To learn the reasons why the arguements in defence of Bible inerrancy are in fact flawed and often deceptive go to the Skeptic Review site and the Journal Bibical Critism. Both are free to read. The twisted logic and disinformation at the tektonics site truly is a disservice to the public. Hooby I can only encourage you to read at thesites I listed above and hope that at least you will not continue to be blind as to how they have distorted the facts and the arguements of their oponents. This is the first time in days that I can even log on at home to this forum. I would give money to have the old program back.
Part 2 The Greatest Story Ever Sold
by hooberus 30 Replies latest watchtower bible
-
-
peacefulpete
tes
-
hooberus
To learn the reasons why the arguements in defence of Bible inerrancy are in fact flawed and often deceptive go to the Skeptic Review site and the Journal Bibical Critism. Both are free to read. The twisted logic and disinformation at the tektonics site truly is a disservice to the public. Hooby I can only encourage you to read at thesites I listed above and hope that at least you will not continue to be blind as to how they have distorted the facts and the arguements of their oponents. This is the first time in days that I can even log on at home to this forum. I would give money to have the old program back.
So far on this issue (ie. myth origins of christianity) the only "disinformation" that I have yet found is that of the myth sites. I have already listed detailed specific examples here. I may even list some more general ways these sources use distortion.
-
William Penwell
Why don't we talk about how the Bible has been edited and reedited over the last thousand years to justify theological points of view? Also, when there was thousands of books written and in circulation, why were only certain books included into the finale canon? It again was only to support the Orthodox Catholic churches ideologies at the time. How can anyone in this 21 century still follow an old book full of myths and legends?
Will
-
peacefulpete
Hooberus...you must check your sources as well if you decide to charactorize a field of study as dishonest. Does the site represent the best source of information about the current scholarly research or is it the well meaning but oversimplified interprtation of this research? There are hundreds of site about this topic and only a few are posted by the scholars themselves. It is true of course that some of the statements made at any of these sites are loosly defined and therefore easy to debate. For instance the rucifiction thing you brought up earlier. It was stated by your christian web site that it is undeniable that the cross predates christianity by hundreds of years. It was also admitted that First/second century Pagans were the first to use a crucified image of their gods, before the christians followed suit in the 4th-5th century. It has also been pinted out that in prechristian times a least occasionally a human form was placed upon a solar wheeel/cross to represent the life cycle of the sun. It was also shown by Archyra that at least some experts have dated christlike crucifixions as BC. The Tammuz/Innana myth has a very undeniable prechristian crucifixtion of the God/goddess. As your site also admitted,the Dionysus myth has him dying at the base of a tree so his worshippers depicted his image as a human figure standing attatched to a tree. For anyone to deny that Krishna and Buddha are shown in artwork (post christian) as crucified is very strange as it is shown all over the internet. The comments by Price about Archyra's book reflect a very conservative definition of crucifixion and disgust about her mixing fact and fiction (aliens and masons crap). I have asked him what he said in it's entirety and he did not remeber making the review but will get back to me. Some of the debate surrounds the definition of crucifixion. Some ,usually christian apologists, define it narrowly as death by hanging upon a Romanesque cross. Others are more liberal defining it as depiction of the god with arms outstretched or hung upon pole or death associated with a tree. It is good to reflect upon the way that the refutation you provided was written. He ommitted details that supported his opponents position and ignored her explanation about the Gospel pun in her book insisting he knew what she was thinking better than her. The Josephus thing is incrediblyshaky footing for establishing historical Jesus. As admitted in your post nearly noone accepts the TJ passage as it is written. It is however misleading to suggest that a change of one word was all that suspect. If you searched online for that post you likely found numerous textural, grammatical, theological and historical arguements that cast both passages into great doubt. Those that have publicly said that there is no known historical document that establihes a historical Jesus of Nazareth are not "ignoring" these passages, they just know the issues that plague them. The name Jesus (Yawah saves) was in fact very common, in fact it seems it was little more than a title that numerous religios and resistance leaders assumed. It is in fact probable that the passage about James was referring to a James and Jesus in an earlier chapter that stirred division in the priesthood and a late christian editor possible Tertullian adjusted slightly to make it apply to his Jesus. But thats another topic. Other reviews at the tektonics site like that of Sponge's book make much of what are likely typographical errors or simple mistakes. When Sponge corrected the error in his next printing they accused him of "covering his tracks". Come on. Reviews must focus on the points developed and the theme developed. They did nothing other than dismiss his work off handedly by attacking his scholarly ability. If you have not spent a few days reading the discussions at the two sites I posted earlier please do so. Price gives equal space and time and posts the whole dicussion. It may be revealing to you. If not then there is nothing furthur I can add. It is a matter of faith like the 6000 year old earth.
