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:
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.
