithra and the Almighty as interpreted by my religion.  So, too, the references to Christ and Mithra having caves as a recurring theme and the eerie convergence (to my way of thinking) of Mithraic holy days with those of Christianity.
> 
> Tell me again why *some* think their religions are unique (in the sense that they're different from others).  Seems to me, the more I read of other religions, the more they sound like mine in more ways than not.
> 
> As always guys, provocative!:supcool:



Hrmph. Good question.

My answer would be to take a gander at the wikipedia article that Steve linked. As it points out, the various mystery schools during the Hellenistic period were _very_ tolerant and _very_ open to one another --- to such a significant degree that the delineations between one another was very hazy. Syncretism, its called.

This held true for the early Christian gnostics, as well. They tended to be very open to other Christians and even to Pagans and Jews. Paul himself quotes from Pagan philosophers in his letters (the Platonic allusions being the most obvious). Darn tootin'.

The only difference we see is in the 'literalist' school of Christianity that emerged in Rome around the middle of the 2nd century (and eventually became the state religion of the Empire under Constantine). As the literalist Justin Martyr himself points out, the only real difference between his Christianity and the Pagan philosophies is that he maintains his god to have physically, literally existed. The mystery sages didn't think for a second their gods were historical beings. Neither did the Christian gnostics.

Of course, Justin later explains away the _obvious_ parallels between his religion and the mystery schools by one of the most contrived arguments ever devised: diabolical mimicry. It was the same arguments fundamentalists used to combat evidence for evolutionary theory in the 19th century (i.e., the Devil created that evidence in advance for the sole purpose of tricking you!!). Its important to note Justin never denied the parallels and commonalities (even citing the Mithraic ritual of drinking wine and eating bread to mystically commune with one's deity), only said that they were Satanic tricks.

Personally, I'm more leaning toward the perennial philosophy. But, that's just me.


----------



## Bester (Jan 25, 2005)

So, it's all a fiction.   Still doesn't make faith invalid.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 25, 2005)

Bester said:
			
		

> So, it's all a fiction.   Still doesn't make faith invalid.



Nope, although it does depend on what you mean by 'fiction' here...

I personally think faith has a very important function in terms of the mythic-membership self, role/rule conceptions, social personae, sociocentric connecitivity, con-op rationality, and so on. Please note that this 'faith' is not always theocentric in nature (as the Stalinists and Maoists kindly pointed out), and can take on some very ugly forms (both theocentric and secular).

In any event, 'faith' is an essential --- and unavoidable --- component of human development (both for good and ill).


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jan 25, 2005)

Sorry to be pedantic--and accurate--but you playin' on my turf.

When you discuss "miracle," and "mystery," plays, you are discussing products of the medieval era in Europe.

Yes, there were previous discussions of miracles. yes, there were things like the Eleusian Mysteries, to which you allude.

However, the terms "miracle and mystery plays," are technical terms that apply to a very specific genre, in a specific place, at a specific time, and no amount of pretended, "hrmpfs," or  attempted insults (one wrote, "attempted,") concerning sticking one's intellectual head in the sand change the meanings of the technical terms.

It's a relatively trivial point--one had noted considerable agreement, which apparently you do not find important--concerning literature and its history, but it is accurate. 

Nor will claims that there are different ways to see this be of value--in this limited and technical sense, you're just plain wrong.

If we were you, we'd wallow in the agreement, and accept it. Otherwise, we go to the professional references...


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 26, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry to be pedantic--and accurate--but you playin' on my turf.
> 
> When you discuss "miracle," and "mystery," plays, you are discussing products of the medieval era in Europe.
> 
> ...



Wallow, I shall, although I personally think one is pulling hairs here.

I'm also surprised a Mr. Perfesser Point-Head such as yourself couldn't see the obvious humor and sardonism in the post in question. My comments concerning your use of third-person and "intellectual head in the sand" were obvious jokes. Y'know, tee hee, giggle giggle. Oh, piffle.

Ok, I shall ammend my previous statement. The Christian gospels were _not_ in fact based on the mystery/miracle plays. Rather, they were based on the Hellenistic mysteries that just happened to have public plays, performances, and pageants accompanying them. 

But, shhhhhhhh, they weren't mystery plays!! (even though they _were_ plays and theatrics re-enacting existing religious mysteries and myths, and oh well, never mind..)   

Tongue-in-cheekly yours,
"Heretic" (<< quotation marks, w00t!!!!)


----------



## tongsau (Jan 27, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Time to weigh in here...
> 
> 1) Conerning Josephus, he wrote his books close to 100 CE. This makes his documents nearly 70 years (more than a full lifetime at the time) removed from the events they purport to record. He's what you call a secondary source. And, considering he never cites historical sources for his claims, we can only assume he is going on popular legend at the time anyway.
> 
> ...


1) What about the bone box, a custom dropped roughly 20 years after his death.
2) You must be unaware that Jesus is Yeshua Itsadak (sp) or Jesus of Nazareth in English. Personally I hate when we change the pronounciations in English. -Selavi

5) This is actually a biblical teaching. We are only allowed to draw from what we learn or distort from God's mouth. For instance we began to kill when he mentioned die. All things come from the Creator. All subjects orignate in his word. We have only expounded his message. This is a deep concept that requires much understanding of scripture. For small example.
Religions of the world all contain a common theme of Mother who gave birth to a god. And the mother is to be worshiped All peoples have this concept. Even some Catholics worship Mary. This all started because of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. Nimrod (his Hebrew name) was a killer who set himself up to be worshiped as the Sun god. He was, believed to be, struck down by God and a few years later his wife sired a child and said she gave birth to him incarnate. Set herself up as an object of worship. It was sometime around here that the Tower of Babel was destroyed and the people confused of thier common language and scattered. This is why the ledgend of "Etana of Kish" or NMHR the leopard tamer is worshiped today as Osiris, Ra and whatever else the sun god is called in other languages.
The tower footings are still in existence today.

6) I would have to guess that it was much easier to refute the early church due to less Dogmatic statements handed through the letters of Scripture. When John wrote his first letters he referred to many false branches of Christianity. Namely the Gnostics.

Regardless of the fact if you believe the Bible to be true. How do you explain how the big bang started. Where is it's center. Why can't the logic of this science be duplicated? How do you explain the proven science of a young earth and moon? How do you explain the salt level in the ocean, the oil reserve amount. How do you explain the fact that Humans who have supposedly been around 100s' of thousands of years only started to build structures around 2500 B.C. (give or take your dating method) Man has only been building for the last 5000 years? And we begin with things as grand as pyramids? How much change has there been in man in that time. We still understand the stories of the Bible. The humor of the bible. Man laughs the same. Thinks relatively a little worse. The average person today couldn't write a letter structured much like the Bible and not even as well as the Declaration of Independance. We are deteriorating. Not advancing. Medical science has to keeep us alive. But only a few hundred years ago it took plauges to kill us. Now we die from fried chicken and soy sauce.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 27, 2005)

Oy vey. You just make this _too_ easy...



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> 1) What about the bone box, a custom dropped roughly 20 years after his death.



Three things:

First off, what relevance does this have to the fact that Josephus is not only a secondary source (as concerning the historical plausibility of Jesus Christ), but that his two extant references to Jesus are suspect (in varying degrees) of literalist Christian forgery?? What is the significant correlation here??

Secondly, sources please. Cite verifiable proof that this "bone box" custom was dropped during this time span.

Thirdly, stop collapsing causation and correlation. Better yet, take an introductory science class to understand the differences between the two.



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> 2) You must be unaware that Jesus is Yeshua Itsadak (sp) or Jesus of Nazareth in English. Personally I hate when we change the pronounciations in English. -Selavi



Nope, _you_ must be unaware that the term 'Yeshua ben Nazareth' (<< correct transliteration, by the way) is not found anywhere in the Bible or any early extant Christian documents.

The New Testament was written in Greek. Hell, even excerpts from the Greek version of the Torah, the Septugaint, are used to "refute" (snicker snicker ralph) learned rabbis in Israel. These excerpts differ significantly from the proper Hebrew translations, making the whole scene not only implausible --- but further highlighting that the authors of the New Testament could not speak nor write Hebrew. In addition, saying attributed to Jesus in this Greek New Testament indicate an ignorance of existing Jewish laws (in which he forbids women from divorcing, apparently forgetting women didn't have divorce rights at the time) and the wording of the New Testament indicate a bold ignorance of Israeli geography. Whoever wrote the New Testament was not only unable to read/write Hebrew, but had apparently never been to Israel or familiarized himself with its standing laws.

The term used to identify Jesus in said document(s) is _Iesous_. As people like Tim Freke and Pete Gandy have pointed out, this word is a _forced transliteration_ of the Hebrew name Yeshua (properly transliterated as 'Joshua', not 'Jesus', in English). Meaning, it is a slightly altered version of the proper transliteration of Yeshua for the purpose of having the numerological value of 888 in the Greek gematria system. Even Christian apologetics like Origen and Irenaeus admit that Jesus' name has "magical significance", and is revered by the "Pagan sages".

Furthermore, the term "of Nazareth" is never used to identify Jesus in the Bible. The term "Jesus the Nazarene" sure is, but the Nazarenes were a Gnostic sect. It is a little known fact that the town of 'Nazareth' didn't even exist prior to the 300's, when the Church founded the town posthumously to fulfill the Biblical story. Josephus never mentions Nazareth in his description of Hebrew provinces, even citing areas that would have been of far lesser importance. No big surprise there. 



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> 5) This is actually a biblical teaching. We are only allowed to draw from what we learn or distort from God's mouth. For instance we began to kill when he mentioned die. All things come from the Creator. All subjects orignate in his word. We have only expounded his message. This is a deep concept that requires much understanding of scripture. For small example.



No, contrary to your erroneous claims to the contrary, the concept of 'diabolical mimicry' is not contained in the Bible. You clearly don't understand the actual content of this rather ridiculous argument, so I'll just direct you to its source: Justin Martyr, a mid-2nd century apologetic. Happy hunting.

Now, it could be argued that a similar concept, 'divine prefigurement' (which puts a more positive light on things than 'diabolical mimicry') is potentially in the Bible (albeit vaguely worded). But, that's another subject altogether...



