Open Thread for Todd B. and friends

by Bilbo

This is for all you guys who want to argue about the historicity of the resurrection of Jesus, and related stuff.

This entry was posted on Tuesday, March 31st, 2009 at 4:50 pm and is filed under Religion. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site. The trackback link is: http://telicthoughts.com/open-thread-for-todd-b-and-friends/trackback/

198 Responses to “Open Thread for Todd B. and friends”

Thought Provoker Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 5:45 pm
Thank You Bilbo. I am copying my comment from the other Open Thread…

Here is a link to something I found to be thought provoking.

The author runs down a significant list of religions that pre-date Christianity with similar themes. Some excerpts…

‘Among the scores of religious sects that offered eternal hope or present ecstasy to the diverse peoples of the Roman Empire in the middle of the first century, Christianity was not conspicuous. An impartial observer, asked which of these cults might someday become the official religion of the Empire, even a world religion, would perhaps have chosen Mithraism. He certainly would not have named the inconspicuous followers of a crucified Jew.’7
…
A medieval Persian text published by Franz Cumont compares the words of Christ with the sayings of Zarathustra, the Zoroastrian prophet who lived about a thousand years before Christ. First Zarathustra:

‘He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation.’12

The equivalent in the Christian tradition is:
‘This [bread] is my body which is given for you …. This cup is the new testament in my blood, which is shed for you.’13
…
Ascent to Heaven
After his last meal, Mithras ascended to heaven in a chariot. Sometimes he is seen running behind the sun god’s horse-drawn chariot. The sun, Sol, is shown with a halo round his head. The scene is eerily familiar, and no wonder. Early Christian artists used the Mithraic carvings as a model to represent the soul’s ascent to heaven, along the lines of Elijah’s ascent in a chariot of fire. Sol’s resemblance to Jesus is quite arresting too: golden hair, an elevated but sad expression and a halo.

——————

We will now proceed to an examination of another pagan mystery religion which also predates Christianity, and which was current in the Roman Empire before the time of Christ. The cults of Isis, Osiris and Horus came from Egypt. They feature, in slightly jumbled order, many of the elements with which we are familiar from Christianity. Horus, the saviour of mankind, was born miraculously of Isis (his ‘father’ Osiris being dead at the time of his conception). A central feature of the cult was the depiction of the goddess Isis holding the baby Horus – which certainly formed the model for later portraits of the Virgin Mary holding the baby Jesus. Those who wished to mythologize Jesus were swift to pick up the resemblances:
13
‘In the Egyptian temple would be found a crib or manger, with a figure of the infant Horus lying in it and a statue of his mother nearby, for the ancient Egyptians, centuries before the gospel Jesus, had set aside December 25th as the birthday of their gods.’
15
Osiris, the third god of this holy trinity, was murdered and later resurrected – after which he did not ascend, but descended to become god of the Underworld.

——————

Tammuz, the Syrian sun god dating to a thousand years BC was also a saviour who rose from the dead. In around 400 BC Ctesias records in his Persika a poem concerning Tammuz which sounds uncannily like a Christian hymn:

‘Trust, ye saints, your lord restored,
Trust ye in your risen lord;
For the pains which Tammuz endured
Our salvation have procured’

Comment by Thought Provoker — March 31, 2009 @ 5:45 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Judaism is a humanistic religion. The first several verses in Genesis bear this out: the sun, moon, and stars were effects, placed there by God (who made man in his image) for the convenience of humanity, to tell the seasons and count the years. This is a stark departure from the religions of the surrounding peoples (Cannanites, Greeks, Egyptians, Sumerians, Thracians, etc), who modeled their major gods after celestial objects.

As far as I know, there was no precedent in Israel for a ressurection prior to Jesus. If there is an Israeli ressurection story that preceded Christ's ressurection, I'm interested in the source for this. In other words, for Israel, the ressurection of Jesus was un unprecedented event.

In regard to the neighboring religions, where Greek aristocrats, for example, would claim lineage with Zeus (the planet Jupitor actually), or some other god, by way of the rape of an ancestor by a god/goddess trasmuted temporarily to human form, there does not exist a counterpart in Israel. The closest thing to it is another passage in Genesis, about the sons of God going in unto the daughters of men, but a reading of 1 Enoch (in the Old Testament Psuedepigrapha) expands on this, and reveals the sons of God to be recalcitrant, less powerful semi-deities, or angels, not humans.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 31, 2009 @ 5:58 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 6:16 pm
In my previous comment:

The closest thing to it is another passage in Genesis, about the sons of God going in unto the daughters of men, but a reading of 1 Enoch (in the Old Testament Psuedepigrapha) expands on this, and reveals the sons of God to be recalcitrant, less powerful semi-deities, or angels, not humans.

To complete the point, there is no mention of the angels undergoing a transmutation to a temporary human-like state, that can compare to the surrounding belief systems, where temporary transmutation of celestial objects to conduct intercourse could account for the start of a person's lineage.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 31, 2009 @ 6:16 pm

Pez Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 8:12 pm
Thought provoking perhaps, which should provoke one easily to its debunking.

re:Zoroastrianism
http://tektonics.org/copycat/z...

And the Eucharist:

13. His religion had a eucharist or "Lord's Supper," at which Mithra said, "He who shall not eat of my body nor drink of my blood so that he may be one with me and I with him, shall not be saved."

The closest thing the Mithraic religion has to Jesus’ last supper is the celebration of a meal Mithra had with the sun god after slaying the bull. But nowhere is this called a ‘eucharist’ or ‘Lord’s Supper’, and since it happened AFTER Mithra’s ‘sacrifice’ and not before (as Jesus’ was), it’s hardly a comparison. As for the quote, the earliest quote along these lines in Mithraic texts dates to post-Christian times and, besides that, wasn’t said by Mithra, but by Zarathustra.

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copy...

http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copy...

Comment by Pez — March 31, 2009 @ 8:12 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 8:25 pm
Bilbo, thank you for opening this thread.

On several occasions I have asked the following question, so far no has been willing to google for an answer. The question is: how many popular religions contemporary to Jesus had a leader who was: the son of god and a human woman, died, was buried in a rock tomb, rose from the dead, after three days, and was discovered by women. We don't really need to find every possible example, but it's fairly easy to list out many known examples that fit these criteria. In response, Bradford offers:

You don't have to believe in the resurrection to know the rest of the story is historically well documented. The life of Christ, his crucifixion and burial have been written about by non-Christian first century sources in addition to the New Testament writers. Mythologies form well after alleged events and leave no eyewitnesses or historic documents in their wake.

Bradford claims the resurrection of Jesus is so well documented that we should accept it while rejecting the myriad of other identical claims. So please, share this wealth of evidence. From what I know of this evidence it is weak and mostly comes on the scene hundreds of years after the alleged events (excepting the writings the Jesus' fellow cult members, but you specified non-Christian sources). Here's your chance to prove me wrong by laying out the vast independent evidence.

Still, let's agree that there is a lot more written about Jesus that about the myriad other nearly identical mythologies. We all know that in terms of popularity Christianity clearly won out over all these other cults; we would expect that as any cult becomes larger and more popular more and more of that cult's mythology would be documented. Why else would we all know who the evil lord Xenu is? My question would be this, does this tell us anything about the truth of the event or does it only tell us about the popularity of the cult? We can now easily find secret details of the Scientology cult on the internet, will we believe they are truth in two thousand years? Without examining this plethora of evidence that Bradford ensures us is out there it's hard to tell. I suspect we can agree that we would certainly expect to find an increasing volume of references the more popular the cult is.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 31, 2009 @ 8:25 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 8:36 pm
During the Reformation, the existence of Pagan ritual in the Catholic Church was one of the central complaints of the Protestants – although it is possible to show that a fundamental similarity of doctrine with Paganism still exists in both Churches.

Around the turn of the twentieth century a school of "debunkers" seized upon the similarities between Christianity and Paganism to try and demonstrate that Jesus was mere allegory and never existed, and that Christianity was, in fact, nothing more than a pagan sect itself. Their determination to fit this quart into a pint pot gave rise to tortuous arguments – such as attempts to equate the term "Lamb of God" with the "Age of Aries", and the later Christian fish symbol with the "age of Pisces".

Comment by angryoldfatman — March 31, 2009 @ 8:36 pm

Pez Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 8:39 pm
http://www.alwaysbeready.com/i...

Comment by Pez — March 31, 2009 @ 8:39 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Hey Todd, could you use $100?

Comment by angryoldfatman — March 31, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 9:24 pm
Pez: Thought provoking perhaps, which should provoke one easily to its debunking.

I love people who try to debunk how heavily Christianity has borrowed from other pagan religions by pointing out all the differences. D'uh, of course there are differences. Lets consider an analogy, the English language borrows heavily from French, but clearly English is not French. English is a very unique and different. These differences don't prove that English didn't borrow from French, they just prove that French was not on the only source to influence English. Likewise the Jewish and Christian faiths borrowed heavily from various pagan religions but they mixed those into their own unique frameworks which of course leads to differences. The didn't borrow from just one source, instead they may have borrowed Satan from the Zoroastrians during the Babylonian Captivity, they may have borrowed resurrection myths and virgin birth myths for the Cult of Mithrias, they may have borrowed Dec 25th from Horris and Easter from the goddess Eostre. But they combined these with a unique cultural heritage so of course they end up with a unique result. No one is suggesting otherwise.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 31, 2009 @ 9:24 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 9:27 pm
angry: Hey Todd, could you use $100?

Only if it takes less than an hour of my time to earn it. Doing years of research for $100 hardly seems worth it.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 31, 2009 @ 9:27 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 9:30 pm
angry: Their determination to fit this quart into a pint pot gave rise to tortuous arguments – such as attempts to equate the term "Lamb of God" with the "Age of Aries", and the later Christian fish symbol with the "age of Pisces".

Yes, it is easy to take obvious similarities and try to stretch them to ridiculous lengths. Doing so is clearly silly. Does this tell us anything about the obvious similarities? Can it all be dismissed because some people take it too far?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 31, 2009 @ 9:30 pm

terrycvn Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 9:38 pm
In amazing 2.0 I remarked that in my experience, Christians are largely unfamiliar with the historical biblical analyses of non-Christians. What they do know are the talking points they receive from other Christians on which scholars can be trusted and which are "morons." But no first-hand knowledge.

Bradford responded with hostility and accused me of stereotyping. I responded in turn saying that, no, it is not stereotyping when I speak from experience, and in particular I was clear to say "in my experience," and in the same post, "I am only speaking from my own experience." My comment was deleted.

FMM also responded but, like Bradford, did not mention the books he has read by non-Christian (or liberal Christian) scholars that offer a perspective which would diminish or contradict his beliefs.

So I leave the door open again to Bradford and FMM. I actively seek a counterexample to the pattern which I have encountered. Tell us specifically which books by which authors you have personally read.

