Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ' (page 13)

cofty

Another interesting thread derailed by the worst kind of irrational preaching.

You know what Cofty? I didn't go off-topic. Adamah, you, and DJS did in regard to me... when I simply commented on the OP... looking for evidence to discuss; then giving my opinion when that evidence was absent. You guys took this conversation elsewhere, as you often do... and right on par, you blame me instead.

Peace,

tammy

cofty

Have you examined the evidence Tammy?

The points being made about the origins of myths about Jesus and the gospels are very intersting. There is a lot to consider. I am skeptical about the idea but I want to know more so I have asked a few questions and watched the videos. I would enjoy some more discussion but instead we have you shouting "Look at me, Jesus talks to me, I don't care about the evidence I see Jesus....".

slimboyfat

Tammy, did you know Shelby? You remind me a bit of her. Where did she go?

tec

SBF, yes. I helped build this forum with her... xjwsforchrist.forumatic.com

Cofty, re-read my original post (original 2 posts) on this thread and you will have your answer.

Peace,

tammy

adamah

TEC said-

You know what Cofty? I didn't go off-topic. Adamah, you, and DJS did in regard to me... when I simply commented on the OP... looking for evidence to discuss; then giving my opinion when that evidence was absent. You guys took this conversation elsewhere, as you often do... and right on par, you blame me instead.

Whoa, nelly: don't drag me into this. I simply pointed out you apparently didn't read the OP closely enough, since the press release clearly indicated some new evidence that would be released on the 19th and you seemed to think you'd be able to find the "new evidence" now.

Regardless, even if someone presented some "smoking gun" archaeological evidence that supported the thesis that Christianity sprung up from some disinformation campaign by the Flavius family, it's not like people would skip church this Sunday: there's already plenty of evidence available to support the idea that the Bible, OT AND NT, is merely the work of clever men, and additional evidence is icing on the cake. Even at this point, God Himself announcing He doesn't exist wouldn't make some people disbelieve.

The concept of believing things ONLY on the basis of faith (no evidence) makes people pretty much immune to reason, as if their brains are coated with no-stick Teflon and they're only going to believe what they WANT to believe (or if a JW, what the GB TELLS you to believe). That's the corrupting influence of religion (the "fruits" of Christianity) for you.

Adam

raymond frantz

tec

You did more than that Adamah. But yes, I did assume that there would be something on what the man was talking about, and so looked for that to discuss. Then when I saw that it was not released yet (as you pointed out)... what more is there to say on this particular topic until he does release his evidence, so that IT can be discussed. I even said that in my second post.

And beleivers (some, not all) are not the only ones who ignore evidence in order to believe what they want to hear. Atheists (some, not all) do the same thing. (Or else zeitgeist and copy-cat theorists, etc, would not have its own brand of evangelicals and followings out there... and this hypothesis would not be so exciting for them)

Has nothing to do with faith (not your definition of faith, but actual faith).

Peace,

tammy

friendaroonie

Adam, I might be speaking on a plane that is higher than what you were expecting from me for whatever reason.

My understsnding of language and semantics comes from my college degree in language and literacy which includes socio linguistics and semantics. The nature of language and meaning are such that they eere never supposed to replace reality as a multidimensoonal experience. Language is first an audial exprrience, a grunt, a howl, a clicking ofthe tongue in reaction to an event or an object. Also language became a means of recounting events and story telling. And eventually, it came to be written down in codes and visual signs and representations. I know you probably know all this but im jusr trying to fill you in on where im coming from.

Language is a linear experience and chromological. One word comes after the other. Realityy, at leasr MY reality is going and coming in evrry dirrction all at once. There are sounds, sights, feelings, impressions, smells, memories of the pasr relating to and pulling the present in different ways and all those things go into and affect how one tells the story. Also added to these factors are beliefs, preconceived notions, prejudice, bias, ignorance or knowledge, the limitations of language... endless influential factors. Then there is the metsphysical-the reality in its pure form before a conscious being regidters its ecistence and has time to label it with a grunt and a symbol. As a buddhist once said, by the time you can put something into words you,ve ready missed the point. The purpose of many meditation rituals is to acheive the state of conciousneds where you experience reality , being , on a level or at the point where lsnguage and even thought itself has not yet been applied to the thing, the reality. Truly living in the now. It has been said that since "then" happened, "now" isn't. And you can only affirm this ttruth if you have experienced reality and being on this level, and I have.

So consdering the former, ee walk away with a situstion like the following:

1. Reality is multidirectional, dynamic and vivid in a way that language cannot compete with

2- language is linear, too slow snd in every way insufficient to keep up with and truly capture reality

3- language comes from a single perspective, that of the story teller whereas reality may be viewed from an infinite number of angles , each one yielding a slightly different story or rrport on an event or object

4- there is bias in every story ever told no matter how hard we try.

5- the fact that we are not god all knowing and uall seeing means we cant even verify the perspective of another person cuz it will still just be our perspective on their perspective,right?

6- with all these drawbacks even to an imaginary perfect language, our own perfection assures that every story ever told is rife with error snd we cant even provide what the scientific method requires and that is a control.

7- therefore all language is to a certain unverifiable degree fiction

8- even video and audio recordings do not settle what is the whole truth and what is a lie. Your example of 9/11 wss perfect to illustrate my point because we have nothing close to a voncensus on what acyually happened thst day. There might be some details that can be established and some conclusions drawn bbut the interpretation of those events are all over the map.

9- at the end of the day, the best ee can do inwriting history, yhe definition of history being written accounts of realiyy or oyherwisee told accounts of events.

10- the more different ways of telling a story (words, writing, interpretive dance, pictures, all forms of art, video and audio recordings,, fragrance ays, music, sculpture...) the closer ee can come to knkwing the whole picture of what happened. Relying judt on words is very limited and fslls short.

If you are familiar with post modernist thought there is shades of its philosophy in what I am ssying.

So, do you still think it is absurd to say there is no such yhing as a hidyorical fsct. True there might be some hyperbole in this phrase (obviously, right?) But I would tend to think it is just as absurd to sssume that a history text book is capable of telling the whole story.

tec

Frantz, lol... my husband was watching an alien show a month or so ago... and while I had seen the pics of that guy around the forum, I saw the actual guy in the show... and he sounded just like he looks, with the hand motions and all. It was funny to see the man from the pic ; )

Peace,

tammy

Ancient Confession Found: 'We Invented Jesus Christ'

Share this