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> Religions of the world all contain a common theme of Mother who gave birth to a god. And the mother is to be worshiped All peoples have this concept. Even some Catholics worship Mary. This all started because of Nimrod and the Tower of Babel. Nimrod (his Hebrew name) was a killer who set himself up to be worshiped as the Sun god. He was, believed to be, struck down by God and a few years later his wife sired a child and said she gave birth to him incarnate. Set herself up as an object of worship. It was sometime around here that the Tower of Babel was destroyed and the people confused of thier common language and scattered. This is why the ledgend of "Etana of Kish" or NMHR the leopard tamer is worshiped today as Osiris, Ra and whatever else the sun god is called in other languages.



I suggest you stop relying on pre-existing, plagiarized myths from the Bible as a source of "history" and start relying on scientifically-verified data. The 'mother' archetype is very common in mythology, spread _far_ beyond the confines of the Mediterranean. There is no plausible way, for example, that Native Americans were influenced by any Babylonian culture. 

You might want to read up on a little Campbell, Jung, and Frazier on this one.

Oh, and by the way, in Engligh we call that sun god you were talking about by the name 'Jesus Christ'. Maybe you've heard of him??



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> The tower footings are still in existence today.



Prove it. Cite peer-reviewed, scientifically-validated sources. Of course, we all know you won't, since this particular claim is a steaming pile of hogwash...



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> 6) I would have to guess that it was much easier to refute the early church due to less Dogmatic statements handed through the letters of Scripture. When John wrote his first letters he referred to many false branches of Christianity. Namely the Gnostics.



It is almost universally accepted that "John" did not write the apostolic letters attributed to him. Or, rather, that the author of the Gospel of John and the author(s) of the Letters of John are two completely different people. Furthermore, the third letter of John was written by a different author than the first two. And, the Revelation of John was written by yet another author.

By my count, that's four different "Johns" in early Christendom. Funny. 

In any event, these letters are never cited by any apologetics until after the second century --- beginning notably with Tertullian (circa 207 CE), who himself later converted to the Montanist sect of Gnostics. 

Therefore, its not surprising that these letters demonize Gnostic sects like the Simonian, Marcionite, and Valentinian --- the three aforementioned sects were well-established before the ideology behind the John letters, the literalist sect centered in Rome, had begun to take root.

So, again, the point remains: its a rather bizarre embarassmant to conventional Christian historians that Valentinianism and Marcionism were so proliferated and well-spread while literalists only existed in Rome (at least during Justin Martyr's time). Its also a bizarre embarassment that the first "bibles" found in Christianity are Valentinian and Marcionite collections. Its even further embarassing that Paul's authentic letters (more Galatians, less Pastorals) reflect this emerging docetic/gnostic ideology.



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> Regardless of the fact if you believe the Bible to be true. How do you explain how the big bang started. Where is it's center. Why can't the logic of this science be duplicated?



I personally think the manifest universe was initiated via kenosis (self-emptying) by a transcendent Spirit that is both nondualistically prior to, but not other than, phenomenal existence.

In any event, pointing out the "inexplicable" nature of much of the universe's mysteries doesn't somehow make your fictional paternal deity any more plausible.



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> How do you explain the proven science of a young earth and moon?



I don't really have to explain that which is not true. Unless, of course, you have a valid, peer-reviewed scientific journal that can corroborate any of your claims??



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> How do you explain the fact that Humans who have supposedly been around 100s' of thousands of years only started to build structures around 2500 B.C. (give or take your dating method) Man has only been building for the last 5000 years? And we begin with things as grand as pyramids?



Again, your knowledge of both history and science is deeply flawed. Pyramids were no the first 'scructures' created by humans, and we were building things long before 2500 BCE. Hell, even Neandertal artifacts and tools remain that predate that.

I suggest taking an Ancient Civilization class, and perhaps a few anthropology courses. You might learn a thing or two outside of your ideologically self-fulfilling lies.




			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> We still understand the stories of the Bible.



You apparently don't.



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> The humor of the bible.



Yep, that whole slaughtering of the innocent first-born by the Angel of Death. Oh, and the conquering of non-aggressive civilizations because of a tribalistic belief in 'divine right'. Oh yeah, and the whole, "you may take slaves" part in Leviticus.

You're right. The Bible's a laugh a minute. 



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> The average person today couldn't write a letter structured much like the Bible and not even as well as the Declaration of Independance.



Are you now suggesting the Bible was written by "average" people?? 



			
				tongsau said:
			
		

> We are deteriorating. Not advancing. Medical science has to keeep us alive. But only a few hundred years ago it took plauges to kill us. Now we die from fried chicken and soy sauce.



Seriously, dude, go to school. You really need a few science classes under your belt.

Ta ta.


----------



## raedyn (Jan 28, 2005)

tongsau said:
			
		

> The average person today couldn't write a letter structured much like the Bible


Cultures, languages, and writing styles change over time. Every generation has claimed that the one after them will be the downfall of civilization and while there have been some signifcant paradigm shifts over the centuries, there has yet to be an end to society.

An "average person" didn't write the Bible anyway. "The Bible" is many texts written by many different people spread out over a few centuries, which has since been translated, edited, added to, removed from, and translated again many many many times. It's not the Bible was the work of one person at one time. Even today, an "average person" working alone over a weekend would get a much different product writing a book than a team of people working over generations on that same book. And if you subscribe to the beliefs of some segments of Christianity and say the book is the literal word of God, written down by men who were "divinely inspired" - well, you still can't say that they were your "average person".

So to compare that work with someone's letter writing style is absurd, and it's hardly evidence of the deterioration of our entire species.


----------



## heretic888 (Jan 28, 2005)

Honestly, raedyn, I wouldn't take anything tongsau wrote in his last paragraph too seriously...

Among the things spouted out in rapid-fire fashion was the "young age" of the earth and moon, the notion that our immune systems are collectively breaking down (along with the assumption that our medical technology somehow does not constitute an evolutionary adaptation), and that the Egyptian pyramids were the first "structures" ever built by human beings.

He clearly has no idea what he is talking about. It would perhaps behoove individuals such as this to take a few introductory science courses to actually learn a little fact between the 101 myths.

In all seriousness, though, the entire last paragraph seems to be little more than a distraction device. Instead of arguing for the plausibility of Jesus Christ's historical existence --- or providing contextual proof that the Synoptics are the oldest Christian documents and that literalism is the "original" Christianity --- tongsau retreats into an "attack the messenger" type mode where he starts attempting to attack a bevy of alternative models, including big bang theory, evolutionary theory, and sociocultural development. This is clearly a mild ruse to "cover his own tracks", an attempt to conceal the obvious implausibility of his own position (which, in all likelihood, is believed in on the basis of blind faith).

Of course, its easy enough to see through --- but, I think you get the point.

Laterz.


----------



## tongsau (Feb 7, 2005)

These are not merely attacks but logical thoughts that I can't ignore when I try to weigh your arguments. 
Where are your sources? Prove that you exist based on peer reviewed documents. That's silly. 
Anyone with have a brain can see the flaws in your bias. You believe that Jesus didn't exist and that is universally accepted. Well you are universally not paying attention to the start of this thread. Like the majority of people that argue against God/Christ you have not proven anything except to ramble off many unexcepted and some historical "write ins" that you claim are the reason you don't believe. It is a proven fact that man lies. And history with it. The Word of God can only be judged on it's own merit. not the "supposed" history. Time and time again the Bible has stood up to careful scrutiny and all that is left is a few archealogical proofs. 100 years ago there were thousands of unaccepted scienctific statements in scripture. All proven in the last 100 years to be true. There are a few left. But nowhere near the list that started. Some (Sproul) say only 5 are left to have scientific/archeological basis. Peoples we know didn't exist now found to have records, Ramsees not being found in any writings. Jews not showing up in Egyptian record etc. all proven in the last few years. We know that the words, regardless of your arguements, were written at the time they are attributed to the people that they say wrote them. All except a few like Hebrews, whose author is still unknown today. Daniel was written in the time of the Babylonian Exile. No deal with the prophecy fulfilled. Of course you dismiss this by saying the events didn't happen. So I ask you: How did they pull it off within such short a time when it didn't happen. Your rank was obviouly attained by argument. You are quite good at by the way. Thinking is your weak point.


----------



## kenpo tiger (Feb 7, 2005)

Fact is fact -- it is proven, therefore it is a fact.  Saying *proven fact* is redundant.

And, if man has been proven to lie, then are you saying that the Bibles -- all of them -- which are written by man -- are lies?  Seems like you are.

I thought this thread died a natural death -- from exhaustion.


----------



## tongsau (Feb 7, 2005)

All men have lied means that everthing they have ever said is a lie? Interesting intellect.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 7, 2005)

tongsau said:
			
		

> These are not merely attacks but logical thoughts that I can't ignore when I try to weigh your arguments.
> Where are your sources? Prove that you exist based on peer reviewed documents. That's silly.
> Anyone with have a brain can see the flaws in your bias. You believe that Jesus didn't exist and that is universally accepted. Well you are universally not paying attention to the start of this thread. Like the majority of people that argue against God/Christ you have not proven anything except to ramble off many unexcepted and some historical "write ins" that you claim are the reason you don't believe. It is a proven fact that man lies. And history with it. The Word of God can only be judged on it's own merit. not the "supposed" history. Time and time again the Bible has stood up to careful scrutiny and all that is left is a few archealogical proofs. 100 years ago there were thousands of unaccepted scienctific statements in scripture. All proven in the last 100 years to be true. There are a few left. But nowhere near the list that started. Some (Sproul) say only 5 are left to have scientific/archeological basis. Peoples we know didn't exist now found to have records, Ramsees not being found in any writings. Jews not showing up in Egyptian record etc. all proven in the last few years. We know that the words, regardless of your arguements, were written at the time they are attributed to the people that they say wrote them. All except a few like Hebrews, whose author is still unknown today. Daniel was written in the time of the Babylonian Exile. No deal with the prophecy fulfilled. Of course you dismiss this by saying the events didn't happen. So I ask you: How did they pull it off within such short a time when it didn't happen. Your rank was obviouly attained by argument. You are quite good at by the way. Thinking is your weak point.