-
Brummie
Pete, I read your response to me the other day and forgot to say thanks, so thanks for the time and effort you put into it, appreciated!
Brummie
-
hooberus
Hooberus...you must check your sources as well if you decide to charactorize a field of study as dishonest. Does the site represent the best source of information about the current scholarly research or is it the well meaning but oversimplified interprtation of this research? There are hundreds of site about this topic and only a few are posted by the scholars themselves.
I never characterized the whole myth origins "field of study" as being dishonest. My comments referred to the internet sites that I have been on on this subject (some of which were recommended by other posters here, and some of which I have found through searches). here is my comment again: "So far on this issue (ie. myth origins of christianity) the only "disinformation" that I have yet found is that of the myth sites. I have already listed detailed specific examples here. I may even list some more general ways these sources use distortion." If you have a "jesusneverexisted" or "myth" site that you feel is honest, documented, and accurate, than you may wish to provide a link. But the ones that I have been referred to or found are poorly documented and at times full of disinformation. Crucifixion Issues
peaceful pete said: It is true of course that some of the statements made at any of these sites are loosly defined and therefore easy to debate. For instance the rucifiction thing you brought up earlier. It was stated by your christian web site that it is undeniable that the cross predates christianity by hundreds of years. It was also admitted that First/second century Pagans were the first to use a crucified image of their gods, before the christians followed suit in the 4th-5th century.
Yes, I believe that the cross predates christianity, but that is not the issue.
My christian web site did not admit "that First/second century Pagans were the first to use a crucified image of their gods, before the christians followed suit in the 4th-5th century" This was the false claim of the "pagan" site.
My site stated that the Christians pictured Jesus as being crucified as early as the second century, which was before the pagan carving was made. here is the quote again:
http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_04_02_04_DDD.html
"Now let us add in those unique items posited by Freke and Gandy. We should first note the most obvious, for it graces the cover of their work: Based on "a small picture tucked away in the appendices of an old academic book" (though what the cite is for this book, we are not told), they feature a drawing of "a third-century CE amulet" with a depiction of a crucified figure which names "Orpheus Bacchus" as the figure, another name for D. According to Freke and Gandy, this shows that "To the initiated, these were both names for essentially the same figure." [12-13] To which we reply: That's the initiated's problem. The uncritical syncretism of a single person (the maker/wearer of the amulet) provides no evidence for the copycat thesis; least of all when the evidence dates several hundred years after the time of Christ (as does indeed all their evidence of D being crucified [52]). They also state incorrectly that there are no representations of the crucified Jesus before the fifth century; as Raymond Brown noted in Death of the Messiah, there are about a half-dozen depictions of the crucified Jesus dated between the second and fifth century, and even if this were not so, the literary depiction in the Gospels amounts to the same thing. Freke and Gandy chose rather a poor examplar to feature on their cover."
It has also been pinted out that in prechristian times a least occasionally a human form was placed upon a solar wheeel/cross to represent the life cycle of the sun. It was also shown by Archyra that at least some experts have dated christlike crucifixions as BC.
Can you please provide a link or other information that christlike crucifixions of religious figures occurred BC.The Tammuz/Innana myth has a very undeniable prechristian crucifixtion of the God/goddess.
What is the "crucifixion" account of Tammuz? Wasn't he killed by a boar? If you have a chirstlike "crucifixion" account of Tammuz please prove a pimary evidence source and date.
As your site also admitted,the Dionysus myth has him dying at the base of a tree so his worshippers depicted his image as a human figure standing attatched to a tree. For anyone to deny that Krishna and Buddha are shown in artwork (post christian) as crucified is very strange as it is shown all over the internet.
Where does my site admit "that the Dionysus myth has him dying at the base of a tree"?