Comment by terrycvn — March 31, 2009 @ 9:38 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 9:39 pm
AnaxagorasRules: In regard to the neighboring religions, where Greek aristocrats, for example, would claim lineage with Zeus (the planet Jupitor actually), or some other god, by way of the rape of an ancestor by a god/goddess trasmuted temporarily to human form, there does not exist a counterpart in Israel.

You must have skipped over all those boring sections of "so and so begat such and such". Or perhaps the various attempts to prove Jesus has the right hereditary chops to be the Messiah? Claiming lineage to King David or Abraham was a popular pastime.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — March 31, 2009 @ 9:39 pm

Pez Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 10:43 pm
What I love is how the people who actually study the subject, and even those who offer $100 for research, demonstrate that the similarities that sell movies and feed hopeful skeptics arose after the spread of Christianity, not before.

Comment by Pez — March 31, 2009 @ 10:43 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Hi, Todd,

You must have skipped over all those boring sections of "so and so begat such and such". Or perhaps the various attempts to prove Jesus has the right hereditary chops to be the Messiah? Claiming lineage to King David or Abraham was a popular pastime.

Abraham and King David were not gods, nor did they claim to be. If you read the Old Testament, it becomes apparent how humanistic the Israelis were in their beliefs. Very different from the beliefs of the religions of the neighboring peoples, who believed in moon and sun gods, in gods of the wind and rivers, etc. Israelis always assigned the motive power of the natural elements as the effects of their one God. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with the begats, and I'm not sure if you are actually addressing the points that I made. Perhaps you are getting me confused with a different commenter.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 31, 2009 @ 11:30 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 11:34 pm
In fact, the only real point that I am asserting is that the ressurection of Jesus is unprecedented in the Israeli belief system. It was you (that is, Todd) that I asked for a source to show otherwise. I would be interested in reading of a source if it exists. No such story exists in Josephus, nor in "The legends of the Jews", nor in Philo, nor in the Psuedepigrapha.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 31, 2009 @ 11:34 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 11:40 pm
In fact, much more worthy of discussion, I think, is how fundamentally different the Israeli belief system was, compared to the neighboring religions. Their God was an Einsteinian-like leap to an entirely different plane.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — March 31, 2009 @ 11:40 pm

todd Says:
March 31st, 2009 at 11:55 pm
This discussion brought to mind some interesting thoughts on the Christian mythos from Tolkien and Lewis:

That September evening, Lewis had a breakthrough conversation about metaphor and myth while walking with Tolkien and Dyson. His two friends explained the Pagans myths of dying and resurrecting gods did not disprove Christianity but rather they reveal that pagan people received a glimpse of the Truth and the Reality that would become Incarnate some two thousand years ago. The ancients' imagination were the receptors of the echoes and shadows of what God left the world as to the object of all desires and aspirations.

Tolkien argued that human stories follow patterns and embody myth which originates in God and carries something of His truth, although often in a distorted form . In the Gospel accounts of Christ, argued Tolkien, the best elements of good stories are found, except that everything found there is actually true. The myth and history – factual truth – are the same stream, with no separation between the two. Several weeks later Lewis wrote his boyhood friend, Arthur Greeves, the following remarkable account of this powerful breakthrough:

"…now what Dyson and Tolkien showed me was this: that if I met the idea of sacrifice in a Pagan story I didn t mind it at all; again, that if I met the idea of a god sacrificing himself to himself… I liked it very much and was mysteriously moved by it: again, that the idea of the dying and reviving god (Balder, Adonis, Bacchus) similarly moved me provided I met it anywhere except in the Gospels. The reason was that in the Pagan stories I was prepared to feel the myth as profound and suggestive of meaning beyond my grasp even tho I could not say in cold prose what it meant. Now the story of Christ is simply a true myth: a myth working on us in the same way as the others, but with this tremendous difference that it really happened: and one must be content to accept it in the same way, remembering that it is God s myth where the others are men s myths: i. e. the Pagan stories are God expressing Himself through the minds of poets, using such images as He found there, while Christianity is God expressing Himself through what we call real things. Therefore it is true, not in the sense of being a description of God (that no finite mind can take in) but in the sense of being the way in which God chooses to (or can) appear to our faculties. The doctrines we get out of the true myth are of course less true: they are translations into our concepts and ideas of that which God has already expressed in a language more adequate, namely the incarnation, crucifixion, and resurrection. Does this amount to a belief in Christianity? At any rate I am now certain a) That this Christian story is to be approached, in a sense, as I approach the other myths. b) That is the most important and full of meaning. I am also nearly certain that it really happened."

This deep discernment overcame his last intellectual hurdle and established for Lewis the eternal verity of Christianity. He later wrote "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else." Myth and Joy, reason and imagination finally converged. This motif became embedded in Lewis' theology and his defense of the faith. In God in the Dock,Lewis wrote (under a recognizable influence of MacDonald) the following:

"Now as myth transcends thought, Incarnation transcends myth. The heart of Christianity is a myth which is also a fact. The old myth of the Dying God, without ceasing to be myth comes down from the heaven of legend and imagination to the earth of history. It happens – at a particular date, in a particular place, followed by definable historical consequences. We pass from a Balder or an Osiris, dying nobody knows when or where, to a historical Person crucified (it is all in order) under Pontius Pilate. By becoming fact it does not cease to be myth: that is the miracle…Those who do not know that this great myth became Fact when the Virgin conceived are, indeed, to be pitied. But Christians also need to be…reminded that what became Fact was a Myth, that it carries with it into the world of Fact all the properties of a myth. God is more than a god, not less; Christ is more than Balder, not less. We must not be ashamed of the mythical radiance resting in our theology."

Lewis also effectively rendered this insight in Mere Christianity as one of God's responses to Man's fallenness: "He sent the human race what I call good dreams. I mean those queer stories scattered all through heathen religions about a god who dies and comes to life again, and by his death, has somehow given new life to men."

In Miracles he also draws out these clues about the hierarchial relationship between what we find in the world and its heavenly fulfillment in his masterful case for the Incarnation in the chapter, The Grand Miracle. Even the pagan, through natural revelation and moral consciousness, can see the orderly, coherent pattern in the world that somehow points beyond itself. Here Lewis makes the connection between what has been regarded by many as merely myths drawn from nature and what he considered to be true myth embedded in the natural world and in the conscience of people in all times:

"Death and re-birth – go down to go up – it is a key principle. Through this bottleneck in Nature, this belittlement, the highroad nearly always lies… The pattern is there in Nature because it was first there in God…The total pattern…is the real Death and Re-birth: for certainly no seed ever fell from so fair a tree into so dark and cold a soil as would furnish more than a faint analogy to this huge descent and re-ascension in which God dredged the salt and oozy bottom of Creation…The Corn-king is derived (through human imagination) from the facts of Nature, and the facts of Nature from her Creator; the Death and Re-birth pattern is in her because it was first in Him. On the other hand, elements of Nature-religion are strikingly absent from the teaching of Jesus and from the Judaic preparation which lead up to it precisely because in them Nature s Original is manifesting Itself."

Comment by todd — March 31, 2009 @ 11:55 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 12:00 am
Hi, Todd,

You must have skipped over all those boring sections of "so and so begat such and such".

I assumed you were referring to biblical begats. If you were referring to different sources, in which Jesus's lineage is traced back to Abraham or King David, then I'm not sure why you addressed me with that. My time period of interest, as far as this thread is concerned, is pre-Christian.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 12:00 am

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 12:07 am
And my original point about lineages was to point out that the Israelis did not believe that they were born of gods, but of men. The begats that were traced back always led to earthly parents, even of the great Kings. This is a stark difference with respect to the Greeks (many of whom had gods for parents), and the Egyptians (whose Pharoahs were gods, in addition to the celestial gods), and the Romans, who assumed the Greeks' motif.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 12:07 am

Thought Provoker Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 12:07 am
Hi Pez,

I'm glad you could show up.

Here is a picture of Mithras' ascension after death.

I noted the apologetic argument that the centries-old Mithraism stole from the fledgling Christianity rather than the other way around. It is a weak argument at best.

From your link…

As for the quote, the earliest quote along these lines in Mithraic texts dates to post-Christian times…

Funny thing about that. While Alexander the Great destroyed the original texts, he had them translated to Greek first. It would make sense that these transcribed documents (which predated Christianity) would have been kept in the Library of Alexandia. Note that Mithraism died along with the bulk of other Pagan religions around the time St. Cyril and his mob were destroying anything that challenged Cyril's brand of Christianity.

This allows modern defenders of the faith to dismiss copies as suspect since the originals no longer exist.

Here is a picture of Horus' birth which obviously predates Christianity.

You didn't provide any "debunking" of Tammuz. I will reply if and when you comment on it.

Please note that I am not suggesting Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was purely a myth. In fact, I presume he did exist. I also presume he was crucified along with the thousands of others the Romans put to death on a cross.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 1, 2009 @ 12:07 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 1:06 am
AnaxagorasRules,

You make several mentions of the differences between Jewish faith and other faiths and how "humanistic" Jewish religion was. Great, wonderfuly, so? I'm not even attempting to counter this claim so I'm a bit confused as to why you keep bringing it up. I acknowledged that their resulting religion was a unique creation. What does this have to do with their borrowing significant mythological elements from neighboring contemporary societies? They didn't live in a protected bubble, much to the contrary they were scattered as slaves in Egypt, Babylon, and the Roman empire. During those experiences they undoubtedly exchanged cultural elements. The result was the adoption and adaptation of various mythologies combined with their unique cultural background to create a unique product. None of this uniqueness turns common mythological elements into literal truths.

You can see the evolution of Jewish theology simply by reading the old testament and you can correlate these changes to the history of the Jewish people. For example, the Maccabean Revolt was a major change in the Jewish story. Here traditional jews defeated greek-influenced jews in what was partly a civil war to decide who would be high priest. It was sort of a rural-verse-urban conflict much like today's culture war, only the two sides were brutally killing one another rather than trading barbs in chat forums. In the end tradition jewish worship won, but the the winners came out changed. They had incorporated the concept of martyrdom and the idea that death for their cause was ok because physical resurrection of the body would come with being faithful. The losing side didn't just vanish either, those who survived melted back into the resulting culture where their hellenistic influences no doubt further shaped jewish culture and continued to bring in outside greek, persian, and egyptian influences.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 1:06 am

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 1:14 am
Hi TP,
Thanks for your welcome.

I noted the apologetic argument that the centries-old Mithraism stole from the fledgling Christianity rather than the other way around. It is a weak argument at best.

That's an interesting assertion. Upon what is it based. Certainly not a pre-Christian account of any so-called parallels, I would wager?

Funny thing about that. While Alexander the Great destroyed the original texts, he had them translated to Greek first. It would make sense that these transcribed documents (which predated Christianity) would have been kept in the Library of Alexandia. Note that Mithraism died along with the bulk of other Pagan religions around the time St. Cyril and his mob were destroying anything that challenged Cyril's brand of Christianity.