Once again, a rapid-fire spewing of untested, unverified claims -- most of which have been flat-out debunked by modern scholarship. Surprise, surprise.   

Of course, tongsau doesn't even attempt to logically defend any of his positions. There is a veiled attack on the scientific method and the ability of human beings to "know" anything. Even a nice little reference to some stuff Descartes talked about (you cannot feasibly doubt the existence of your own mind). 

But, nope. No actual citing of sources. No defending of one's position. Just more 'attack the messenger' type arguments. To say God must exist (which, by the way, I never actually brought up) because "science is crap" is a logical fallacy. Not to mention pretty silly.

And, of course, there is the ad hominem style personal attacks. "Thinking is your weak point," and all that silliness.

Diggin' a hole, I guess.


----------



## Adept (Feb 8, 2005)

I know that I'm here, and now is now, but beyond that everything is pretty much guesswork.

 An internet cookie for anyone who spots the literature reference.


----------



## Ray (Feb 8, 2005)

Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> ... I can build both a case proving his existance, and disproving it. The Discovery Channel, History Channel, etc all cater to certain audiences, and certain biases, depending on what they wish to push at that moment.


As far as I'm concerned, proof only exist in systems like mathematics. In other areas we can only provide evidence of something. Then we have to decide whether the evidence is strong enough to support a conclusion. As well as looking for and weighing evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, we humans still seem to make decisions clouded by our own biases. 



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> And it states that where? Please, an outside the bible referene only here.


Are you saying that the bible is an uncredible source of evidence, or that it needs corroboration? If you have decided that it is not credible then there is no need for you to go further.



			
				Bob Hubbard said:
			
		

> ... be prepared to provide verifiable evidence of your rebuttle. I made statements based on my current knowledge base...
> 
> Believe what you wish to believe, but understand that science and history will not always back up ones beliefs.


Your position seems well researched, thought-out and decided. It is not always possible for science and history to arrive at the truth of an event. If you personally witness something then you are more likely to believe it really happened. There may be times when we question what it was we witnessed because it seemed incredible or we didn't see it from the right "angle." 

I'm not trying to sell anyone on whether Jesus existed or not. Just to point out that all human systems (religion and science included) are based upon human abstract constructs that may or may be so. But we believe them.

Take, for example, the criticism of the bible where it speaks of Jonah being swallowed by either a "great fish" or a "whale." Today, it seems to be two conflicting statements because we know that a whale is a "mammal," not a "fish." The categorization of life is a "man made" idea and it has not always been the same.  Was it a fish, was it a whale, did it even happen, is there any point to trying to convince anyone either way?

Not to worry though, if we have any conciousness after death we just might learn the truth first-hand.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 8, 2005)

Tongsau's comments in bold:

*Time and time again the Bible has stood up to careful scrutiny and all that is left is a few archealogical proofs. * 

The Bible and Christian orthodoxy has been under constant assault since the eleventh century.  Study your church history, and then move on to The Enlightenment.  Scholars attempted to harmonize scripture with reason, and then the two parted.  Ne'er the twain shall meet, we can now say with some confidence.

*100 years ago there were thousands of unaccepted scienctific statements in scripture. All proven in the last 100 years to be true. There are a few left.*

Mmmm.  I've heard this claim made before by an Evangelical during my first online debate.  He wasn't forthcoming with the information.  How about you?  I'd love to see all this "proof."  Has it been proven, for instance, that donkeys can talk?  That rabbits chew their "cud"?  Are bats birds?  Is the value of "pi" three?  Can the Earth's rotation be stopped?  Were the stars formed after our sun, and plants created before the sun's creation?  All this is in the Bible.  Where and how has it been "proven?"

Or are you going to tell us those were translational errors?

*We know that the words, regardless of your arguements, were written at the time they are attributed to the people that they say wrote them. * 

Nope.  Sorry.  Moses didn't write the Pentateuch.  It was phrased in the third person in reference to Moses.  Stylistic analysis reveals a number of different authors.  

*
Daniel was written in the time of the Babylonian Exile.* 

No.  It wasn't.  It was written during the time of Antiochus IV, Epiphanes (175-164 B.C.).  We know enough about the Babylonian exile from the other books of the Old Testament (and other Jewish accounts) to ascertain that the author of Daniel didn't really know what he was writing about.

The author of Daniel's account of the seige of Jerusalem conflicts with that found in Jeremiah.  He repeatedly refers to the "Chaldeans," a term not used in the time of the Exile.  A figure appearing in Daniel--Balthasar-- was never king, and neither he nor his father had any blood-relationship to Nebuchadnezzer.  The linguistic style of the Hebrew Bible dates Daniel to a period much later than the Exile.

This book has been an embarrassment to Christians for centuries.  They've struggled with it, debated it, rationalized it.  Even a person with a passing knowledge of ancient history...or a person who has actually read the Biblical accounts of the Exile...can spot its flaws.

Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 8, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> As far as I'm concerned, proof only exist in systems like mathematics. In other areas we can only provide evidence of something.



In the context that Bob was speaking, "proof" and "evidence" amount to the same thing. You are speaking of a different context, that of mathematical proofs, which aren't really the same thing.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Then we have to decide whether the evidence is strong enough to support a conclusion. As well as looking for and weighing evidence to the contrary. Nevertheless, we humans still seem to make decisions clouded by our own biases.



Thus the need for falsifiability and peer review. Both of which are part of the scientific method.

In all honesty, though, these quasi-nihilistic arguments (which tend to border on epistemological relativism) will really get us nowhere. It will do no good to say that because all positions are "clouded by our own biases" that they are all on equal intellectual footing. Namely, because such a claim is, by its very nature, inherently self-contradictory (i.e., it claims to be a universal 'truth' devoid of personal bias itself). 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Are you saying that the bible is an uncredible source of evidence, or that it needs corroboration?



The Bible has been amply demonstrated to be uncredible as a historical source. Its credibility as a literary or philosophical source, however, is debatable.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> It is not always possible for science and history to arrive at the truth of an event.



This is true. However, in this case, the available evidence clearly weighs in one side over the other. 



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> If you personally witness something then you are more likely to believe it really happened. There may be times when we question what it was we witnessed because it seemed incredible or we didn't see it from the right "angle."



Not to mention there is a growing body of research indicating that "eyewitness" accounts can be far from accurate.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Just to point out that all human systems (religion and science included) are based upon human abstract constructs that may or may be so. But we believe them.



Yes. And some of those "human systems" are based an _a posterior_ events observed in life. And, some are not. You have to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, and not just make the nihilistically contradictory statement that since they are all made by imperfect people that they're all on equal footing as far as truthfullness goes.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Take, for example, the criticism of the bible where it speaks of Jonah being swallowed by either a "great fish" or a "whale." Today, it seems to be two conflicting statements because we know that a whale is a "mammal," not a "fish." The categorization of life is a "man made" idea and it has not always been the same.  Was it a fish, was it a whale, did it even happen, is there any point to trying to convince anyone either way?



This entire argument, in my opinion, is nothing short of pulling hairs. I fail to see the significance here.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Not to worry though, if we have any conciousness after death we just might learn the truth first-hand.



The entire notion of personal consciousness after death is, to be frank, rather ridiculous. Now, this is not to say that the consciousness cannot survive death. I am of the opinion that it quite possibly can. However, divorced from one's reality as a sexually dimorphic (you're no longer a 'man' or a 'woman' when you're dead), social (you're no longer an 'American' or a 'black' or 'white' when you're dead), and relational (you no longer having a working relationship with anyone still alive) being, you cannot feasibly make the claim that _you_ --- as in the personal ego-self you --- has survived death. Perhaps what underlies your personal self has, but you will have died with the body.


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 8, 2005)

"if you believe it, it's not a lie" - george costanza (paraphrased)


----------



## Ray (Feb 9, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> In the context that Bob was speaking, "proof" and "evidence" amount to the same thing. You are speaking of a different context, that of mathematical proofs, which aren't really the same thing.


Proof is proof and evidence is evidence. They are different things in my book. But heck, if someone is nutzo then absolute proof [in their minds] might be nothing more than lunatic imagination [as seen by others].



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Thus the need for falsifiability and peer review. Both of which are part of the scientific method.


That's nice. But most people don't particpate in the scientific method. Most of us have been conditioned to believe the expert/authority. We get to sit in a classroom and hear a sermon [lecture] from a believer [teacher/professor]. Most of us need to get out more and think for ourselves. Now, I'm not saying the scientific method is invalid...what I am saying is there is every reason for me to challenge and ponder what I'm being told. 

Not too long ago, one of my sociology teachers drew a diagram as a way to more easily explain something to us. Well, she drew it absolutely incorrect and I tried to politely point it out...she angrily cut me off and stated that she was right and she knew it and she had several sources that proved it. Later I sent her an email that referenced our textbook and several university web-sites. A week later she apologized and redrew the diagram (otherwise we'd have missed several exam questions). We need to do more than sit and believe everything we're told (whether we're told by the scientist, philosopher, priest, etc).




			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> In all honesty, though, these quasi-nihilistic arguments (which tend to border on epistemological relativism) will really get us nowhere. It will do no good to say that because all positions are "clouded by our own biases" that they are all on equal intellectual footing...


I'm going to have to buy a dictionary to keep up with you. Aren't we clouded by our own biases? I didn't say that put us on equal intellectual footing, nor did I say that our biases made us wrong...the intention was to imply that we must do more self examination [maybe I should say "I" should do more self-examination because, to me, it sounds like you've got it all figured out; Although I have my beliefs, I'm still weighing the evidence].



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Yes. And some of those "human systems" are based an _a posterior_ events observed in life. And, some are not. You have to evaluate them on a case-by-case basis, and not just make the nihilistically contradictory statement that since they are all made by imperfect people that they're all on equal footing as far as truthfullness goes.


I kant agree with your evaluation. I don't say that all people's statments are on equal footing in truthfullness nor correctness - what I hope to say is that we all need not just blindly accept what we're told (by scientists or by preachers).



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> This entire argument, in my opinion, is nothing short of pulling hairs. I fail to see the significance here.


