I'm not saying christanity, as a pagan religion, did not exist. I am saying that the so called holy books are a fabrication after the fact. It would be akin to me starting a new and improved religion with a steady flow of followers. Eventually, it takes off, but I'm no more holier than the shitty religion next to me.
smellsgood: What would motivate a number of people, apparently from the Jewish faith, to write up a fictional character and be devoted to that character with no benefit finanacially socially, or any other way to themselves? Was there no Peter? Was there no Paul? Is any of the NT at all based on any person who did exist? Historically, how did Jewish people regard paganism? Perhaps you can refer to the Hellenstic Jew Philo that was mentioned in your article, he wrote about the Jews in that time period in his encounters with Emporer Caligula.
FORGED (!?!?) ORIGINS of the NEW TESTAMENT (!?!?)
by Terry 91 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
smellsgood
-
Narkissos
please do not confuse what I am with the story in your mind
That cuts both ways, James. When you assume that people who take issue with Bushby-like fantasies are 'hurrying' to 'protect the Bible,' this is nothing but the story in your mind.
Six, I must have written a lot of nonsense since I've been here, but I don't think "nothing is real" is part of it. At least I hope so.
-
JamesThomas
Touche.
-
Terry
Now, as a matter of fact, I enjoy the show too. Instead of researching and applying your own critical thinking to what you just skimmed through (sorry, "one of the most lucidly written, seriously annotated articles [you]'ve yet read") you simply throw it into the cyberspace and see what happens: within a few hours an international network of a half-dozen brains gather like flies and they can produce amazing things. Especially changing the topic (to whether Jesus existed, whether the NT is history, whether the Bible God is good or bad, etc.) and then misrepresenting those who care refute the said article as Christian/Bible/theist apologists.
"Democratic thought" you say. But it becomes strangely reminiscent of the fascist theories of propaganda when we hear the most unexpected voices candidly saying, in effect: "The Bible is bad, so whatever is said against it is good."
That's the essence of cyber-"democratic thought" of course. We don't like JWs so we'll welcome all charges against them, even though they may be mutually contradictory. You disagree, you're a JW-apologist. Those who don't like the US administration will welcome any theory against it. The inflation of scandal leaves the opinion currency worthless. The next real big issue will be undistinguishable from the last junk theory for a growing number of citizens. Ironically this would make a great conspiracy scenario.0
And yet, with nifty precision you've laid it all out succintly!
In spite of all the "noise" you've honed in and performed the autopsy most admirably with not a spot of blood on your jacket.
I'm really not certain what your idea of an "ideal" internet would be. If everybody thought exactly as you? Would that be it? Certainly you'd never say (or think) such a thing. But, if you parse your criticism it kind of starts to shape up that way.
-
Hellrider
Sorry for barging in on the discussion, I would just like to say something about "democratic thought"...seriously: In certain (not all) academic matters, there is no such thing. When it comes to history, and historical research, it`s not simply ok for "anyone" to come up with "anything", because history is something that has actually happened, that is, there is an actual empirical basis (and past...) to take into consideration. If someone claims something that can be proved to be historically false, or even extremely unlikely, then it`s not ok to simply say "well, he`s entitled to his opinion". By doing so, not only will you support a line of thought that is completely absurd (although it may suit you in this particular matter), but by justifying this approach and this line of though, you will also have to accept that others take the same approach! (For example, in this perspective, you would have no right to criticise the Jehovahs Witnesses for their ridicolous 607-theory).
There is nothing, nor should it be, anything "democratic" about knowledge.
-
hillary_step
Terry,
I'm really not certain what your idea of an "ideal" internet would be.
Now that is an interesting question. I have been pondering such matters recently.
A recurring theme in my life is one of getting entangled in huge issues that demand an intense emotional attention from me but which allow no outlet for a person to deal with such issues internally. The Internet has made these horrible issues all so easy for us to access, but oh so difficult to deal with. What do I mean?
An example. The appalling massacres and mutilations of woman and children in the Congo has been an issue that has led to an intense emotional anger within me the past few years, but what can I do about it? Hardly a thing, if anything. One has to learn to live with a growing despondency and almost inert frustration on a daily basis as issue upon issue, previously shielded from us intellectually by distance, ignorance, and history is now visited upon us with dismal regularity.