You seem to be trying here, again, to make the failed argument that Christians destroyed the great library. But you had to back off this a couple of years ago when you previously tried it – since the library disappeared from history 100 years before Christ. So your argument from missing evidence, weak as it is, isn't supported by the innuendo either.

This allows modern defenders of the faith to dismiss copies as suspect since the originals no longer exist.

It's not about copies versus originals, but dating of the story itself. Extant Christian texts, for instant, nor Josephus, don't exist from their origins, but that doesn't stop us from knowing pretty well what they said and when. The purported Mithras parallels didn't show up until the Romans adopted it as a mystery religion in the second century and it doesn;t even show up, in any form, among the Romans until AD 66 – but this is not the same Mithras. And it didn't develop as a Western mystery religion until after the closing of the NT canon.

Besides not being developed early enough to have been the source for Christian themes the so-called parallels are not their; Mithras was not born of a virgin, was not born in a cave, was not a teacher, did not sacrifice himself and was not entombed to be raised three days later.
The later similarities were written about by Christian apologists as being imitations of Christianity by Mithraism.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 1:14 am

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 1:43 am
Hi, Todd,

You make several mentions of the differences between Jewish faith and other faiths and how "humanistic" Jewish religion was. Great, wonderfuly, so? I'm not even attempting to counter this claim so I'm a bit confused as to why you keep bringing it up. I acknowledged that their resulting religion was a unique creation. What does this have to do with their borrowing significant mythological elements from neighboring contemporary societies?

I keep bringing up these two differences:

1. There was no Israeli precedent for a resurrection…this was in response to your comment to Bradford regarding the resurrection stories of other religions.

2. I brought up the humanistic aspect of the Israeli faith to point out the stark difference between their God and the gods of the neighboring religions.

Now there's no doubt that Moses and the Israeli leaders after him had their hands full keeping the Israelis faithful to their one God, to not be captivated by the gods of the cannonites, which were a natural influence because of inter mingling, and even the leaders such as Solomon strayed from time to time, but the Israelis always managed to hang tough and beat back the influences, usually through wars. Yet in the neighboring peoples, they freely had an interchange of gods, allowing for a Zeus as well as a Mardak and a Baal and all the rest. There were no 'false' gods to these peoples, only stronger and weaker ones with different specialties, and ones which were favored nationally. It was common courtesy to pray to the gods of your host, if you were a visitor to a neighboring country. The Israelis, except for the strays, which were eventually brought back into the fold one way or another, would have none of that.

I didn't bring up Mithras, and I'm not an expert in his cult…I doubt anyone is since it is one of the mystery religions. But as a point of contrast, Mithra has been associated with the constellation Orion. In another point of departure, the Israeli God was never associated with a star or a planet…these were creations put in the heavens for humanity's convenience.

You can find similarities between the Israelis and the other peoples, but not in their conception of God. Their relationship with God is a unique one. As an example, consider the epic of Gilgamesh, which begins with a creation story that has the gods lamenting (paraphrasing): "The work is too hard, the trouble is too much…" and so they (the gods) create humanity to do their work for them. Contrast that with Genesis.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 1:43 am

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 1:44 am
That's a lovely depiction in your second link. To what is it apropos? Your point is that Horus was born? Can you think of no better origination for the Christian belief that Jesus, the man, was born? Or that He was held by His mother?

And what real explanatory power does this "pagan Jesus" thesis hold? It doesn't explain the life and death, the miracles, the empty tomb, the visions or the conversion of the disciples.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 1:44 am

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 1:48 am
Sorry. In my first comment I gave one link twice and omitted this:
http://benwitherington.blogspo...

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 1:48 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 2:17 am
AnaxagorasRules,

1. There was no Israeli precedent for a resurrection…this was in response to your comment to Bradford regarding the resurrection stories of other religions.

The idea of resurrection in jewish culture predates the New Testament. I thought I had posted a response to this that provided several old testament references to resurrection such as Daniel 12:2, Job 19:26, Isaiah 26:19, Ezekiel 37:12, 1 Kings 17:17-24, and 2 Kings 4:34-35. In addition, many claim the old testament prophesied the resurrection of Jesus, which certainly requires the old testament authors to accept the notion of resurrection. I guess I never posted that response though, as I don't see it. Regardless, this point seems irrelevant. If we assume resurrection was unheard of in jewish culture while acknowledging that it was known to first century Egyptian, Greek, and Persian cultures wouldn't that make it even more likely that this is an example of borrowing for neighboring cultures?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 2:17 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 2:34 am
Pez: The purported Mithras parallels didn't show up until the Romans adopted it as a mystery religion in the second century and it doesn;t even show up, in any form, among the Romans until AD 66 – but this is not the same Mithras.

You are correct that Mithraism came late to the Romans, after all it was a Persian religion. Persians, you know, those guys who ruled Isreal from the end of the Babylonian Captivity all the way up to the Greek Captivity (528 BC until 332 BC). Mithraism is thought to have arisen in the 3rd century BC (i.e. during the period Persians controlled the jewish lands) as an offshoot of Zoroasterism (a religion some claim Cyrus the Great followed). It had clearly reached Greece by the second century BC as iconic Mithras appears in many engravings, but it's impossible to know how much of the eventual story existed at that time. What we know of the Mithras story comes largely from Roman adoption of this religion starting in the first century AD (i.e. at the same time the Jesus mythology was forming). Most cultural exchanges are bi-directional so as Mithras influenced Christianity no doubt Christianity also influenced Mithraism.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 2:34 am

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 2:40 am
Hi, Todd,

Daniel 12:2 reads: 2 And many of them that sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.

Prophecies like that are not of the same kind as a resurrection event, associated with someone specific who dies and came back to life. I was looking for something similar in kind. Likewise, in Job:

26And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God:

That is using figurative language to show depth of feeling. Or take Psalm 68:

The Lord said, I will bring again from Bashan, I will bring my people again from the depths of the sea: 23 That thy foot may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same.

I think this actually refers to the Red Sea disaster, and implies that Israelis also died during whatever happened in that event. But this also is not the same in kind as the Jesus resurrection (and I realize it was not one of your examples).

It's apparent to me that your real beef is with Bradford, for whatever reason. I got involved because you were citing similarities in God beliefs and implying the occurrence of other Israeli resurrectons, which I have never encountered in any of my readings.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 2:40 am

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 2:41 am
Persians, yeah, I know those guys.
Not a bit of a rebuttal to my points there although your language tries to spin it as such.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 2:41 am

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 2:45 am
Hi, Todd,

If we assume resurrection was unheard of in jewish culture while acknowledging that it was known to first century Egyptian, Greek, and Persian cultures wouldn't that make it even more likely that this is an example of borrowing for neighboring cultures?

However, no Israeli resurrection event (prior to Jesus) has ever been recorded.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 2:45 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 2:46 am
AnaxagorasRules:

I brought up the humanistic aspect of the Israeli faith to point out the stark difference between their God and the gods of the neighboring religions.

But as a point of contrast, Mithra has been associated with the constellation Orion. In another point of departure, the Israeli God was never associated with a star or a planet…these were creations put in the heavens for humanity's convenience.

You can find similarities between the Israelis and the other peoples, but not in their conception of God. Their relationship with God is a unique one.

You continue to point out places where the Hebrew concept of god is believed to be unique. I continue to scratch my head. I am not contesting that the jewish derived faiths have various unique elements. Perhaps some of these unique elements contributed to why it won the popularity contest against hundreds if not thousands of other faiths that were otherwise largely identical in their content, I don't know. Or maybe it's just a frozen accident of history. The only point being argued is that various elements of the Christian mythology were likely the result of external cultural influences, no one is arguing that all of Christian was plagiarized.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 2:46 am

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:08 am
Hi, Todd,

Perhaps some of these unique elements contributed to why it won the popularity contest against hundreds if not thousands of other faiths that were otherwise largely identical in their content, I don't know. Or maybe it's just a frozen accident of history.

You slight 'some of these unique elements' gravely lol! Supposing the Israelis believed in a moon god…do you think it would have persisted? Why do you think Christianity persists? The humanistic cosmology is vital here. These are the two significant and unique differences that I've been writing about all night.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 3:08 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:11 am
AnaxagorasRules: But this is not the same in kind as the Jesus resurrection.

Ah, I see, it's all metaphor when you need it to be but all literal when you want it to be. And what about Elijah bringing a child's soul back into him? Twice? Let me guess, that was simply a resuscitation? There are certainly definite biblical resurrections that occurred prior to Jesus cause Jesus is credited with the miracles (Matthew 9:18-23, Mark 5:22-35, Luke 8:40-49, Luke 7:11, John 11:43). Jesus wasn't the only one who could raise the dead either, Peter raised Dorcas (Acts 9:36-43) and Paul raised Eutychus (Acts 20:9-10). Let me guess, Dorcas and Eutychus were just fakers or liars for Jesus (and Paul was a really boring speaker apparently).

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 3:11 am

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:16 am
Here's a "similarity":

The Israelis sacrificed to the God who chose them above all people, and who put the heavenly lights in the sky for their convenience.

The Greeks sacrificed to Zeus (the planet Jupiter) so that that he would not hurl down thunderbolts.

The similarites show the differences. Now cite one of the "identical in their content" practices…including the purpose and moral behind the practice. (I'm not saying there are none, I just want to get an idea of what identical means to you.)

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 3:16 am

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:21 am
Hi, Todd

Ah, I see, it's all metaphor when you need it to be but all literal when you want it to be.

It takes finesse to read the Bible. You can't just say, "ah, it's all bullshit." There is history in those writings. What I do is make a determination…if the event depicts a description of nature that is possible (for example, a comet can make the sky look like it's raining down fire), then I put it aside as a possible natural event. It's the interpretations that you can usually discount.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 3:21 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:21 am
The humanistic cosmology is vital here. These are the two significant and unique differences that I've been writing about all night.

I suspect that was an important difference, but I don't want to overstate my knowledge and the truth is I don't know if it was the crucial paramount difference you make it out to be. There are other important differences that might have contributed, like the jewish affinity for laws (makes it a good religion for political leaders to manipulate their followers) combined with the grass-roots appeal (so that people don't see it as handing authority to the political leaders). Certainly it would not have succeeded had it not satisfied some psychological need in it's followers, it won out in a fairly open marketplace of ideas. Still, I suspect that Christianity been nothing more than yet another sun-and-moon cult that still eventually some single religion would have come to dominate the others.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 3:21 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:25 am
AnaxagorasRules:

It takes finesse to read the Bible.

Don't you mean it takes a strong a priori desire to believe it's all true?

You can't just say, "ah, it's all bullshit." There is history in those writings.

I don't think all of it is bullshit, I know there's a ton of good history and excellent moral advice mixed in with all the bullshit and horridly bad moral advice.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 3:25 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:35 am
Now cite one of the "identical in their content" practices…including the purpose and moral behind the practice.