Just trying to show an example of where people haven't thought enough about what they're being told. There are actually people who use the two references to Jonah to show that the bible is inaccurate. In this specific instance, the two references are not contradictory...to know that one needs to do a little digging. Now, don't think I need you to give me a hundred references that demonstrate the bible to be incorrect cause I'm not arguing the point (and I'm not saying you're right or wrong, either). I'm just trying to demonstrate that more thought and examination should be given by most people; (you sound like you may be one of those who do actually think).



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The entire notion of personal consciousness after death is, to be frank, rather ridiculous. Now, this is not to say that the consciousness cannot survive death. I am of the opinion that it quite possibly can.


 Darn it. This is one of those things that we haven't been able to design experiments to demonstrate one way or the other. I would feel better if we could; unfortunately we all have to wait to find out.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> However, divorced from one's reality as a sexually dimorphic (you're no longer a 'man' or a 'woman' when you're dead), social (you're no longer an 'American' or a 'black' or 'white' when you're dead), and relational (you no longer having a working relationship with anyone still alive) being, you cannot feasibly make the claim that _you_ --- as in the personal ego-self you --- has survived death. Perhaps what underlies your personal self has, but you will have died with the body.


Maybe, maybe not. Maybe there is a ressurection and our spirits [if they exist] are put into perfected bodies that are male and female (us, as we are now). Maybe we are reborn to a higher or lower position (or organism) based on our accumulated karma. Maybe we cease to exist. It's nice to see that you have been thinking about it.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 9, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I kant agree with your evaluation.



I can see why you KANT.

Well, then, don't try and HUMEor him.  And don't HEGEL with him or PLATO his strong points.  LOCKE on to the weaker aspects of what Heretic wrote and give him a dose of what he NIETZSCHEs the most, a good intellectual drubbing on the merits of philosophy.  He won't be able to HAAKE it. 

Cook his BACON, Ray!  DEWEY unto him what he would do unto us.  Give him a taste of his own medicine and MASHAM like a potato.  

MAIMON Ray!  MACH him your bi-yotch!

I can't MILL around here anymore.  I have to go get coffee.  Lack of caffeine tends to make me LEWIS my train of thought.  Most of you KUHN relate, I'm sure.  Off to Starbucks!

Regards,


Steve


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 9, 2005)

Descartes you off if you keep it up......


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 9, 2005)

Flatlander said:
			
		

> Descartes you off if you keep it up......



AYER you going to visit me in the looney bin WEIL I'm there?  I hope you COMTE see me.  I've heard the place is FULLER interesting, if slightly whacked, people.  

Okay.  I'll stop.  I'm running out of philosophers anyway.

Besides, I don't want to sidetrack Heretic and Ray.  Where'd Tongsau go?


Regards,


Steve


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 11, 2005)

Actually, Steve, Ray is mostly talking about the ways of knowing outlined by Charles Pierce. It really isn't relevant to any discussion of the historicity of the Bible, which Ray doesn't seem to subscribe to anyway.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 11, 2005)

One of the things Peirce's work has to do with is the demystification of language--all kinds of language, whether we're talking theology, philosophy or whatever.

It's all very well to believe that one's language is simply rational, or that throwing names at issues solves issues.

Regrettably, that's not the case.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 11, 2005)

Ummmm.... right.


----------



## Ray (Feb 11, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Actually, Steve, Ray is mostly talking about the ways of knowing outlined by Charles Pierce. It really isn't relevant to any discussion of the historicity of the Bible, which Ray doesn't seem to subscribe to anyway./QUOTE]
> I'm not talking about the ways of knowing; I'm just saying people ought to dig into things and not be parrots (I'm not calling you one).  I just think too many people just listen to the experts without thinking.
> 
> Comments like: "The Bible has been amply demonstrated to be uncredible as a historical source. Its credibility as a literary or philosophical source, however, is debatable"  can't just be accepted at face value.  We may (or may not) have heard about disagreements between historians and the bible record for which evidence was subsequently discovered to support the bible record.  And there are those items still in disagreement.  Of course, some supposed history in the bible is currently held to be false and is likely to remain so.  Anyone interested in the veracity of the bible should do more than listen to us; they should dig into it and make up their own minds.
> ...


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 11, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I'm not talking about the ways of knowing; I'm just saying people ought to dig into things and not be parrots (I'm not calling you one).  I just think too many people just listen to the experts without thinking.



Actually, what you are talking about is _exactly_ Pierce's ways of knowing. Specifically, you are referring to his Method of Authority --- believing something because an "authority" has told you so.

Not to be coy, but this isn't news here. I've heard these arguments before.  



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Comments like: "The Bible has been amply demonstrated to be uncredible as a historical source. Its credibility as a literary or philosophical source, however, is debatable"  can't just be accepted at face value.  We may (or may not) have heard about disagreements between historians and the bible record for which evidence was subsequently discovered to support the bible record.  And there are those items still in disagreement.  Of course, some supposed history in the bible is currently held to be false and is likely to remain so.  Anyone interested in the veracity of the bible should do more than listen to us; they should dig into it and make up their own minds.



Yeah, that's all well and good...

But, that doesn't change the fact that I was simply summarizing my own viewpoint and position on the subject. I have more than provided support to back up my claims --- both on this and other threads --- and I don't feel the need to copy-and-paste the same arguments over and over every time somebody brings it up. Use the search function. This is all already laid out.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> The scientific method which was referred to earlier is a set of rules made up by people.



Strictly speaking, "the scientific method" (i.e., the process of acquiring and assimilating a posteriori knowledge into one's worldview) is already developmentally programmed into human beings when they are born.

Now, I'm not saying infants are born with the ability to do chemistry equations or run an EEG machine. But, the capacity to empirically observe data, 'integrate' it into one's developing perspective of the world, and move on to collect more data is an _inborn_ capacity (as any developmental psychologist worth his/her salt will tell you).

So, in a sense, we humans are kinda "programmed" to be scientists. At least to a degree.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> The first rule is: there are no supernatural explanations allowed (which means "no gods or goddesses").



If that's what you believe is a "rule" of the "scientific method", then whoever explained it to you clearly did not know what they were talking about. The scientific method is a way of acquiring knowledge concerning that which is testable and falsifiable (to use Karl Popper's term). 

It makes _no judgments whatsoever_ about untestable or unfalsifiable phenomena. You are collapsing "science" and "scientism" here. They're two different animals.


----------



## sahmi (Feb 11, 2005)

A free exchange of ideas does not mean that you automatically discard the old ones for new ones.  One may prefer to think that all (both old and new) ideas are thoughtfully considered... ie.- put through the experiential computer that is oneself.  Then (only then) should the ideas be kept as truth or put aside as something else. 
With matters of faith, I suppose that means that an idea can be held as truth as long as it is not factually disputed.  An example would be the creation/evolution argument.  While one could argue both sides using proven data, neither of the two could be absolutely refuted.


----------



## Ray (Feb 11, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> If that's what you believe is a "rule" of the "scientific method", then whoever explained it to you clearly did not know what they were talking about. The scientific method is a way of acquiring knowledge concerning that which is testable and falsifiable (to use Karl Popper's term).
> 
> It makes _no judgments whatsoever_ about untestable or unfalsifiable phenomena. You are collapsing "science" and "scientism" here. They're two different animals.


Sociology and Psychology claim to be sciences, in the text books which I purchased last semester (in quest of a very overdue degree) say the first rule of the scientific method is that no supernatural explanations are allowed.  Yes, the 4 steps of the scientific method are: observe, hypothesize, experiment and verify. But no miracles are allowed.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Strictly speaking, "the scientific method" (i.e., the process of acquiring and assimilating a posteriori knowledge into one's worldview) is already developmentally programmed into human beings when they are born.
> 
> Now, I'm not saying infants are born with the ability to do chemistry equations or run an EEG machine. But, the capacity to empirically observe data, 'integrate' it into one's developing perspective of the world, and move on to collect more data is an _inborn_ capacity (as any developmental psychologist worth his/her salt will tell you).
> 
> So, in a sense, we humans are kinda "programmed" to be scientists. At least to a degree.


Humans are "programmed" to poop, suck and cry.  Humans (some of them) LEARN to critically evaluate arguements and design tests to confirm (or disprove) our ideas - other humans just believe what they're told.

For a minute there, you had me...I believed you might have known what you were talking about.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 11, 2005)

Actually, clinging to an idea or belief that has been disproven is actually another one of Pierce's ways of knowing: the Method of Tenacity. In social psychology, the same principle is referred to as belief perseverance.

Usually, individuals maintain debunked or disproven positions by providing hypothetical 'what if' arguments that could explain why the belief could still be true, but never actually bring any counterevidence to support the position. Truth by speculation, it seems, is good enough for them.

And, as far as I know, only one side of the evolution/creation debate has actually provided any qualifiable data or evidence to support their position. Traditional creationist arguments rely on logical postulates (a la Aquinas) based on presumed assumptions about reality (i.e., that an infinite chain of causation is "impossible", or that only one "unmoved mover" can explain the diversity of the universe).

Still, my suspicions are that a lot of these critiques have their ultimate source in the current pluralistic movement in the West --- which is well and good in itself, but ultimately self-destroying when taken too far out of its context (as we see with silly ideas like 'cultural relativism', which is blatantly hypocritical).

Just my opinion, anyway. Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Feb 11, 2005)

*Mr Vibrating:* Sorry the five minutes is up.

*Mr Vibrating:* I'm sorry, I'm not allowed to argue any more.

*Man:* What!?

*Mr Vibrating:* If you want me to go on arguing, you'll have to pay for another five minutes.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 11, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Sociology and Psychology claim to be sciences, in the text books which I purchased last semester (in quest of a very overdue degree) say the first rule of the scientific method is that no supernatural explanations are allowed.  Yes, the 4 steps of the scientific method are: observe, hypothesize, experiment and verify. But no miracles are allowed.



*sigh* Oy vey.

Well, I don't know the books you've purchased (or even if you actually are attenting college as you claim).

However, if I were to make a venture, my guess is you are horridly misinterpreting the actual point the authors were trying to make. The _point_ of the scientific method is to validate that which is testable and falsifiable. If what you are calling "miracles" or "supernatural" cannot be tested, then scientists don't concern themselves with them.

But, again, science does not make any claims to that which cannot be tested. All science says is it cannot be tested, and thus we have no way of knowing if it is a valid position or not. That is not the same thing as saying its "false" or "wrong".