Claims of Krisha being crucified are "all over the internet" (on the "myth" sites that is). Some of the sites that I have been on don't even admit that this is from post-christain sources, leading to the misleading conclusion that Christains borrowed the crucifixion from Krishna when actually it went the other way according to the following from the atheistic "infidels" site:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1994/3/3hare94.html
"In fairness, however, one purported similarity needs to be discredited. Skeptics sometimes cite Kersey Graves in Sixteen Crucified Saviors or Godfrey Higgin's Anacalypsis (which Graves drew from) in asserting that Krishna was a crucified deity. No such event occurred in the Gita or in any recognized Hindu scripture. Given the pronounced syncretic tendency of Hinduism, it is safe to assume that any odd tales of Krishna's being crucified arose only after the existence of Christian proselytism, in imitation of the Christian narrative. It is neither authentic to Hinduism nor is Hinduism the source of that portion of the Christian narrative. The same may be said for most of the purported nativity stories. In my opinion, both Higgins and Graves are highly unreliable sources and should be ignored."
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/1/1hindu96.html
"One final note: I'd like to compliment Van Eck on his criticism of the assertions made by some authors about the similarities between Krishna and Jesus. For example, some have said Krishna was "crucified," but the Upanishads say he "disappeared" and is waiting for us in a spiritual abode that appears as boring as heaven. I'd like to add my criticism to those writers who perpetuate the myth that Krishna was born on December 25th. This is not Krishna's birthday according to scripture, nor is it when Hindus celebrate Krishna's "appearance." This is the birthday that Christians stole from the Persian sun god, Mythra, and adopted for Jesus! It seems that some authors, in their attempt to show a common origin for religious myths, tenaciously adopt misinformation to make their case. We must remember to be critical and always check our sources."
I hope to post some more comments responding to your previous post.
-
hooberus
Josephus issues
The Josephus thing is incrediblyshaky footing for establishing historical Jesus. As admitted in your post nearly noone accepts the TJ passage as it is written.
My post never said that nearly no one accepts the TJ passage as it is written. I said that "some scholars" accept it completely.
Anyway the main issue is of course not the genuineness of all the words in the Testamonium passage, but did Josephus mention Jesus Christ as though he was a historical person. Even prominent atheists accept that he did.
"They say that ‘no serious scholar’ believes Josephus wrote any of the Testamonium. I take it this is a joke or else they are claiming J. D. Crossan, R. T. France, Raymond Brown, John P. Meier, Michael Grant, Robin Lane Fox etc etc are not serious scholars. We might not agree with all of these guys (I mean, the last two are atheists) but we certainly consider them serious scholars." previous cited review of "Jesus Mysteries"
"I think there is ample evidence to conclude there was a historical Jesus. To my mind, the New Testament alone provides sufficient evidence for the historicity of Jesus, but the writings of Josephus also provide two independent, authentic references to Jesus." Jeff Lowder (of the athesistic infidels site)http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#83It is however misleading to suggest that a change of one word was all that suspect. If you searched online for that post you likely found numerous textural, grammatical, theological and historical arguements that cast both passages into great doubt.
Searching online does provide a wealth of resources on both passages such as the following discussion of both passages.
http://www.geocities.com/metacrock2000/Jesus_pages/HistJesus3.htm
"Even the major atheist amature scholar of the secular web, Jeff Lowder, agrees that the passage is genuine, at least in its core."In conclusion, I think McDowell is right to appeal to the Testimonium as independent confirmation of the historicity of Jesus. " He quotes Louis Feldman as saying that the authenticity of the James passage in Jospehus "has been almost universally acknowledged."(Louis H. Feldman, "Josephus" Anchor Bible Dictionary, Vol. 3, pp. 990-1.)"
Those that have publicly said that there is no known historical document that establihes a historical Jesus of Nazareth are not "ignoring" these passages, they just know the issues that plague them.
While some of the sites may discuss both Josephus passages, others such as the jesus neverexisted.com site does indeed "ignore" the James passage. It discusses these other Jesus' yet does not mention the James passage even though it occurrs in the same chapter of Josephus as Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. here is the qoute:
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm
"Josephus, the first century Jewish historian mentions no fewer than nineteen different Yeshuas/Jesii, about half of them contemporaries of the supposed Christ! In his Antiquities, of the twenty -eight high priests who held office from the reign of Herod the Great to the fall of the Temple, no fewer than four bore the name Jesus: Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Even Saint Paul makes reference to a rival magician, preaching ‘another Jesus’ (2 Corinthians 11,4). The surfeit of early Jesuses includes:"
-
Francois
Maybe we ought to set up a debate between this one and Ramtha?