This demand shows that you don't understand what I mean about borrowing from other cultures. It seems unlikely that the "purpose and moral" behind a borrowed cultural reference would remain identical, what seems more likely is that an external story would be borrowed and twisted into something that supports whatever existing value the borrowing culture favors. For a clearer example that I hope we are all familiar with, consider the western adoption of "Zen Buddhism" and compare that to the actual teachings of Bodhidharma. They are almost unrecognizable they are so different yet those elements that happen to mesh with yuppie western society are adopted. So likely adopted elements such as the virgin birth can develop totally unique mythos in Christianity, such as the idea that Mary must have been immaculately conceived and that sex would have tainted her because sex is dirty and evil. Some adopted elements might maintain similar purpose, like the eating of the flesh and the drinking of the blood as a ritual merging or union, but that isn't required of a borrowed element.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 3:35 am

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:36 am
Hi, Todd,

There are other important differences that might have contributed, like the jewish affinity for laws (makes it a good religion for political leaders to manipulate their followers) combined with the grass-roots appeal (so that people don't see it as handing authority to the political leaders).

But remember, there is a similarity between the Israeli law and the code of Hamurabi of Babylonia. This is an actual similarity…not because it suits me, but because of the parallel content in the codes. It's a secular similarity.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 3:36 am

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:38 am
Hi, Todd,

Don't you mean it takes a strong a priori desire to believe it's all true?

Absolutely not, and I'm not sure why you would even think this. There are many many statements in the bible that I do not believe are true. It's not an all or nothing proposition.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 3:38 am

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:53 am
Hi, Todd,

I don't think all of it is bullshit, I know there's a ton of good history and excellent moral advice mixed in with all the bullshit and horridly bad moral advice.

There is more than that in the Bible. An Egyptian shrine of black granite found at el-Arish on the border of egypt and Palestine bears a long inscription in hieroglyphics. It reads: "The land was in great affliction. Evil fell on this earth. . . . There was a great upheaval in the residence. . . . Nobody could leave the palace [there was no exit from the palace] during nine days, and during those nine days of upheaval there was such a tempest that neither men nor gods [the royal family] could see the faces of those beside them. (Reference: The Antiquities of Tel-el-Yahudiyeh and Miscellaneous Work in Lower Egypt in 1887-88 (1890).)

Now compare Exodus 10:22:

22 And Moses stretched forth his hand toward heaven; and there was a thick darkness in all the land of Egypt three days: 23 They saw not one another, neither rose any from his place for three days: but all the children of Israel had light in their dwellings.

Was there some natural event occurring at the time of the Exodus? This is not the thread for it, and I'm still researching it, but there are additional colloborations from Egyptian sources that talk of a pharaoh dying inside a whirlpool as he was chasing his enemies. Personally I lean very strongly toward the idea that there were natural disasters, initiated by the close passing of a large comet that opened the door and let Israel flee from their captors. What I discount is the interpretation given to the catastrophe.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 3:53 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 10:07 am
Was there some natural event occurring at the time of the Exodus?

I would look for volcanic erruptions before I looked for large comets, but it's no coincident that all the parts of the bible that have confirming evidence are the non-supernatural portions. It's almost like it's just a book written by a people to explain their history through their troubled journey.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 10:07 am

Thought Provoker Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 10:10 am
Hi Pez,

Thank you again for your comments.

Please excuse my use of Wikipedia but I am pressed for time (at work).

In 391, Christian Emperor Theodosius I ordered the destruction of all "pagan" (non-Christian) temples, and the Christian Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria complied with this request.[19]

Socrates Scholasticus provides the following account of the destruction of the temples in Alexandria in the fifth book of his Historia Ecclesiastica, written around 440:

“ At the solicitation of Theophilus, Bishop of Alexandria, the Emperor issued an order at this time for the demolition of the heathen temples in that city; commanding also that it should be put in execution under the direction of Theophilus. Seizing this opportunity, Theophilus exerted himself to the utmost to expose the pagan mysteries to contempt. And to begin with, he caused the Mithreum to be cleaned out, and exhibited to public view the tokens of its bloody mysteries. Then he destroyed the Serapeum, and the bloody rites of the Mithreum he publicly caricatured; the Serapeum also he showed full of extravagant superstitions, and he had the phalli of Priapus carried through the midst of the forum. Thus this disturbance having been terminated, the governor of Alexandria, and the commander-in-chief of the troops in Egypt, assisted Theophilus in demolishing the heathen temples. ”

The Mithraeum was an underground temple for worship of the god Mithras. Hundreds of such temples have been discovered throughout Europe, northern Africa, the Near East, and Great Britain.

(link)

Hypatia of Alexandria (pronounced /haɪˈpeɪʃə/ in English) (Greek: Ὑπατία; born between AD 350 and 370 – 415) was a Greek[1][2] scholar from Alexandria in Egypt,[3][4] considered the first notable woman in mathematics, who also taught philosophy and astronomy.[5] She lived in Roman Egypt, and was killed by a Christian mob who blamed her for religious turmoil. She has been hailed as a "valiant defender of science against religion",[6] and some suggest that her murder marked the end of the Hellenistic Age.[7][8]

…

Hypatia was the daughter of Theon, who was her teacher and the last known mathematician associated with the museum of Alexandria.[10] She traveled to both Athens and Italy to study,[11] before becoming head of the Platonist school at Alexandria in approximately AD 400.[12] According to the Byzantine "Suda", she worked as teacher of philosophy, teaching the works of Plato and Aristotle.[13] It is believed that there were both Christians[14] and foreigners[9] among her students.

Although Hypatia was herself a Pagan, she was respected by a number of Christians, and later held up by Christian authors as a symbol of virtue.[9]

(link)

Note the changes that occured around 400 AD tracable to the Decree of Theophilus and the actions of St Cyril and his followers.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 1, 2009 @ 10:10 am

dantedanti Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 10:33 am
Hello all,

I am going to be brief, because, though a little familiar with this and that, I have little interest in history proper (I guess I'm one of those christians who just memorizes the talking points when it comes to the history).

The only point being argued is that various elements of the Christian mythology were likely the result of external cultural influences, no one is arguing that all of Christian was plagiarized.

And what real explanatory power does this "pagan Jesus" thesis hold? It doesn't explain the life and death, the miracles, the empty tomb, the visions or the conversion of the disciples.

Whenever the topic of this thread gets brought up (either in real life or internets) the speaker seems to have hopes that I will convert away from Christianity because of the proposed comparisons, and when I don't I am deemed irrational, but I still have to ask,

"OK, lets buy that there was some cultural transmission at some point, concerning symbolism or ceremony, so what?"

Comment by dantedanti — April 1, 2009 @ 10:33 am

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 10:45 am
Thanks for that, TP,
Let us note a few things from your own source. Hundreds of Mithraic Temples exist around the world. You've got a window here where a few Christian regimes, noting the superstitious and detestable characteristics of this cult (which they nonetheless somehow had built their entire religion upon) destroyed some local places of rites and their tokens.
But to what avail? We still know of these temples and the religions. We still have writings from that time and prior telling us what they believed and were doing. We can still find Roman, and as Todd points out, Greek, inscriptions and engravings. We still know of all the supposed parallels between Mithraism and Christiniaty from this period. So the "purge" did not rob of us the contemporary information nor of a couple hundred years of its relatively local history. But, amazingly, you'd have us believe that this purge reached back, beyond the time and space in which it could have been efficacious in obliterating history, but wasn't, to teh pre-Christian era and somehow, around the world, got all the pre-Christ relics and evidences of the so-called parallels and destroyed them.

The hypothesis gets shakier and shakier.

I think your wiki quote is more effective rhetorically to bolster your more common point – that sometimes Christians have done bad things. We agree on this – but destroying the Library at Alexandria, let alone obliterating eons worth of information globally about Mithraism, are not among them.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 10:45 am

angryoldfatman Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:

Only if it takes less than an hour of my time to earn it. Doing years of research for $100 hardly seems worth it.

According to you, it should only take a Google search, remember? To wit:

On several occasions I have asked the following question, so far no has been willing to google for an answer. The question is: how many popular religions contemporary to Jesus had a leader who was: the son of god and a human woman, died, was buried in a rock tomb, rose from the dead, after three days, and was discovered by women. We don't really need to find every possible example, but it's fairly easy to list out many known examples that fit these criteria.

Apparently you don't believe these examples that can supposedly be found via a Google search are strong enough to win you $250 (the prize amount was increased).

Hint: they're all bogus. The sources used for your Google examples are an early 20th Century amateur Egyptologist who misinterpreted half of his "evidence" and invented the other half, and a New Age author who simply made stuff up out of thin air.

I don't want to overstate my knowledge…

Too late.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 1, 2009 @ 1:37 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 2:25 pm
This seems the right thread to ask these questions:

If the evidence for the historicity of the resurrection is so strong (and presumably was even stronger ~2ky ago), how come not more of the Jews at the time bought into it?

What makes Christians think Muslims are wrong about Mohamed being the "last prophet"? Didn't he fly to heaven on his horse? What about the Mormons? Etc etc. Are these people all deluded? If so, why?

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 2:25 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 2:26 pm
Hi, Todd,

would look for volcanic erruptions before I looked for large comets, but it's no coincident that all the parts of the bible that have confirming evidence are the non-supernatural portions.

I think volcanic eruptions would have been a response to the initial disturbance. It would have had to have been something that also changed the normal tidal action of the Red Sea. In many of the myths and legends, there are accounts of fire raining down from the sky. Ancient peoples were not unaware of volcanos. Their fear of what could fall down from the sky seems like a higher order of magnitude of fear. For example, here is a passage from Strabo's Geography, Book 1:

"Ptolemy, the son of Lagus, relates that in this campaign the Kelts who dwell on the Adriatic 4 came to Alexander for the purpose of making a treaty of friendship and mutual hospitality, and that the king received them in a friendly way, and asked them, while drinking, what might be the chief object of their dread, supposing that they would say it was he ; but that they replied, it was no man, only they felt some alarm lest the heavens should on some occasion or other fall on them, but that they valued the friendship of such a man as him above every thing."

This implies a fear of something other than a volcanic eruption.

A Greek myth dealing with the battle between Typhon (a serpentine-like god of the wind) and Zeus tells of how Typhon at first had the upper hand, but then was defeated and fell to earth after Zeus threw his thunderbolts. "Typhon", if this myth originated in a natural event, could have been a gaseous cloud created by the supposed comet, and the lightning between the two could have been some type of electromagnetic disturbance. This would also coincide with the story of the 'pillar' leading the Israelis through the desert. All one can do is find as many allusions as can be had, by reading the ancient sources, couple that with whatever vestigial supporting physical evidence there is, and then decide for oneself.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 2:26 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 3:02 pm
Hi DanteDanti,

It's nice to hear from you. You wrote…

OK, lets buy that there was some cultural transmission at some point, concerning symbolism or ceremony, so what?