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Humans are "programmed" to poop, suck and cry.  Humans (some of them) LEARN to critically evaluate arguements and design tests to confirm (or disprove) our ideas - other humans just believe what they're told.
> 
> For a minute there, you had me...I believed you might have known what you were talking about.



Your background is clearly not in developmental psychology.

You should look up on traditional critiques of Jean Piaget's "underestimation" of infants. This is where you will find most of the studies concerning the inborn cognitive abilities of human beings (as infants). The actual meat of the critiques is that (akin to Piaget's overarching theory of constructionism) infants are inborn with the capacity to take in new sensory and perceptional data, 'integrate' it into an organized view of the world, and continue the process.

This process of integrating a posteriori knowledge into one's view of the world is what most of us call "the scientific method". It doesn't have to have laboratories and microscopes to be science.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 11, 2005)

While one can only agree that falsifiability (it must be possible to prove that a proposition or theory is wrong) is essential to scientific method, the claim that people are hard-wired for something like science (a claim Freud also made, when he described Little Hans as, "the little scientist") suggests some of the holes in science as a way of knowing.

Mostly, it's because this drags an assumption (people are naturally scientific) right into the middle of the claim that science is purely logical and purely conscious.

One tends to agree with that assumption, of course. If you look at kids, they seem to be running all sorts of tests on themselves and the material world--but that's just personal observation, made from a certain viewpoint. And it's a problem in the middle of an argument that the, "other side," merely rests its claims on biased and untestable assumptions, as opposed to a science that is all about the abolition of any viewpoint at all so that "the facts," can emerge as what they always already were. 

In response to another claim--sorry, but evolution is a fully-testable hypothesis. One that's been really well tested, through both observation and experiment, over the last century and a half. For example, there is a Creationist claim that the Earth is in fact quite young, and that such features as the Grand Canyon were made more or less overnight, in some great catastrophe.

This is demonstrably not true. Or to be fair, perhaps it is true--but if it is, everything we know about geology, physics, archaeology, astronomy and about six other scientific fields is completely wrong. 

On the other hand, the claim that living things evolved from previous living things has been demonstrated over and over and over and over again. Creationists simply refuse to look at the evidence (if I don't see it, it's not there), most notably in the completely wacko claim that there are no "missing links," no transitional forms, in the fossil record. Or they insistently claim that because evolution continues to develop as a scientific theory, it must be wrong--when in fact the core of what Darwin says really hasn't changed at all. 

Why? because some people, apparently, need to believe that they're the apple of God's eye. That the universe revolves around the Earth--against thes, there's the humility of Mark Twain's "Extract From Cap'n Stormfield's Voyage to Heaven," where the good Captain, who's landed at the wrong dock in heaven, tries to explain to a group of angels who've never heard of Earth that it's the planet, "You know--the one the Savior saved." 

The angels bow their heads at the mention of the Name. Then, one of them pipes up, "Which one?"

You can go with the scientific explanation of how we all got here. You can go with the literalist, fundamentalist Protestant (which is NOT the same as the general Christian) reading of Genesis. But if you try to go with both, either your head will explode or the contradictions in what you're saying will show up everywhere.

I still say that if you're religious and you insist upon rejecting the products of the human intellect and the nature of the material universe, you're missing the point. Back when humanism and science started as developments in Christian thought, they simply said that the Author of all things left us the Bible and the universe to read, so that we could learn and try to grow up. And they thought that if we didn't understand how the two Books fit together, it was because we were mortal and stupid--not because the Author screwed up.

Back when I went to Bible school regularly (boy, did THAT not take), they taught me that the New Testament superseded the Old, because "the letter killeth, but the Spirit giveth Life." They taught me that the age of obvious miracles was over, because we were supposed to have grown past the need for shiny toys and rattles. 

Were they fibbin'?

Oh, and one other thing--if anybody wants to demand that we focus on the Text alone, look out. Then the lit crit with its roots in Biblical interpretation and Christian hermeneutics kicks in.


----------



## Ray (Feb 11, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Well, I don't know the books you've purchased (or even if you actually are attenting college as you claim).


Personal attacks are not part of the scientific method.  You can verify that I'm enrolled but it's not important.  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> However, if I were to make a venture, my guess is you are horridly misinterpreting the actual point the authors were trying to make.


Venture all you like, I'm interpreting correctly.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> The _point_ of the scientific method is to validate that which is testable and falsifiable. If what you are calling "miracles" or "supernatural" cannot be tested, then scientists don't concern themselves with them.


 A person with your vocabulary ought to know what "miracles" and "supernatural" means.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Your background is clearly not in developmental psychology.


Yours is?  Lets see, if you were born in 1982 that makes you about 23?  While there are many young people who are geniuses and have great accomplishments most people your age are just finished with a bachelor's degree.  My background is manufacturing.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> You should look up on traditional critiques of Jean Piaget's "underestimation" of infants. This is where you will find most of the studies concerning the inborn cognitive abilities of human beings (as infants). The actual meat of the critiques is that (akin to Piaget's overarching theory of constructionism) infants are inborn with the capacity to take in new sensory and perceptional data, 'integrate' it into an organized view of the world, and continue the process.


You should see my 5 children and 8 grand-children.  Whatever misconceptions I had about infants and child development were cleared up with more than just reading critiques of studies.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> This process of integrating a posteriori knowledge into one's view of the world is what most of us call "the scientific method". It doesn't have to have laboratories and microscopes to be science.


If you're a scientist and most scientists agree with you then you must be right.  But what I see is on university web sites, and in my text books, is: observe, hypothesize experiment to verify; and create a theory.  If you think you can use "most of us call" as a means of defining something then the bible must be historically accurate because the poll says most Americans believe it is.

*Man:* Aha! Well if I didn't pay, why are you arguing... got you!
*Mr Vibrating:* No you haven't.

*Man:* Yes I have... if you're arguing I must have paid.

*Mr Vibrating:* Not necessarily. I _could_ be arguing in my spare time.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 11, 2005)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> While one can only agree that falsifiability (it must be possible to prove that a proposition or theory is wrong) is essential to scientific method, the claim that people are hard-wired for something like science (a claim Freud also made, when he described Little Hans as, "the little scientist") suggests some of the holes in science as a way of knowing.
> 
> Mostly, it's because this drags an assumption (people are naturally scientific) right into the middle of the claim that science is purely logical and purely conscious.



If you'll actually look at what I said in context, I said infants are born with the _capacity_ for the scientific method --- _if_ we define the scientific method as actively seeking out information in the world, integrating it into an organized worldview, and continuing the process. I didn't say nuthin' about no organized scientific disiplines or whatnot. 

This is nothing new, of course. Its just Piagetian theory, revisted. And, as Piaget pointed out, this inborn _capacity_ won't be developed _at all_ if the little kiddy doesn't have the appropriate environment to encourage the development of such (i.e., "nature" and "nurture" interacting with one another).



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> One tends to agree with that assumption, of course. If you look at kids, they seem to be running all sorts of tests on themselves and the material world--but that's just personal observation, made from a certain viewpoint. And it's a problem in the middle of an argument that the, "other side," merely rests its claims on biased and untestable assumptions, as opposed to a science that is all about the abolition of any viewpoint at all so that "the facts," can emerge as what they always already were.



Ummm... right.

Look, Robert, people aren't conjecturing this stuff out of blue. There is a whole body of experiments and studies that have been looking into this stuff since Piaget developed his theories, which is why I brought up the critique that Piaget "underestimated" the congitive capacities of infants. That critique is borne out of the conclusions of these experiments.

The whole general idea was that infants are essentially born with a "chaotic" or "unorganized" view of the world, a presumption that Piaget also made. We now know this is untrue --- even newborn infants are intimately involved in "integrating" new information into an "orderly" fashion.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> On the other hand, the claim that living things evolved from previous living things has been demonstrated over and over and over and over again. Creationists simply refuse to look at the evidence (if I don't see it, it's not there), most notably in the completely wacko claim that there are no "missing links," no transitional forms, in the fossil record. Or they insistently claim that because evolution continues to develop as a scientific theory, it must be wrong--when in fact the core of what Darwin says really hasn't changed at all.



Yup. Agreed.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I still say that if you're religious and you insist upon rejecting the products of the human intellect and the nature of the material universe, you're missing the point. Back when humanism and science started as developments in Christian thought, they simply said that the Author of all things left us the Bible and the universe to read, so that we could learn and try to grow up. And they thought that if we didn't understand how the two Books fit together, it was because we were mortal and stupid--not because the Author screwed up.



Yup again.

Laterz.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 11, 2005)

Gosh, was Piaget a developmental psychologist? They didn't tell me that back in '78, when I was reading his stuff for the first time in Elizabeth Bates' dev psych class back in university. 

That's just the darndest thing.


----------



## Ray (Feb 11, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> If you'll actually look at what I said in context, I said infants are born with the _capacity_ for the scientific method --- _if_ we define the scientific method as actively seeking out information in the world, integrating it into an organized worldview, and continuing the process.


Maybe we should define it as eating ice cream and meet at Dairy Queen after work?  Hey, we could try using the accepted definition.

Infants, normal infants, are born with the capacity to develop a great many things.  If we can say "infants can grow to use the scientific method" then can we also use "infants can grow up to become murderers?"  "Infants can grow to use the scientific method" has nothing to do with whether the bible is historically accurate or not.

You are an expert on child development, history and the bible.  How nice for you.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 11, 2005)

Ray's comments in bold:

*You should see my 5 children and 8 grand-children.  Whatever misconceptions I had about infants and child development were cleared up with more than just reading critiques of studies.*


Sorry, Ray...I'll pipe in here and say I can't accept that.  Raising  five children and being a grandpappy doesn't qualify you as an expert in child development.  It doesn't necessarily qualify you as anything, other than a certifiable sire.  

You might have been an excellent parent and are now a doting and loving grandfather (I would hope so), but on the other hand you might have dropped the ball and passed on countless neurotic behaviors to your progeny.  We here don't know which is the case, or if the truth lies somewhere in the middle insofar as your parenting skills.  Suffice it to say such information as you might provide is anecdotal, and your experience and performance as a parent--for good or ill--are still but yours.  It counts for something, anecdotal or not, but it doesn't carry enough weight for you to casually dismiss Heretic's comments.