There is so little that we can do to make any difference, and all we do is pass on such information in the hope that somehow, someone will change matters, which as we know are ordained at the hands of cynical politicians and the often black heart of social evolution.
The ideal Internet? One where we are not in the position where we are all 'informed up' with nowhere to go.....Well, you did ask!
HS
-
patio34
Soon after exiting the JWs and reading up on evolution, which was the first reason for leaving, I read several books from the library, etc. that bore out the gist of the article. One was "The Golden Bough," a classic and many others. Some of the early church leaders even went so far as to claim that the devil inspired Mithraism in order to mislead the xtians from believing! Because only the devil could have the foreknowledge to make Mithra have these events before Jesus was born. Actually these key events (savior, resurection, etc.) were present in many religions that predated xtianity. It seemed to me to be well-documented.
-
bernadette
Terry
This is what is at the core of Christian angst, in my opinion. The smartest minds KNOW FULL WELL it is a myth--but, they NEED THE COMFORT so badly they damage their core integrity by ignoring facts.
Do you agree with the definition of the word myth below. Imo the interpretation of the scientific facts of today may be/will be the myths of tomorrow.
http://library.thinkquest.org/J002356F/myth.htm
A myth is a story with a purpose. It tries to explain the way the world is. Myths also try to explain the relationship between gods and humans. Even though the events in a myth are usually impossible, they try to send a message that has an important social or religious meaning.
People have always tried to figure out common questions like who made the universe or questions like what causes a storm. Religion, gods, and myths were created when people tried to make sense out of these questions. For early people myths were like science because they explain how things work. They also explained other questions that are now answered through modern science.
-
Narkissos
I'm really not certain what your idea of an "ideal" internet would be. If everybody thought exactly as you? Would that be it? Certainly you'd never say (or think) such a thing. But, if you parse your criticism it kind of starts to shape up that way.
In cauda venenum...
Well, I'm not talking about "ideals" or what "should" or "shouldn't" be done. Just enjoying, in a bittersweet way, the play I am necessarily acting in as you are and everybody else is. Should anyone think "exactly as me" I would immediately think otherwise... Like everybody else "I" need an empty case to stand on, different from yet related to every other.
The form and contents of communication are not as independent as we often think. Technology and mind develop simultaneously, in a mutual cause-effect relationship. It takes a certain social structure for new communication techniques (e.g. symbols, writing, alphabet, printing, recording, telephone, radio, television, internet) to appear and every new technique, in turn, modifies the distribution and contents of "information," hence the social structure. Both the "scientific method" and "mythmaking" have played their antagonistic roles to get us where we are, and their respective positions and balance of forces keep on changing. Lately the likes of Bushby and Dan Brown have a more important (or, more visible) part in the show than classical scholarly types. I wonder about the mental structures it will produce for the next generations, that's all. Meanwhile I taste the daily irony of people "waking up" from "old myths" to "new truths"...
-
Terry
Many of the writings of the New Testament are already refered to in the second century eg in the writings of the (so called) early fathers therefore it is ridiculous to claim that the whole of the NT was contrived in the fourth century.
If I recall well there are also gospel fragments written in the second century, mainly the second part of it, still in existence.
Well, what are our choices anyway?
Judaism was a work in progress for thousands of years. There were factions, sects, revolutionaries, separatists, etc.
Christianity wasn't born as a "thing". It was a transition in thinking and behavior which had gestation in a time and place.
Writings ABOUT this and that were not idle musings. The majority of religious writings were ARGUMENTS against this and that in the form of APOLOGIA.
So, Christianity was, you might say, an ongoing argument.
When factions, groups and power groups desire to win an argument what happens? PRESSURE.
The most significant pressure points were written about, described and mythologized.
All that remains are FRAGMENTS of ideology, argument, apology, history/historicity and fraudulent misrepresentations right next to careful analysis.
But, which is which?
Honest and brilliant men have given us a fair glimpse and it isn't the PURE religion we'd all like to think it was.
The question becomes whether there is any "there" there at all on which to base supernatural claims.
Without the SUPERNATURAL there is no point wasting any time on God or salvation whatsoever.