We could probably agree on this point because it is the message not the one saying it that is important.

"So what" if Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef came from a typical, if rather large, Jewish family?

"So what" if Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef was just one of many preaching Midrash (oral interpretation) to disgruntled and potentially rebellious Jews.

"So what" if Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef was just one of thousands who were executed by the Romans by being nailed to a cross?

"So what" if the success of Christianity can be directly traced to Paul’s insightful decision to include Gentiles?

"So what" if the Christian Gentiles incorporated Pagan concepts like Easter eggs and Winter Solstice trees among other things into their traditions?

Whether it is Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef saying “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” or Mohammad saying “Even as the fingers of the two hands are equal, so are human beings equal to one another. No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another” the message of Love is what is important. Everything else is “So What?”

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 1, 2009 @ 3:02 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 4:05 pm
angry: Hint: they're all bogus.

Well, to be clear I have little faith in conspiracy theorists. I tend to think they are all crazy paranoid loons. So I would be surprised if everything in Zeitgeist, part 1, was accurate. Part's 2 and 3 certainly seem like loonie bin material (although I suspect Bilbo thinks exactly the opposite). Luckily I've never claimed this movie as a primary source, or even a secondary source, for anything. I don't recall ever seeing it until I followed your link.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 4:05 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 4:21 pm
dantedanti: OK, lets buy that there was some cultural transmission at some point, concerning symbolism or ceremony, so what?

I would have started TP's chain of "so what's" earlier:

So what if Jesus had a normal human mother and father?
So what if Jesus never walked on water?
So what if Jesus never resurrected from the dead?
So what if Jesus fits plainly into a gradual evolution of religious ideology?

For me the answer is that acceptance of these myths as fact has altered the entire course of humanity and continues to alter it. The answers to these questions have no direct impact on my life (beyond being a subject of curiosity) but the claim to supernatural miracles by Jesus is the cornerstone of Christian faith for millions of people even though the idea does not withstand scrutiny. In turn these millions of followers affect us all. So all our lives are changed because people think myth is fact. Perhaps we are changed for the better, perhaps for worse, but I'm curious what the world would look like if we followed truths instead of myths.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 4:21 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 4:36 pm
Hi TP,
Your history of the Church still doesn't make sense.
If the success of Christianity is owing to Paul's insight that Gentiles would be a good target demographic why didn't he just go with Mithraism? According to you guys this was his real inspiration anyway, and, of course, it was already (again, according to you) established among his target group, the Gentiles. In fact, it had the great bonus of popularity among the Roman soldiers (we won't worry about timelines) and being among the accepted and not-persecuted religions.
So, why do you think Paul took to this supposedly insignificant little cult, this Jewish sect, when he knew the source of its mythology, knew it to be false, and had, as a goal, the popularization of a religion?

Since the Jewish church was the first and largest until the Roman destruction of Jerusalem are you sure Paul had this great pragmatic insight about the Gentiles being the future?

No one has any right, nor any preference to claim over another” the message of Love is what is important. Everything else is “So What?”

Everything else is 'so what'? I guess I'd like to see your definition of "love" again to evaluate this claim. When we last discussed you claimed that you, yourself, were love and that arrogance also was love.
I asked you then:

If you are "Love" and made in the image and likeness of God why are you arrogant, boastful, impatient, self-seeking, frequently wrong and contentious? Why am I an even greater sinner? Do you have a definition in which these are characteristic traits of "Love"?

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 4:36 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 4:48 pm
AnaxagorasRules:

I think volcanic eruptions would have been a response to the initial disturbance. It would have had to have been something that also changed the normal tidal action of the Red Sea.

Only if you assume the story is 100% true and not embellished. Since elements of Moses' life seems to have been filled in using Egyptian mythology embellishment seems likely. Besides, it would be really hard to wander for 40 years in the 100-200 miles of the Sinai peninsula, a distance that only takes 10 to 20 days to walk across (maybe Moses was too manly to ask for a map along the way). Plus walking around the Red Sea seems a lot quicker and safer then mucking through the mud.

This implies a fear of something other than a volcanic eruption

Now you are talking about a second hand account of the words of a politican. Given what we know from first hand accounts of what comes out of politicians mouths I wouldn't weight this too heavily. Besides, it's no surprise that people of the era where very fearful of certain superstitions. Part of escape from superstition is leaving those silly fears behind.

"Typhon", if this myth originated in a natural event, could have been a gaseous cloud created by the supposed comet, and the lightning between the two could have been some type of electromagnetic disturbance.

Wow, you really look for the fanciful in the common. Haven't you ever seen a storm roll in off the ocean? It often looks like massive clouds of steam being pelted with lightning. This is just a poetic account of a typical storm, hence the name typhoon being given to these very sort storms. It seems you are trying to connect whichever dots happen to draw the picture you want.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 4:48 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 5:04 pm
Pez: If the success of Christianity is owing to Paul's insight that Gentiles would be a good target demographic why didn't he just go with Mithraism?

Why don't Pepsi salesmen just sell Coca-cola instead? I mean, Coke was already popular among the target audience then Pepsi came along.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 5:04 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 5:06 pm
Pez: If you are "Love" and made in the image and likeness of God why are you arrogant, boastful, impatient, self-seeking, frequently wrong and contentious?

I guess he was made in the image of Old Testament God instead of New Testament God.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 5:06 pm

kornbelt888 Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 5:09 pm
AnaxagorasRules: In fact, the only real point that I am asserting is that the ressurection of Jesus is unprecedented in the Israeli belief system.

What about Isaiah 53? Of course, it doesn't mention Jesus by name, but it mentions a suffering servant who is killed for the sins of Israel and is then obviously resurrected to be rewarded with the "light of life" and "a portion of the spoils." Written approximately 650 BC.

Comment by kornbelt888 — April 1, 2009 @ 5:09 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 6:00 pm
Hi Todd,

Why don't Pepsi salesmen just sell Coca-cola instead? I mean, Coke was already popular among the target audience then Pepsi came along.

These quips are nonresponsive and do not engage reality.
Nobody is killing Pepsi salesmen.
If Paul was just regurgitating Mithraism or if he thought it true why didn't he just stick to Mithraism?
If he didn't think it true why would he steal it and teach it as part of Christianity, and suffer beatings, shipwrecks and death defending and spreading his known fabrication? If he were merely opportunistic and decided to reach out to the Gentiles for popularity why didn't he just go with what they already liked and avoid the persecution?

The answer to all of the above is, of course, that he didn't regurgitate Mithraism (which borrowed its similarities after-the-fact from Christianity) and he didn't borrow its ideas. He taught the Truth as revealed to him by the Lord and as confirmed by the witnesses. Christianity spread rapidly among the Jews, to the many thousands within weeks of Jesus' death, and followed them into the diaspora and into the Eastern Church and did not appeal merely to Gentiles.

I guess he was made in the image of Old Testament God instead of New Testament God.

There is only one God and He is altogether Holy, Just, Truthfuland Loving. He is not impatient but long-suffering, providing mercy from the beginning. He is not boastful and self-serving but condescends to relate to His creatures, to draw them toward Him and provides them time to do so.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 6:00 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 6:32 pm
Pez:

He [Paul] taught the Truth as revealed to him by the Lord and as confirmed by the witnesses. Christianity spread rapidly among the Jews, to the many thousands within weeks of Jesus' death…

Hearsay upon hearsay written down by Jesus fans. How is that any more credible than what Muslims and Mormons claim about their prophets?

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 6:32 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Do some research and answer your own question, Raevmo. It's an easy one.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 6:45 pm
So you can't answer the question. No surprise there.

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 6:45 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 6:47 pm
Ouch. What a zing. If you want to debunk those religions go for it.
In the meantime, you can look up the definition of "hearsay" and then read Paul's epistles.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 6:47 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 6:56 pm
Hi, Todd,

AnaxagorasRules:

I think volcanic eruptions would have been a response to the initial disturbance. It would have had to have been something that also changed the normal tidal action of the Red Sea.

Todd:
Only if you assume the story is 100% true and not embellished.

You are assuming that by disruption of "the normal tidal action of the Red Sea", that I think the waves parted, leaving a channel for the Israelis to run through. That would be incorrect.

Besides, it would be really hard to wander for 40 years in the 100-200 miles of the Sinai peninsula, a distance that only takes 10 to 20 days to walk across (maybe Moses was too manly to ask for a map along the way). Plus walking around the Red Sea seems a lot quicker and safer then mucking through the mud.

Like I said, it takes finesse to read the Bible. From earlier chapters and verses, one can presume that times and durations are subject to fabrication (the number 40 is especially suspect). You might discount the entire Exodus account because of this discrepancy, but I don't.

Wow, you really look for the fanciful in the common. Haven't you ever seen a storm roll in off the ocean? It often looks like massive clouds of steam being pelted with lightning.

If one believes (as I do) that catastrophes are primarily responible for the patterns that life has taken, one is forced to wade through the ancient literature, and cull out any and all possible allusions. There is surely a risk of assigning too much validity to this or that story. It is the preponderance of them, and the number of different sources, that take on weight and give the idea validity. You are too dismissive, I think, or too contemptuous possibly, of ancient peoples, as if they were rubes that didn't know what volcanos or storms were, thinking that an eruption was a case of the sky falling down.

There was an extinction event 65 million years ago. Walking backward in time, from now, when you reached that event, you would still have over 98% of the earth's history to travel through before getting to the beginning. There was an extinction event at the end of the last ice age. That was like a second ago, geologically. Some geologists are starting to suspect a comet-strike on the ice sheet. The rock record itself, which is interpreted has having gaps, can also be interpreted as revealing repetitive mass changes in fauna over time, with no apparent intermediaries.

If you staunchly believe in gradulism or uniformitarionaism, as I suspect you do, then it is no wonder the position you take. The preponderant cosmology that put warring gods in the skies and had them falling down to earth were just poetical little imaginings.

I have an entirely different view, not unsupported by physical evidence. Of life changing cataclysms and extinction events. Living on Earth is (figuratively) like playing a game of musical chairs, and the object is to die before the music stops, because when the music stops, there are no real winners.

Here's an article from last year, that is quite unimaginable.

It would be nice, however, to believe that extinction events do not happen on a regular basis. Of course, the events surrounding the Exodus was not an extinction event. I think it was a near miss.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 6:56 pm
So it's not hearsay? Paul was there?

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 6:56 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 6:58 pm
Of course Paul was there. Where else would he be when the Lord revealed the Truth to him? Somewhere else?

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 6:58 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:03 pm
So Paul himself witnessed the resurrection?

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 7:03 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:06 pm
Nobody witnessed the Resurrection. What did I say? What did you quote of me?