*You are an expert on child development, history and the bible. How nice for you.*

As to whether he is an "expert" on any of these issues is debatable I suppose.  Whether he is well read in these areas is glaringly apparent.  

You've challenged his experience in such matters, indicating his youth and implying that ought to disqualify his comments.  Now you're flippantly suggesting Heretic is claiming expertise in areas when he has done no such thing.  What knowledge he has, he has. You have the choice of dealing with it effectively, or not.  Mockery doesn't cut it.

If you can't handle him, withdraw and concede his greater breadth of knowledge on the topic.  If you stay to debate him, arm yourself better.

That said, I'll stand back and watch the game.  Some interesting exchanges here.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Ray (Feb 12, 2005)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Sorry, Ray...I'll pipe in here and say I can't accept that. Raising five children and being a grandpappy doesn't qualify you as an expert in child development. It doesn't necessarily qualify you as anything, other than a certifiable sire.


Agreed: raising kids doesn't qualify me as an expert in child development.  Neither does reading critiques of studies by psychologists (as heretic seems to have).  After having had to deal with "experts," I've found that most of those who haven't had hands-on practical application don't usually understand; they parrot what they've been taught.  Not that Heretic doesn't understand what he says.  IMO, The best experts are those that have learned the principles and gotten dirty as they apply them.



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> As to whether he is an "expert" on any of these issues is debatable I suppose. Whether he is well read in these areas is glaringly apparent.
> 
> You've challenged his experience in such matters, indicating his youth and implying that ought to disqualify his comments. Now you're flippantly suggesting Heretic is claiming expertise in areas when he has done no such thing. What knowledge he has, he has. You have the choice of dealing with it effectively, or not. Mockery doesn't cut it.


Yup, I gotta agree that mockery doesn't cut it.  That was bad form and I apologize to heretic publicly for mockery.  



			
				hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> If you can't handle him, withdraw and concede his greater breadth of knowledge on the topic. If you stay to debate him, arm yourself better.


I didn't mean to get into a debate.  I just wanted to say that those of us who just listen to the experts without putting forth effort to understand are doing themselves a disservice.  But when he mis-stated the scientific method and implied that this old man lied about attending school...


----------



## Marginal (Feb 12, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> I didn't mean to get into a debate.  I just wanted to say that those of us who just listen to the experts without putting forth effort to understand are doing themselves a disservice.


That's great, but why is this thought supposed to be relevant? 

Biblical archaeology? Pft. Can't beleive what you're told. 

Science? Pft.

Psychological research? Pft. 

Not really sure what's left that is relevant to the discussion if the response is always going to be "Some people beleive what they're told, and some don't." The whole point of the obversation is to open the way to useful knowledge synthesis. That cannot happen if the gateway question of Freshman Composition 101 is used to bat down all positions you happen to disagree with.


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 13, 2005)

One of the things that religion and science SHOULD find agreement on happens to be a little humility--religion because the idea basically is that whichever God you prefer always knows more than you do, and science, because what you think rests on so many other people's work, and because the world may very well have a fundamental mysteriousness to it.

And those of us interested in humanism, science and empiricism should be willing to accept the fact that our claims rest on historical and cultural developments, the work of scientific communities.

We should also be a little more willing to explain the extent to which "science," rests on probabilities, not certainties--unlike religion, sure, because religions rest on assertions of certainties, but pretty much not absolute grounds for stating absolute certainties...

In other words, there's the cheezy line in "Inherit the Wind," about truth having meaning--as a direction. 

Of course, along the line of that direction, we can pretty much get rid of the pseudo-science...like, for example, the "catastrophist," reading of the geological record that many Creationists use to try and give their religious beliefs a "scientific," basis. 

Even that, though, rests on probability, MOST LIKELY (in fact, most likely to the point of scientific certainty), Creationism is just wrong. Bad theory. And, "Intelligent design," is in some ways worse (as bad, in fact, as some of the, "scientific theories," about, say race have been)  an attempt to pass off animist superstition, fear of the dark, horror at social/historical change, and an childish attachment to Daddy as rational thought.

But--we do not know for sure, and in fact, from a scientific standpoint, we cannot know for sure. So a little humility might be in order all around.


----------



## Flatlander (Feb 13, 2005)

:asian:


----------



## Ray (Feb 14, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> That's great, but why is this thought supposed to be relevant?
> 
> Biblical archaeology? Pft. Can't beleive what you're told.
> 
> ...


Guess what?  I didn't put forth a public opinion one way or the other on the subject.  That means that I'm not using Freshman Composition 101 to beat anything down. 

But if it is important to you to think that I said something other than I did, go right ahead.  I declare you to have won the argument by virtue of your superior logic.


----------



## tongsau (Feb 15, 2005)

As to the Expertise of the Heretic:
I am guessing that he was born into a Jewish family, based on some phrases he has said. Which let's me know his biases. So I recognize his frustration. I get the same from him.
He appears to be a well informed young? (I didn't check) man. However he is missing the point if the first statment is true. He is refuting a God he doesn't believe in.??? I am confused> Clarify your position. You truly believe that some being took a crap and created the universe?
A walking, talking prophecy and an agnostic to boot. Although we haven't established his existence. (Scientific method doens't allow that)
Is this the only martial art you practice? the art of quick tounge?
I can replace you with a simple shell script. Heartless but simple.

But just to keep you up to date in the field of Science "The big Bang, has been disproven." This after years of being held up as true. See, there is a million things that people are missing here. Mostly, Science "Theory" is not fact. Most of science is not fact. At least what we have been discussing.
Birds fly, that's a fact, Birds migrate fact. Birds evolved, that is not a fact, because they can't prove it. What they can prove is that birds change over time. Evolving requires change for the better. Mutating is change because of a breakdown.
The big bang was supposed to be a homogeous event. Truth has proved otherwise (million light-year gaps, can't be explained using the theory). Red shift defines distance, except when other factors cause it, we still can't map the universe accurately. And science will continue to desparately search to grasp theories as to not have to deal with a Creator. Do I need a peer reviewed book to cover this? 
How about the science of flight: Have you ever seen a wing fall off a bird? "We are infants, bastards at best" - Shue

I bow out - not to establish victory or defeat but to respond to my heart telling me: "Jeremiah 12:13, Jeremiah 23:28"


----------



## rmcrobertson (Feb 15, 2005)

The Enormous Space Kablooey was disproven? Going to be a real shock to the several astronomers I heard on the radio last Frida, discussing how exceited they were that the new experiment they were finnally going to get into space would allow us a better picture of the Big Bang than we'd ever had before.

Sorry, this is just nonsense. The fact--fact--of the anisotropic distribution of microwave radiation in the universe was first shown by the COBE satellites going on ten years ago. In point of fact, this unequal distribution is generally taken as one of the most persuasive proofs of the "Big Bang," that we have.

As for the stuff about evolution, you might want to look at Gould's many essays and books (I like the one on the Burgess Shale deposits) about the differences between Darwin and present-day accounts of evolution. Because, I'm afraid, you simply don't know what you're talking about.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 15, 2005)

Oy vey. A few points for clarification:

1) The only _ad hominems_ in this discussion thus far, Ray, have come from your electronic computation device. 

If one reads what I actually typed _in context_, I was not calling anyone a "liar" --- only, very simply, that we don't know if anything one says concerning "personal experience" is true or not (including the attending of college). Its a very straightforward shortcoming of the nature of anecdotal "evidence" --- which is why silly little things like citing one's sources (as opposed to citing unnamed "college books" whose authors are unknown) is kinda important in public discourse. 

Especially when making claims that one is interpreting said texts "correctly" (direct quotations would be nice).

2) Contrary to the beliefs of some, what does or does not constitute "supernatural" phenomena is by no means universally agreed upon.

3) One's age has nothing to do with one's understanding of any academic field. Nor does a degree, for that matter.

4) One's raising of X number of children --- an anecdotal account --- has nothing to do with one's understanding of peer-reviewed, scientifically-verifiable theories concerning developmental psychology (which goes far beyond childhood).

5) I do find it somewhat _interesting_ that someone advocating questioning everything presented before you is perpetually relying on unverifiable anecdotal "evidence" as support for his positions.

6) As to that tripartite definition regarding the scientific method (observe/experiment/theorize), yup, I can basically agree with that (although I personally prefer Thomas Kuhn's explanations for elaboration). 

Funny thing, though, is that the little kiddies seem to be doing just that. Granted, its a really informal and dumbed-down version of the academic scientific disciplines, but the general process is in effect --- even among newborns. The running terminology tossed around is _intuitive theories_ about very basic physical and psychological laws (such as, say, gravity).

So, yeah, it seems as if we come into the world prepped with at least some _a priori_ knowledge. _Tabula rasa_ eateth it.

7) Steve's right, of course. I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be. What I _do_ try to do is rest my beliefs on peer-reviewed studies and experiments. I'm not sure what all this has to do with "the experts", though.

8) Apology accepted. 

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 15, 2005)

Ok. So, lemme get this straight....

Apparently, my ethnicity (which is clearly "Jewish") can be determined by my philosophical positions. Apparently, I'm also an "agnostic", "trying to refute God", a "walking prophet", and believe the universe was created when "some being took a crap" (a rather interesting interpretation of _kenosis_ --- which, by the way, was a concept developed by Christian intellectuals).

My actual ethnicity, if you must know, is roughly 1/2 English, 1/4 Scotch-Irish, 1/8 German, and 1/8 Arabic (Lebanese). No Jewish in me, sorry.

Also, I'm not trying to refute "God" (depending on your definition), am most assuredly not an agnotic nor an atheist, and my philosophical position leans toward Adlous Huxley's perennial philosophy. The formal religion I am most sympathetic to are certain strands of Mahayana Buddhism (specifically Zen/Ch'an and Vajrayana).

And, for the record, _kenosis_ refers to the self-emptying of the Divine in the creation of the world --- it has nothing to do with the discharge of fecal matter. It is a statement of nondualism: that Spirit is prior to, but not other than, the manifest universe.