Did you know that Ramtha now takes credit cards if you'd care to donate to her "cause"? And what's her "cause"? I think it's "cause" she wants the money.
francois
-
peacefulpete
I'm not sure what to say Hooby. Your ready to fight but we seem to be agreeing. The matter of the crucifixion is a hotly debated one. As the infidels site honestly and frankly pointed out the enthusiasm about Krishna parallels has lead some to accept everything that they see on the internet or read. If you reread my comments I think you will see this is how I too feel. As to the matter of dating certain icons from the early centuries CE the opinion of some scholars identify these as Jesus others as Dionysus/Osiris figures. The late date (5th century)given to Christianity's first definative Jesus icons is solid scholarship. They are avoiding the muddy identification of some depictions as being Jesus when the iconography is in debate. I am sure I read at the site you posted a comment about the artwork of Dionysus crucifixion indeed did predate Christian's use of the icon but sorry I cannot produce the sentence as I do not recall exactly where at the site. As to the the tree element(symbolizing life) included in a number of these mythical deaths.(dying under a tree, stuck to a tree with arrows, bleeding to death under a tree,hung in tree etc.) The Tammuz/Innana story has recently become better understood. Formerly the crucifixion/resurrection was ascribed to Tammuz (whose standard was the cross)due to partial texts and now it appears it actually was his lover godess Innana. This can be learned at the infidels site as well. The other solar wheel/cross icons can also be studied there. I can not provide links with my webtv but it seems you already have found the site. The Josephus thing is just as you said a hotly debated matter. To learn the reasons for not accepting them as written or not accepting them as Joseph's, read the scholars that disagree with the fundementalists who have practically cannonized the passages. (please do not respond by posting links that seem to disagree with this admitted charactorization) I maybe wrong but it sees to me that the earliest copies we have of Joe's work is 9th/10th century. I know some late christian writers (4th?)referred to it or at least some interpret the wording as referring to Joe's work but none of the earliest writers who were under pressure to defend Christianity from the charge that it was a rip off of Pagan mystery cults ever used him as a reference. This may be very powerful evidence agaist it's authnticity. But I will not leap into a debate that is currently raging at other sites by people more qualified than me to speak. (the "jesus myteries" discussion at Yahoo for instance) As to the post christian date for Krishna crucifixion icons, I said this to you in my post. I am not certain about the date for those pointed to in Arkaya's rebuttal but is is possible that some prehristian Krisha examples exist. I don't really care. The Roman practice of crucifixion no doubt influenced the iconography and so the image may have carried more/new symbolism after the practice was adopted by the Romans. I wonder why you have no interest in the antiquity of the cross as a religious symbol. Is this not the very issue you are questioning? Or is it your belief that a cross is less symbolic of Christianity than a crucifix? (rhetorical)
It is very important to understand that religion and philosophies evolve when transmitted and adapted. The cross/crucifixtion is merely one of dozens of theological and narrative similarities with the religions existing before christianity. These myths plus mix of enlightened Greek philosophies and possible allusions to a historical freedom fighter/philosopher at it's core, explain the origins of Christianity quite easily without requiring inspiration and supernatural happenings. The expression "missing the forest for the trees" may apply here if a person became obsessed with details and dismiss the larger meaning and symbolism of cults and myths. The whole debate about whether a myth includes a "true" "resurection" rather than a "resucitaion from the dead" or "revivication" or "ascension" is a innane waste of time. In fact the site makes much about this because of the author's insistance upon a "bodily" resurection rather than a spirit resurrection in the case of Jesus. Of course Christian's themselves have argued about this for hundreds of years(JWs say no), so it appears their arguement is largely founded upon a theological interpretation. (please don't post links to defend any particular doctrine) And yes I know even some cautious skeptics have drawn some distictions but these are minor theological developements resulting from the amalgum of the pagan mythos with the Judaic resurrection expectations of the 1rst and 2nd ceturies. Keep reading at the infidels site and Price's Skeptical review if in fact you are questioning your faith. It appears far more likely however that the topic is inseparable in your mind with ultimate purpose and meaning to life and therefore not a matter that can be reviewed dispassionately. For this I do not fault you.