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 7:06 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:09 pm
Then it's hearsay

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 7:09 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:13 pm
You don't know what you're talking about. And thanks for demonstrating it.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 7:13 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:17 pm
Oh, the resurrection is not hearsay? What witness wrote it down?

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 7:17 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:21 pm
Hi, kornbelt888,

What about Isaiah 53? Of course, it doesn't mention Jesus by name, but it mentions a suffering servant who is killed for the sins of Israel and is then obviously resurrected to be rewarded with the "light of life" and "a portion of the spoils." Written approximately 650 BC.

I intepret the verses surrounding that as a prophecy yet to come. The Israelis were pretty adamant about humans not being gods. I'm working from memory now, as it's been a few years since I've read the Psudepigrapha, but I can just recall passages in Enoch that spoke of final days of judgment for all men. There would be rewards and punishments based on merit in the afterlife, but no transcendence to godhood.

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 1, 2009 @ 7:21 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:26 pm
I just had a revelation. A thousand witnesses told me they saw Jesus' corps being dragged away by hyenas. I just wrote their testimony down.

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:26 pm
Can't help yourself, Raevmo?
Here's what you quoted of me:

He [Paul] taught the Truth as revealed to him by the Lord and as confirmed by the witnesses. Christianity spread rapidly among the Jews, to the many thousands within weeks of Jesus' death…

Paul wrote that down. That is not hearsay.

As for the Resurrection, as I said, nobody witnessed it. But he Gospel of John is written by an eyewitness to the events, including meetings with the Resurrected Jesus. But Paul did not get his information from this eyewitness.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 7:26 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Why should anyone take your questions seriously when you portray yourself continually as a joke?

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 7:28 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:34 pm
I see. When someone says it was revealed to them by the Lord, then it's not hearsay. Well, the Lord just revealed to me that this is incorrect, and it is in fact hearsay.

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 7:34 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Pez: If Paul was just regurgitating Mithraism or if he thought it true why didn't he just stick to Mithraism?

Because Paul wasn't a follower of Mithras. Just because he was likely aware of the cult is no reason to think he was a follower. I have no reason to doubt Paul was sincere in his seizure-induced conversion to Christianity. Whether he would be willing to subvert existing mythology to advance his Christian beliefs, well we can only speculate about that. We certainly know there are modern examples of cult leaders who are willing to subvert existing mythologies to advance their own agendas.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 7:35 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:36 pm
Oh I get your behaviour now …. I just noted the date. Ha! Good one.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 7:36 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:39 pm
"Behaviour", Pez? In the UK it's April 2 by now.

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 7:39 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Hi Todd,

Just because he was likely aware of the cult is no reason to think he was a follower.

Of course he wasn't. He was a Jew of Jews, a Pharisee of Pharisees and would have abhorred such pagan religions – even though the mystery cult was not yet born.
And he certainly would not have been building his beliefs around their claims.

I have no reason to doubt Paul was sincere in his seizure-induced conversion to Christianity

But to what was he converting and why would a seizure cause this conversion?

Whether he would be willing to subvert existing mythology to advance his Christian beliefs, well we can only speculate about that.

But you are not claiming subversion and advancement – you are claiming plagiarism and falsification. How could he sincerely convert to a religion he was making up?

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 7:42 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:42 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:

So what if Jesus had a normal human mother and father?
So what if Jesus never walked on water?
So what if Jesus never resurrected from the dead?
So what if Jesus fits plainly into a gradual evolution of religious ideology?

For me the answer is that acceptance of these myths as fact has altered the entire course of humanity and continues to alter it.

Let us accept all of your "so whats" as truths for the sake of argument.

Jesus left behind no writings that we know of from his own hand. All of the scripture involving his story comes from other authors.

The Judeans of the nascent Roman Empire were expecting a Messiah to free them from the oppression of the Romans and their lackeys, the publicans. Most of them expected a King David figure (possibly with a little Moses thrown in for good measure) to arise and lead them to a military victory over the unclean, ignorant, but powerful Romans, and to overthrow the corrupt Judean monarchy and priesthood.

This did not happen, of course.

Many men tried, but as brave as they were, they managed to wind up as mere footnotes in the history of the region. Judas of Galilee, the Pharisee Zadok, Eleazar ben Yair – all of these men rallied Judean guerillas against Rome, and yet practically no one knows who these men were.

From a secular point of view, Jesus, if indeed he existed, was nothing compared to these men. If he didn't exist, he most assuredly was even less than nothing in comparison.

He led no armies, not even a small raiding party. The stories about him tell us that he wasn't even militant against Rome – a strange trait for a man who was supposed to save the Judeans from Imperial forces.

Given this, how do we account for this Jesus being more famous than any of the Judean paramilitary leaders previously mentioned?

If we want to blame Zealot propagandists for inventing an invincible hero as some sort of psych-op, it would have made more sense for them to pick, oh I don't know, someone who had actually led an attack on the oppressors. The Apostle Simon would have made a better Messiah than Jesus if the Zealots were the ones writing the stories.

If the Jewish religious leaders were the ones writing the stories, they surely wouldn't have picked/invented someone who pissed them off, called them names, and never reconciled with. As Raevmo so astutely pointed out, the Jews didn't convert to Christianity instantly and en masse.

So that leaves us with a conundrum.

We have these stories about a man who did nothing that was expected of him by the authorities of his day, and if we throw away the fantastic parts of the stories, was a tradesman in a remote corner of nowhere who suddenly gained celebrity status and disappeared after a short 2 or 3 years.

If he performed none of these miracles, why did he become famous?

If he simply hammered nails and cut wood, why would some Jews think he was the saviour promised by the Old Testament prophets? By the standards of the secular world, he didn't save anything!

If he didn't lead any men into battle, how did he gain more status than other men who fell gloriously in battle against the might of Rome?

Maybe… just maybe… the things told about Him weren't myths after all.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 1, 2009 @ 7:42 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:44 pm
Here it's 5:42 pm, April 1, though. And, unlike your impression of Paul, I am always where I am.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 7:44 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:50 pm
aofm:

Maybe… just maybe… the things told about Him weren't myths after all.

Yeah, and maybe the things told about Mohammed and Joseph Smith are also true. How to decide?

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 7:50 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:52 pm
Why use UK spelling, Pez?

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 7:52 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:53 pm
It's the way I was taught.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Pez: How could he sincerely convert to a religion he was making up?

If God told you that the Chronicles of Narnia should be added to the Biblical cannon and you should use this new book to found a new faith, would you do it? If God told you the Book of Mormon was true and you should spread its word, would you spread it? If God told you to subvert pagan rituals as a tool to bring new followers to the flock would you do it? After all, a proper follower of the Abrahamic religions would plunge a dagger into their own child's heart if God commanded it, yet you think they are incapable of utilizing existing mythology as a tool to convert people.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 7:53 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 7:54 pm
Yeah, and maybe the things told about Mohammed and Joseph Smith are also true. How to decide?

Internal consistency, archaeological support, historical confirmation ….

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 7:54 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Todd, it is now your contention that Paul's vision included the details of the future claims of Mithraism, that he was to adapt them but never make any mention of the religion from which he was "borrowing", as though, while he knew of his source, none of his anticipated converts would, that he would later go tot eh disciples and find out that they, too, had adopted these same yet-to-be invented claims?
Why do his opponents never scoff "that Paul, he's just substituted this legendary Jesus for Mithras and is gathering converts throughout the land"?
Why do they say "Jesus was a sorcerer whom we gladly killed" and not this?

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:00 pm
Pez:

Internal consistency, archaeological support, historical confirmation ….

Apparently the Muslims and Mormons don't agree with your view. The evidence is perhaps not so clear-cut after all. Or you could all be wrong. I'm really confused now.

Comment by Raevmo — April 1, 2009 @ 8:00 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:04 pm
You are that. Like I said, if you want to debunk their claims knock yourself out.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:24 pm
By the way, Islam and LDS agree with my view that Jesus was born of the virgin Mary, performed many miracles, was (supposedly- in the case of the Muslims) Crucified, that He was seen afterward and that He ascended into Heaven.
They interpret the history differently, and have additions which I do not believe, but they do not deny the historical facts. Nor did the Jews, who said that Jesus' body was stolen the night of His preliminary burial.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 8:24 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:35 pm
And borrowing from mystery cults does nothing to explain these facts.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 8:35 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Raevmo wrote:

Yeah, and maybe the things told about Mohammed and Joseph Smith are also true. How to decide?

I just typed a bunch of stuff that boiled down to "read, read, read, then read some more", but erased it because it was too long and you wouldn't care anyway.

Instead, let me try to express it in a way you'll understand, given what I know about you (granted, very little, but still…).

There really are only two worldviews for human beings to adopt:

1. The strong has every right to dominate the weak and vulnerable.
2. The strong should comfort, protect, and help the weak and vulnerable.

A doctrine that most closely adheres to #2 is the one I hope we all would follow.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 1, 2009 @ 8:37 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:41 pm
Pez: Todd, it is now your contention that Paul's vision included the details of the future claims of Mithraism

Where do you get this stuff? Poor reading comprehension? I spelled out my contention, I claimed the cult of Mithras began 300 years before Jesus, although Roman adoption happened at around the time of Christ.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 8:41 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:46 pm
Ah yes, the "reading comprehension" gambit – well played.
No, I get this stuff from combining your claims with reality. There is no evidence that any parallels between Mithraism and Christianity existed at the time of Paul's conversion so, based upon the evidence, if he were to be borrowing, or incorporating the claims of Mithraism into his vision, he would have to be doing so before the claims existed.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 8:46 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:48 pm
Pez: Internal consistency, archaeological support, historical confirmation ….

I doubt you know enough about Islam to know how it ranks against Christianity in terms of consistency, archeology, and historical support. Otherwise you'd know that there is significantly more historical and archeological support for the life of Mohammed then there ever was for Jesus, Abraham, Moses, or the rest. This is largely because he lived 700 years later. As to consistency, that is very subjective so I'll let the faithful duke that one out.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 8:48 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:54 pm
Pez: There is no evidence that any parallels between Mithraism and Christianity existed at the time of Paul's conversion so, based upon the evidence, if he were to be borrowing, or incorporating the claims of Mithraism into his vision, he would have to be doing so before the claims existed.

There is no evidence of what Paul preached during the time of Paul either. Tell me, what is the oldest know source of the new testament?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 8:54 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:56 pm
A papyrus of John's Gospel, from Egypt, I believe, in the early second century.
So what?

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 8:56 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:57 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:

I claimed the cult of Mithras began 300 years before Jesus, although Roman adoption happened at around the time of Christ.

The earliest archaeological evidence of Roman Mithraism dates to ~60 years after the crucifixion.

http://www.religionfacts.com/g...