Now, regarding your rather silly conclusions about "science", I think Robert tackled that one concisely enough. But, it should be noted, I don't believe anyone here has passed off scientific theory as "fact". As Robert earlier pointed out, science deals in probabilities. Not absolutes.

And, it just so happens, that in all probability, your positions are full of dookey-doo. Laterz.


----------



## Ray (Feb 15, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Oy vey. A few points for clarification:
> 
> 1) The only _ad hominems_ in this discussion thus far, Ray, have come from your electronic computation device.
> 
> If one reads what I actually typed _in context_, I was not calling anyone a "liar" --- only, very simply, that we don't know if anything one says concerning "personal experience" is true or not (including the attending of college).


Oh?  My personal knowledge, the knowledge of my classmates and my teachers is not good enough for me to know that I am attending college?  It may not be good enough for you because it is not typed up in a scientific journal, having had a fine experiement designed to test the theory and peers to review and re-conduct the experiment.  

Whether I attend school or not is not part of the scientific quest to discover the laws of science.  But since I stated it as a fact and you cast aspersions on the truthfulness of what I said then you have attacked me (fallacy of ad hominem); rather you should have asked for a means to verify it if you were truely concerned about the truth of it.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Its a very straightforward shortcoming of the nature of anecdotal "evidence" --- which is why silly little things like citing one's sources (as opposed to citing unnamed "college books" whose authors are unknown) is kinda important in public discourse.


Scientists/researchers design experiements to test hypothesis; others read their write-ups and repeat the experiments to validate the results.  Thus we have several people who have had personal experiences and give their testimony as to the truthfulness/untruthfulness of the results.  You discount anecdotal evidence when, in reality, all evidence is anecdotal.  The anecdotal evidence of many people (as in scientific review and court cases) helps to avoid errors.  

You can easily verify that the scientific method is a system of principles and procedures for the pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses.  

There is a web site:http://www.marin.cc.ca.us/~bpeters/jim/109one.htm
that claims to be have something to do with a geology class (science, right?).
In the presentation, the following is given:  There is a basic assumption in science that a real world exists and we can perceive it with our senses.  That a model of the scientist's world requires a separation of the real world from the brain's conceptual image of that real world.  More verbiage on the web site says:
*Assumption of the Existence of a Real World?*



Clearly philosophically debated
---- expected in a Philosophy Class but not very productive in this class.
Rules out "Supernatural" Occurences
Note that this exclusion of supernatural events does not suggest that the right observations have been made or that we are capable of explaining the observations at any particular moment!
The "one-time" unrepeatable "observation" receives a very low credibility, if any, in the development of a scientific conceptual model.





			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> Especially when making claims that one is interpreting said texts "correctly" (direct quotations would be nice).


I'll bet you can find many more statments like that on many web sites and in many science books.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) Contrary to the beliefs of some, what does or does not constitute "supernatural" phenomena is by no means universally agreed upon.


I don't know about what other intelligent beings in the universe mean when they say "supernatural" but: *1* *:* of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible observable universe; _especially_ *:* of or relating to God or a god, demigod, spirit, or devil *2 a* *:* departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear to transcend the laws of nature *b* *:* attributed to an invisible agent (as a ghost or spirit) (according to merriam-webster; a dictionary, not a scientific guide).  

I think scientists and researchers have pretty well defined supernatural as merriam-webster does.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 3) One's age has nothing to do with one's understanding of any academic field. Nor does a degree, for that matter.


Yup, I agreed with that in another post.  



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 4) One's raising of X number of children --- an anecdotal account --- has nothing to do with one's understanding of peer-reviewed, scientifically-verifiable theories concerning developmental psychology (which goes far beyond childhood).


Scientists have not reviewed my theories of child rearing, true...but there are studies that agree with what I  groped around in the dark to discover as I raised my children. 

By the way, X is a variable, the number of my children is not--it is a quantity {a little humor or maybe no humor}.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 5) I do find it somewhat _interesting_ that someone advocating questioning everything presented before you is perpetually relying on unverifiable anecdotal "evidence" as support for his positions.


I advocate questioning those things which are important to the individual.  I am fine with not arguing about the big bang versus creation; I am here and, that fact, I do not need to question.  "How I got here" is not currently as important to me as "what am I going to do next."

*I haven't given a position on the historical accuracy/inaccuracy of the bible.  Ergo,  I am not relying on anecdotal evidence to support it.*

And I don't rely on unverifiable anecdotal evidence to support my postions; I have lived my life and I have verified the facts of my life's experiences.  But, if I put forth the position that *"people should think"* and you think that it is an anecdotal unverifiable opinion then, by all means, experiment on it.

And I read, and I reason.  Sometimes I even perform a simple experiment (for my own recreation, nothing revolutionary) to help me form my beliefs.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 6) As to that tripartite definition regarding the scientific method (observe/experiment/theorize), yup, I can basically agree with that (although I personally prefer Thomas Kuhn's explanations for elaboration).
> 
> Funny thing, though, is that the little kiddies seem to be doing just that. Granted, its a really informal and dumbed-down version of the academic scientific disciplines, but the general process is in effect --- even among newborns. The running terminology tossed around is _intuitive theories_ about very basic physical and psychological laws (such as, say, gravity).


I disagree with the idea that gravity is an intuitive concept.  It took quite a long time for humanity to discover it; and it was quite a leap.

As far as little kids doing that (observe/experiment/theorize), since we have so few instinctual behaviors, we have to learn and we have to learn quick or die.  But the process of children learning isn't the same as a rigorous treatment by scientists.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> So, yeah, it seems as if we come into the world prepped with at least some _a priori_ knowledge. _Tabula rasa_ eateth it.


A Priori means either deductive (as in deduced from facts) which we are not born with;  or it means presumptive--and if infants are born with that kind of knowledge ("formed before-hand") then did they get in the womb? or from where?



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 7) Steve's right, of course. I'm no expert, nor do I claim to be. What I _do_ try to do is rest my beliefs on peer-reviewed studies and experiments. I'm not sure what all this has to do with "the experts", though.


I'm no expert either.  But I differ from you in one respect: I analyze {some of} my beliefs based on studies which I then do my best to confirm for myself.  In other words, I don't just accept what other people say without some consideration of it.  

There's a world of difference between fertillizer and s**t.  It's the same with knowledge and knowing.


			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 8) Apology accepted.


Thanks.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 15, 2005)

Hrmmmm. 

As much as I'd enjoy defending myself against this latest volley of _ad hominems_ and accusations on my personal character and intellectual understanding.... methinks I'll pass.

But, to sum up a few points:

1) The scientific method in no way denies the existence of that which cannot be tested. It merely posits that it cannot be tested --- after all, yah can't prove a negative. Nothing more, nothing less. Any book that tells you differently most likely reflects the ideological bias of its writer, moreso than an accurate portrayal of science.

2) You cannot "prove" anything using science. You can amass huge amounts of supporting evidence, but that still does not "prove" one's position. That just makes it a really likely probability, is all. 

3) You can, however, disprove positions rather abundantly using the scientific method. This is Popper's principle of falsifiability (meaning, negative results are more important in science than positive results).

4) Peer-reviewed studies in which the data is publicly accessible to any interested party does not constitute an "anecdotal" account.

5) Contemporary research into infant cognition indicates they are born with what are called "intuitive theories" about the basic laws of physics and psychology. For example, the newborn is apparently instinctively knowledgeable at approximating which point a box being pushed off the edge of narrow incline will begin to teeter --- despite having no such prior experience by which to make such a decision by.

6) As to where and how this _a priori_ knowledge comes from, I haven't the faintest clue. Perhaps its an evolutionary inheritance. Perhaps its a result of reincarnation. Perhaps its due to extraterrestrials tinkering with our brains. I don't know. 

7) Research also tends to indicate that infants are born with innate "self-organizing" and "self-integrating" cognitive tendencies. This indicates some rudimentary knowledge of empiricism and the scientific method.

Laterz.


----------



## Marginal (Feb 16, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Guess what?  I didn't put forth a public opinion one way or the other on the subject.  That means that I'm not using Freshman Composition 101 to beat anything down.


You're getting into awfully lengthy arguments all for the sake of an independent statement that seems to have no purpose in the discussion whatsoever in that case. 



> But if it is important to you to think that I said something other than I did, go right ahead.  I declare you to have won the argument by virtue of your superior logic.


Seems reasonable to suppose that you've got some sort of issue with the people you elect to quote and then offer up your comment about "people needing to think". If nothing is to be derived from the context, and your statement has no apparent value as it is not to be applied to any statement made in the thread, (lest it indicate a bias one way or another) then... What's the point?


----------



## Ray (Feb 16, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> 1) The scientific method in no way denies the existence of that which cannot be tested. It merely posits that it cannot be tested --- after all, yah can't prove a negative. Nothing more, nothing less. Any book that tells you differently most likely reflects the ideological bias of its writer, moreso than an accurate portrayal of science.


Yup, we agree.  As I said, no supernatural explaination is allowed in the scientific method.  The supernatural isn't denied nor affirmed by the scientific method.  It's just not allowed and that is proper for the scientific method.



			
				heretic888 said:
			
		

> 2) You cannot "prove" anything using science. You can amass huge amounts of supporting evidence, but that still does not "prove" one's position. That just makes it a really likely probability, is all.


Thanks.  We agree.

The balance of what we seem to disagree on isn't important


----------



## Ray (Feb 16, 2005)

Marginal said:
			
		

> You're getting into awfully lengthy arguments all for the sake of an independent statement that seems to have no purpose in the discussion whatsoever in that case.


Okay.  More to the point, 67% of Americans say they believe the entire biblical account of Christmas.  I'll bet most Americans also believe that there were three wise men and that their names were Balthasar, Gaspar and Melchior.  Questioning is probably not important to most Americans.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 16, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Yup, we agree.  As I said, no supernatural explaination is allowed in the scientific method.  The supernatural isn't denied nor affirmed by the scientific method.  It's just not allowed and that is proper for the scientific method.



Well, a qualifier should perhaps be added here...

If a "supernatural explanation" was in any way able to be directly tested or falsified, then it most assuredly would be "allowed" by the scientific method. Now, perhaps sometime in the future, we will develop the means to directly test "supernatural" theories about life. Or, perhaps not.