According the webpage above, there were no women in the Roman Mithra cult. Also, one of the emperors tried to reunify the Empire using the Mithras cult, but was unsuccessful, unlike Constantine with Christianity.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 1, 2009 @ 8:57 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 8:58 pm
I doubt you know enough about Islam to know how it ranks against Christianity in terms of consistency, archeology, and historical support. Otherwise you'd know that there is significantly more historical and archeological support for the life of Mohammed then there ever was for Jesus, Abraham, Moses, or the rest. This is largely because he lived 700 years later. As to consistency, that is very subjective so I'll let the faithful duke that one out.

I'm not debunking Islam, Raevmo is. And nobody is saying Muhammed never lived – that is an honour reserved for Jesus by His skeptics.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 8:58 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 9:03 pm
As per the dating of Paul's writings, there is plenty of evidence that he was writing in the middle of the first century – and probably no historian doubts it.

And his quotation of the creed describing Jesus' death, Resurrection and appearances dates to years, if not months of the event.

As I said to TP, I am not claiming you need an extant version of the writings to prove early dating – but you need evidence that your story existed.
Such evidence would be its wide citation by people like Clement of Rome who lived and wrote in the late first century, or the existence of churches as far away as Rome within decades of Jesus' death, or the ability to piece the NT together merely by assembling the quotes of second century writers.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 9:03 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Some more Mithra info
http://www.frontline-apologeti...

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 9:04 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 9:05 pm
.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Pez wrote:

[Earliest extant manuscript is a] papyrus of John's Gospel, from Egypt, I believe, in the early second century.

That's the lower age limit for it. The upper age limit takes it back to around 98 A.D.

It's in the John Rylands Library in Manchester, England.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 1, 2009 @ 9:06 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
angry: Given this, how do we account for this Jesus being more famous than any of the Judean paramilitary leaders previously mentioned?

Paul?

If he performed none of these miracles, why did he become famous?

How did Mohammad become famous? How did Joseph Smith become famous? Does their fame prove their feats or their claims?

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 9:12 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 9:12 pm
Thanks angry,
I usually like to give the most conservative dates to skeptics – then they won't argue about it
It's p52 for those who want to look it up.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 9:12 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 9:31 pm
angry: The earliest archaeological evidence of Roman Mithraism dates to ~60 years after the crucifixion.

Yes, I mentioned previously that it wasn't adopted by the Romans until 1st century AD. It's popularity seemed to rise in parallel with christianity, they were competing products.

According the webpage above, there were no women in the Roman Mithra cult.

Yes, and women played a huge role in the early Christian church until they were kicked out when the men took over 400 years later. This is what I've often suspected was the secret to Christian success, girl power. It's interesting how that got twisted into the misogyny of the Church.

Also, one of the emperors tried to reunify the Empire using the Mithras cult, but was unsuccessful, unlike Constantine with Christianity.

Yeah, Christianity won despite being second choice. Perhaps this had something to do with Emperor Constantine's mother converting to Christianity? More girl power.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 1, 2009 @ 9:31 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 9:37 pm
I wrote:

Given this, how do we account for this Jesus being more famous than any of the Judean paramilitary leaders previously mentioned?

Todd Berkebile wrote:

Paul?

How did Paul make a celebrity out of a man when the people to whom he was speaking knew of much greater men? Men who had died for Judea after shedding Roman blood? That's like asking Afghans and Saudis 20 years from now to worship an obscure, unemployed, homeless oil-rig workman named Ahmed instead of Osama bin Laden.

How did Mohammad become famous? How did Joseph Smith become famous? Does their fame prove their feats or their claims?

Mohammed was a successful military leader. Joseph Smith piggybacked on a religion that was already a global one, and had an infrastructure in place to spread his words. Both of these guys preached polygamy, which is very popular with men and helps immensely with creating (via procreation) followers.

Jesus had absolutely none of these things. There is no reason we should be talking about Him today if He performed no miracles, much less if He never existed.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 1, 2009 @ 9:37 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 9:41 pm
Nero was already burning Christians in Rome within 30 years of Jesus' death.
This was prior to the first mention of any Mithraism at all in Rome (let alone Jerusalem) and well before any so-called parallels were created. Christians and their beliefs were well-known in Rome before Mithraism ever became "popular" (never being widespread and topping out, if I recall, at about 2% of the population).
If any copying ever took place it is far more likely, and obviously so, to have gone from Christianity to Mithraism.

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 9:41 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Todd Berkebile wrote:

… girl power …

We have a lot of common ground here, I can't really disagree with much you've said in this comment.

It's well known that early Christianity differed much from the later Roman form. Many of the syncretic elements were introduced by the Roman Church; there wouldn't have been much of a point to the Reformers' actions otherwise.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 1, 2009 @ 9:49 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 10:56 pm
From Encyclopaedia Britannica…

The most important Mithraic ceremony was the sacrifice of the bull. Opinion is divided as to whether this ceremony was pre-Zoroastrian or not. Zoroaster denounced the sacrifice of the bull, so it seems likely that the ceremony was a part of the old Iranian paganism. This inference is corroborated by an Indian text in which Mitra reluctantly participates in the sacrifice of a god named Soma, who often appears in the shape of a white bull or of the moon. On the Roman monuments, Mithra reluctantly sacrifices the white bull, who is then transformed into the moon. This detailed parallel seems to prove that the sacrifice must have been pre-Zoroastrian. Contract and sacrifice are connected, since treaties in ancient times were sanctioned by a common meal.

link

From another interesting source…

Mithraism was prevalent in Greece in early days, but never gained wide popularity until the later Hellenic age. It had its greatest success in Rome, to which city it was carried, according to Plutarch, in 67 B.C. by captive Cilician pirates; after remaining dormant there for some time, it began to spread among the slaves, the army and the mercantile families, many of whom were of Asiatic origin or had Asiatic contacts, and ultimately became popular with the governors, military commanders and other members of the ruling classes, until under Aurelian (270-275) it was made the official or state religion. Following the army and the trade routes, it spread to the Upper Danube, into Gaul and as far north as Britain. During the second and third centuries it was one of the most popular cults in the West, at least in Rome itself and most of Italy, and bade fair to become a world religion.

ii

From the sixth century B.C. to the third century of the Christian Era resurrected gods in one guise or another were worshiped throughout western Asia, northern Africa, Europe as far west as Spain and as far north as the Baltic. Three common features were important in all these cults: the ecstatic experience in which communion was established with the deity, a sacramental meal to aid or symbolize this communion, and a drama to mimic the divine death and resurrection.

link

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 1, 2009 @ 10:56 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Interesting link re: Plutarch and Cilician pirates (and my figure of 2%)
http://www.frontline-apologeti...

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 11:11 pm

Pez Says:
April 1st, 2009 at 11:17 pm
2 Mithras and the bull
http://www.well.com/user/david...

Comment by Pez — April 1, 2009 @ 11:17 pm

dantedanti Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
I appreciate some of what all of you have said (of course, i dont appreciate all the attitude thrown around but thats another story…)

The reason I ask, "so what" is because the majority of the things being discussed are trivial to my "faith".

Easiest example that I agree with: lets assume Easter eggs are a pagan borrowing…Cool. I dont celebrate Easter to begin with. Mind if I profess Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior?

Another example: lets assume "the Jesus born of a virgin" was a pagan borrowing…cool. Mind if I still profess Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior?

I once met a young scholar who told me that because the early Christians wrote in Greek and so used all the Greek concepts, it was all borrowed tripe, and none of it was to be believed.

I just fail to see what all the fuss is about. Am I still just being thick?

Comment by dantedanti — April 2, 2009 @ 9:52 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:01 am
dantedanti: I just fail to see what all the fuss is about. Am I still just being thick?

Well, according to Paul the resurrection is the central pillar of why you should believe in Christianity. (1 Corn. 15:14) Personally I agree that the vast majority of these mythological details are largely irrelevant as to their literal verse metaphorical nature. If you simply view religion as a social phenomenon then none of the details matter, only the patterns of human behavior that result from believing matter.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 2, 2009 @ 10:01 am

dantedanti Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:30 am
Sorry Todd but,

If you simply view religion as a social phenomenon then none of the details matter, only the patterns of human behavior that result from believing matter.

sounds a bit to much like Sam Harris for me. We have a wealth of examples to show people believe x and this belief does little to effect their behavior or actions.

you are pretty spot on with the resurrection comment. Would it be horrible of me to ask if we steer that way, as that would interest me the most?

Comment by dantedanti — April 2, 2009 @ 11:30 am

angryoldfatman Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:54 am
Todd Berkebile wrote:

Well, according to Paul the resurrection is the central pillar of why you should believe in Christianity. (1 Corn. 15:14)

The central pillar of Christianity is:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

These sorts of things were written before Paul began his ministry, if Paul himself is to be believed:

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve. After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God. But by the grace of God I am what I am, and his grace to me was not without effect. No, I worked harder than all of them—yet not I, but the grace of God that was with me. Whether, then, it was I or they, this is what we preach, and this is what you believed.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 2, 2009 @ 11:54 am

Thought Provoker Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 12:05 pm
Hi DanteDanti,

You asked…

Mind if I profess Jesus Christ as my Lord and savior?

Absolutely not.

I get a little concerned when people profess "Jesus Christ as OUR Lord and savior", especially when the implication is that I am to be included in the "our".

And, of course, I get down-right rebelious when attempts are made to force the impression that my country is a Christian nation under God, trusting in God.

While I respect, and even admire, a particular Rabbi who existed two milliania ago, I am disinclined to worship him to the exclusion of all other faiths and philosophies.

I don't know the Truth. I tend to believe that there isn't a single Truth. We all have different Truths. However, I think it is important to continue searching for knowledge and understanding.

That, and I like good debates.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 2, 2009 @ 12:05 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Thought Provoker wrote:

I get a little concerned when people profess "Jesus Christ as OUR Lord and savior", especially when the implication is that I am to be included in the "our".

And, of course, I get down-right rebelious when attempts are made to force the impression that my country is a Christian nation under God, trusting in God.

Emphasized above is the entire crux of the matter and the entire underlying theme of the Bible.

It starts off with humans rebelling against God, tells many stories and tales of different humans in various stages of rebellion against or acquiescence to God, details God's final offer to reconcile, and ends with an encrypted prophecy of what will happen once that offer expires.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 2, 2009 @ 1:36 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:04 pm
I don't know the Truth. I tend to believe that there isn't a single Truth. We all have different Truths. However, I think it is important to continue searching for knowledge and understanding.

If knowledge and understanding isn't directed towards Truth then why follow it?
And, if it is directed towards Truth but "we all have different Truths" then again, why follow it?

Comment by GringoRoyale — April 2, 2009 @ 2:04 pm

GringoRoyale Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:07 pm
Todd Berkebile,
if you discount the veracity of the Bible then why trust other sources from antiquity that are even less attested to than the Bible and then use those sources to undercut the veracity of the Bible?

Sounds desperate.

Comment by GringoRoyale — April 2, 2009 @ 2:07 pm

Pez Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 2:18 pm
Hi TP,

I get a little concerned when people profess "Jesus Christ as OUR Lord and savior", especially when the implication is that I am to be included in the "our".