At present, however, the closest thing we have are empirical and cross-cultural studies concerning the nature and effects of meditative/contemplative practices (i.e., Tibetan monks, Vedanta gurus, Christian contemplative mystics, Sufi mystics, and so on). And, even then, its arguable as to whether any of this is "supernatural" (contemplatives and mystics typically have different attitudes about the sacred than do normal believers) or not.

Anyways, the point being, if'n it can't be tested then science isn't concerned with it. Now, it may be true or it may not be true. But, without any ways of testing whether its true or not, we just have no way of knowing.



			
				Ray said:
			
		

> Thanks.  We agree.



Guess so. Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 16, 2005)

Ray said:
			
		

> Okay.  More to the point, 67% of Americans say they believe the entire biblical account of Christmas.  I'll bet most Americans also believe that there were three wise men and that their names were Balthasar, Gaspar and Melchior.  Questioning is probably not important to most Americans.



Actually, with conclusions like the above, I would guess this has more to do with how the initial question that was presented to most Americans --- moreso than them "not questioning". This points to experimenter bias in the designing of statistical models.

Then again, I have seen polls taken over the last three or so decades that consistently indicate more than one-third of all Americans reject evolutionary theory completely. So, who knows??  :idunno:


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 16, 2005)

This thread has been interesting because it uncovered questions I asked myself years ago.  I grew up Christian, then I learned this stuff and asked myself, "If my faith is nothing but fiction, why believe in it?"  After drifting spiritually for a while, I finally converted to Unitarian Universalism.  This is the only faith that would accept my truly agnostic position.  

So, I guess I'll pose that same question, now that we have put all of this information up for debate.  

"If Christianity is fiction and Jesus did not exist and none of the miracles were ever performed, why believe in this faith?"

upnorthkyosa


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> This thread has been interesting because it uncovered questions I asked myself years ago.  I grew up Christian, then I learned this stuff and asked myself, "If my faith is nothing but fiction, why believe in it?"  After drifting spiritually for a while, I finally converted to Unitarian Universalism.  This is the only faith that would accept my truly agnostic position.



Heh. Unitarian-Universalism is great. Its the only faith I kow of where you don't have to believe anything in particular, and the only commonality you may have with the others is that you show up. 



			
				upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> So, I guess I'll pose that same question, now that we have put all of this information up for debate.
> 
> "If Christianity is fiction and Jesus did not exist and none of the miracles were ever performed, why believe in this faith?"



It depends on your attitude and perception as to what "Christianity" is, really. 

Many, if not most, of the early Christians (prior to 400 CE) were _docetics_. Meaning, essentially, they did not hold the Gospel Narrative to have "literally" happened in a "physical" or "corporeal" fashion --- but, instead, held them to be perennial "spiritual" events. Tied into this belief was the system of _gnosticism_ --- that "salvation" comes not from faith in an external Other, but in self-knowledge (ultimately culminating in the realization that one is God or Christ).

Of course, critics to the docetic/illusionist movement (such as apologetics like Irenaeus and Tertullian) posited that these wackos held the nutso belief that Jesus lived, but as some kind of weird disembodied ghoul-magician --- and that he only "appeared" to have died for your sins. This is clearly a distortion of what these individuals maintained, namely that the entire Bible (along with the whole manifest world) is an "appearance" (in other words, a symbol).

So, yeah, it depends on how you view Christianity. Personally, I prefer Zen. But, that's just me.


----------



## Makalakumu (Feb 16, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> It depends on your attitude and perception as to what "Christianity" is, really.
> 
> Many, if not most, of the early Christians (prior to 400 CE) were _docetics_. Meaning, essentially, they did not hold the Gospel Narrative to have "literally" happened in a "physical" or "corporeal" fashion --- but, instead, held them to be perennial "spiritual" events. Tied into this belief was the system of _gnosticism_ --- that "salvation" comes not from faith in an external Other, but in self-knowledge (ultimately culminating in the realization that one is God or Christ).
> 
> ...



I think that this may be too complicated for most people.  Maybe I am underestimating the bulk of the christian public, but I don't think that they would buy into it.  They haven't yet.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that when one learns about this, it truly causes a crisis in one's faith.  One can either, choose to ignore it, exclaim that it cannot be true, or change beliefs.  

Showing that, Jesus, the Bible, and God might only be symbols, weakens the current position the Christian Faith currently occupies in many people's hearts.  And, in my opinion, by showing that it is all just fiction, one decreases the importance and relevance of the faith.

It is just another story among other stories.  So, why believe in it, above any other story?


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Feb 16, 2005)

Tongsau's comments in bold:

*Is this the only martial art you practice? the art of quick tounge?*

Are you addressing me, or Heretic?  Your post is unclear on this, and incoherent in general.

*I bow out - not to establish victory or defeat but to respond to my heart telling me: "Jeremiah 12:13, Jeremiah 23:28"*


This was God telling the Israelites that he would lay waste their country.  Why your heart is telling you this is beyond me, as it doesn't tie in with the paragraph in which you included it.  You also failed to note that two verses later--in Jeremiah 12:15--God promises to restore the Israelites to their inheritance.  Did your heart tell you this as well?  If not, perhaps you should consult your pancreas.

But Jeremiah _does_ tie in with the notion of the historicity of the Bible.  The Babylonian exile took place.  However; there is no reason to believe that God told Jeremiah any of that contained in this most lengthy book.  Reason tells us that Jeremiah (or the authors claiming his name) likley wrote his "prophecies" after the exile and restoration of the Temple.

Tongsau, I'm not going to bow out in either victory or defeat--but probably not weigh in as often given my current schedule.  However; I will respond to my prostate telling me "Proverbs, 18:6.  Proverbs, 18:6."


Regards,


Steve


----------



## BlackCatBonz (Feb 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that this may be too complicated for most people. Maybe I am underestimating the bulk of the christian public, but I don't think that they would buy into it. They haven't yet.
> 
> I guess the point I am trying to make is that when one learns about this, it truly causes a crisis in one's faith. One can either, choose to ignore it, exclaim that it cannot be true, or change beliefs.
> 
> ...


why have faith?
you have to look at the reasons behind the stories.
how many times have you been told something growing up.....or read a story that had a valuable lesson or moral?
i bet 80 - 90% of childrens books have lessons or morals between the pages. simply put, the bible is a collection of stories that are teaching a lesson.....and the main idea behind that lesson is that contained in everyone is the notion of god with the ability to do the right thing and act in the proper manner.
  take a look at the eightfold path in buddhism....right understanding, thoughts, speech, action, livelihood, effort, mindfulness, concentration. these are like the stepping stones to proper living minus the superbeing.....only you can be responsible for your actions.
  the idea that an omnipotent being controls from within and without the entire workings of the universe is implausible and outlandish, this simply gives believers an out for their wrongdoings and comfort knowing that no matter what they did wrong.....someone is going to be waiting at the light at the end of the tunnel to give them a pat on the back and tell them its alright. who wouldnt take comfort in that!?
if we believe as fact the bible......why then do we not believe any other legend as actual fact? is the emperor of japan truely a descendant of a sun goddess? is there really a zeus? apply these questions to any "faith" from any region of the world. most people think that the idea of there ever being a zeus is preposterous, but the idea of a lord god is completely acceptable.
when you look at it like this, doesnt it seem unreasonable?
  in the end....all you have is you. if you heed the lessons being taught and act according to the virtues and high moral standards...thats all we can do as humans.
there is no god pulling the strings......or sitting back scratching his/her chin as he or she watches us with otherworldly fascination wondering what is going to happen next in their universe sized ant farm.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 16, 2005)

upnorthkyosa said:
			
		

> I think that this may be too complicated for most people.  Maybe I am underestimating the bulk of the christian public, but I don't think that they would buy into it.  They haven't yet.
> 
> I guess the point I am trying to make is that when one learns about this, it truly causes a crisis in one's faith.  One can either, choose to ignore it, exclaim that it cannot be true, or change beliefs.
> 
> ...



Well, upnorthkyosa, what you have to stand is that originally "Christianity" was a mystery school (and is still taught as such in some corners of the globe). Mystery schools had very different ways of teaching their religion than we are accustomed to today.

Essentially, there were two components to the teachings: outer mysteries and inner mysteries.

Outer mysteries were the outward myths, stories, moral prescriptions, and the ritual consolances we are most accustomed to. Their main purpose was to introduce outsiders to the faith, and to indoctrinate a form of moral purpose and discipline. This is very important.

The inner mysteries, by contrast, were "secret" teachings given to adherents in private (this where the "mystery" part of mystery school comes in). As in the higher martial artists, this was often done through a direct student-guru relationship. Essentially, the inner mysteries consisted of the initiate learning that all those stories and rites he went through were really talking about _him_ --- not a pie-in-the-sky deity. The trials and tribulations, temptation in the desert, crucifixion, and resurrection all referring to "spiritual" events that the initiate is to go through himself.

Of course, only those that were properly prepared or ready for the inner teachings would actually receive them. Today, as in the past, this comprises only a minority of the faith's adherents. Therefore, you are quite correct that most Christians wouldn't be able to "handle it".

Laterz.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 16, 2005)

BlackCatBonz said:
			
		

> why have faith?
> you have to look at the reasons behind the stories.
> how many times have you been told something growing up.....or read a story that had a valuable lesson or moral?
> i bet 80 - 90% of childrens books have lessons or morals between the pages. simply put, the bible is a collection of stories that are teaching a lesson.....and the main idea behind that lesson is that contained in everyone is the notion of god with the ability to do the right thing and act in the proper manner.
> ...



Whether its a secular Objective Truth or a sacred Divine Reality, the finite ego-self will find something to bind itself to. The actual content of the bound is irrelevant, since the result is pretty much the same.


----------



## Ray (Feb 16, 2005)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Whether its a secular Objective Truth or a sacred Divine Reality, the finite ego-self will find something to bind itself to. The actual content of the bound is irrelevant, since the result is pretty much the same.


I just took down the plaque that said: 

Think
- Thomas Watson

And put up a piece of paper with what you said on it. I'm not sure I understand it, but it makes me think.


----------



## heretic888 (Feb 16, 2005)

It's kind of a Buddhist thing.  :ultracool


----------