I get a little concerned when people profess to respect or admire a liar or a lunatic.
But you've admitted on a previous thread that Jesus was neither of these.
That leaves you with a Jesus worthy, and deserving, of an awful lot more than your admiration and respect.

http://telicthoughts.com/open-...

However, I think it is important to continue searching for knowledge and understanding.

That, and I like good debates.

You said something similar at the close of that last thread as well.
To which I responded then:

Hi TP,
Thanks for the discussion.
I am hopeful that as you go out to further your knowledge on this subject you will seek the truth and not just new ways to undermine Christian belief – as your parting innuendo seems to indicate to me would be the case.

Your returning with Zeitgeist talking points and a previously-failed Library of Alexandria slur seems to indicate my hope was misplaced.

Comment by Pez — April 2, 2009 @ 2:18 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:35 pm
Hi Pez,

Again, thank you for being a worthy and enjoyable debate opponent.

I'm sorry that I am replying to comments out of order, but your comments require more time to digest and respond to.

Previously, you offered two links. The first one was the standard apologetic denial of Mithraism's pre-Christian influences. And even though the article went through the possible connections between the Iranian Mithraism and Roman Mithraism, the extreme declaration was that…

…there isn’t the slightest shred of evidence to directly connect the two beliefs. In fact, they are totally independent of each other.

Are we to believe it's "totally" a coincident the Romans chose a name randomly that happened to match a "totally independent" belief that doesn't have the "slightest shred of evidence to directly connect them"?

This is the one extreme to the argument; that Roman Mithraism was a "totally independent" belief and any similarity to Christianity means that Roman Mithraism stole from Christianity rather than the other way around.

The other extreme is that Christianity is based entirely on Pagan myths and Jesus never existed.

I suggest neither of these extreme positions is credible.

As you probably noticed, I haven't presented my personal take on this controversy. Up until now I have mostly copied and pasted other people's opinions and arguments.

This brings us to the second link you provided. As it works out, I had already ran across it and was including it into my understanding of Mithraism history. It contains a reasonable-sounding hypothesis that is a compromise between the two extremes.

From the link…

The Mithraic tauroctony, then, was apparently designed as a symbolic representation of the astronomical situation that obtained during the Age of Taurus. But what religious significance could this have had, so that the tauroctony could have come to form the central icon of a powerful cult? The answer to this question lies in the fact that the phenomenon of the precession of the equinoxes was unknown throughout most of antiquity: it was discovered for the first time around 128 B.C. by the great Greek astronomer Hipparchus. Today we know that the precession is caused by a wobble in the earth's rotation on its axis. However, for Hipparchus– because he held to the ancient geocentric cosmology in which the earth was believed to be immovable– what we today know to be a movement of the earth could only be understood as a movement of the entire cosmic sphere. In other words, Hipparchus's discovery amounted to the discovery that the entire universe was moving in a way that no one had ever been aware of before!

At the time Hipparchus made his discovery, Mediterranean intellectual and religious life was pervaded by astrological beliefs. It was widely believed that the stars and planets were living gods, and that their movements controlled all aspects of human existence. In addition, at this time most people believed in what scholars call "astral immortality": that is, the idea that after death the human soul ascends up through the heavenly spheres to an afterlife in the pure and eternal world of the stars. In time, the celestial ascent of the soul came to be seen as a difficult voyage, requiring secret passwords to be recited at each level of the journey. In such circumstances, Hipparchus's discovery would have had profound religious implications. A new force had been detected capable of shifting the cosmic sphere: was it not likely that this new force was a sign of the activity of a new god, a god so powerful that he was capable of moving the entire universe?

Hipparchus's discovery of the precession made it clear that before the Greco-Roman period, in which the spring equinox was in the constellation of Aries the Ram, the spring equinox had last been in Taurus the Bull. Thus, an obvious symbol for the phenomenon of the precession would have been the death of a bull, symbolizing the end of the "Age of Taurus" brought about by the precession. And if the precession was believed to be caused by a new god, then that god would naturally become the agent of the death of the bull: hence, the "bull-slayer."

This, I propose, is the origin and nature of Mithras the cosmic bull-slayer. His killing of the bull symbolizes his supreme power: namely, the power to move the entire universe, which he had demonstrated by shifting the cosmic sphere in such a way that the spring equinox had moved out of Taurus the Bull.

Given the pervasive influence in the Greco-Roman period of astrology and "astral immortality," a god possessing such a literally world-shaking power would clearly have been eminently worthy of worship: since he had control over the cosmos, he would automatically have power over the astrological forces determining life on earth, and would also possess the ability to guarantee the soul a safe journey through the celestial spheres after death.

If I understand correctly, Mithraism had been around for thousands of years prior to Christianity. It would seem extremely unlikely the pagan belief would NOT have undergone significant changes over this length of time. After all, most communication was handed down generation to generation by word of mouth. Also, the world’s beliefs were getting mixed together by worldwide conquests, first Alexander the Great and then the Romans.

Did Paul make a conscious decision to incorporate Pagan concepts in Christianity? I doubt it.

However, Paul was exposed to greatly expanded worldviews and religious concepts that included Aristotle’s insight into governance of the all the masses (not just the privileged few) and Pagan concepts of eternal salvation through sacrifice.

I will respond to your other comments later.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 2, 2009 @ 5:35 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:42 pm
Gringo: if you discount the veracity of the Bible then why trust other sources from antiquity that are even less attested to than the Bible and then use those sources to undercut the veracity of the Bible?

Ah, I'm glad someone finally asked this question. The truth is I think its all very tenuous and unreliable. If pressed I would even admit that, thanks largely to the purges in the 5th and 6th centuries, we know far more about early christianity then we do about the various other mystery cults that were so popular at the time.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 2, 2009 @ 6:42 pm

Pez Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Hi TP,
Those are pretty vague allusions to what Paul may have been exposed to.
What do you mean that he was "exposed to pagan concepts of eternal salvation through sacrifice"?
Is this supposed to have influenced his idea of man's redemption by Christ's sacrifice?
Isn't it far more likely that this man, a Pharisee among Pharisees, expertly trained in the Hebrew scriptures, a master of the Midrash amd Tanakh, was influenced by the actual Scriptures of which Jesus was the fulfillment (if you don't accept that Paul's actual source was what he said it was – Jesus Himself)? Or, again, without appealing to where he actually got the idea of Jesus Crucified and Resurrected, that his view was shaped by the people who knew Jesus and ha been preaching His Resurrection from immediately after His Crucifixion?

On that note the oldest book in the Bible, about 2,000 years before Jesus, talks about life after death and our Redeemer dwelling in Heaven to be seen and known after our physical deaths. It seems far more likely that Paul would get his views on this from these books that he had studied all his life rather than from pagan myths which he would have detested.
YHWH has always been presented as our Redeemer and Savior and this idea certainly did not have to come from any pagan myths – it is, obviously, just as likely if not infinitely moreso, that the idea of redemption and eternal life made its way from the Jews to the pagans. Or, not surprisingly, by God's general revelation written on our hearts and in nature.
To Abraham, God promised that he would supply the Sacrifice for our redemption Himself. Abraham had faith in God's ability to raise the dead.
1500 years before Jesus King David knew that some time after he died he would be awakened to see his God. And David knew, as is consistent throughout the OT, that nobody can redeem or provide salvation but the Creator God.
At least 500 years before the birth of Jesus the book of Isaiah, likely the favourite of the Jews at Paul's time, specifically talks about our Redeemer, and tells us He is the Lord, being pierced, crushed and killed for our iniquities to heal us by His wounds and bring us peace (as opposed to bringing a bountiful harvest).
As for sacrifice and death bringing salvation, that has been the theme of YHWH worship from the outset when the very first natural born offspring were sacrificing to God. Throughout the OT and NT the idea that "without blood there is no redemption" has been a constant.

Whether there was any useful development in pagan religions with regard to eternal life being offered due to death and resurrection of a redeemer is highly questionable (false, in my view). On the other hand, the idea is plainly visible in the Hebrew scriptures that Paul studied. And when Jesus was Resurrected He taught His disciples to see this in those books – showing them how the scriptures are actually about Him. He is the Suffering Servant, crushed for our iniquities, the Davidic King to rule and redeem for ever, and the eternal priest.
Where else but the Holy Scriptures are these themes actually found? Nowhere.

And then you have that nasty problem of history to deal with. Why would anybody need to draw the story of Jesus' death for our sins and Resurrection to Glory from pagan sources (which didn't even have the idea) when the events unfolded before their eyes and were explained by the One who fulfilled them?
I know you think that sounds like question-begging, but nobody can honestly claim that a person could take a corn king myth and believe it actually happened to an actual man Whom he actually knew, unless it DID.

Comment by Pez — April 2, 2009 @ 6:46 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 6:59 pm
Hi angryoldfatman,

You indicated that, among other things, the bible…

…details God's final offer to reconcile

It is my position that deities that stoop to offer deals in order to get worshipped, aren't worthy of worship.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 2, 2009 @ 6:59 pm

Pez Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:06 pm
For hundreds of years, off and on, Christianity was purged, its adherents killed, its books burned and its places of worship destroyed. And yet we have tens of thousands of surviving ms. We have numerous extant copies from the time of these purges and from well before the acceptance of Constantine of the religion. We have copies in language after language from all over the ancient world. We also have the writings of people who lived within a hundred years of Christ's death which contain quotes of virtually every verse of the NT.

Comment by Pez — April 2, 2009 @ 7:06 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:07 pm
Hi GringoRoyale,

You asked…

If knowledge and understanding isn't directed towards Truth then why follow it?
And, if it is directed towards Truth but "we all have different Truths" then again, why follow it?

To me life is a process and, therefore, one gains purpose in life through the pursuit of Love and knowledge.

This is probably why I don't feel a need for an external source to give meaning to my existence.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 2, 2009 @ 7:07 pm

Pez Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 7:20 pm
TP,
As I'm thinking about it, you graciously stated that Paul did not, in your opinion, consciously incorporate Pagan concepts into Christianity.
Which ones do you think he unconsciously incorporated? In other words, which Pauline concepts of Christianity are best explained as being incorporated from a mystery cult as opposed to existing first in Judaism or being altogether original?

Comment by Pez — April 2, 2009 @ 7:20 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Thought Provoker wrote:

It is my position that deities that stoop to offer deals in order to get worshipped, aren't worthy of worship.

Worship is love.

What would you suffer to reconcile with a child of yours, TP? And the child looks at the lengths you go through to bring him back to you and says "somebody who tries that hard for my love is not worthy of love"?

To me life is a process and, therefore, one gains purpose in life through the pursuit of Love and knowledge.

This is probably why I don't feel a need for an external source to give meaning to my existence.

Life, as you perceive it, is fleeting. It is a relatively short process with a permanent end.

The knowledge you've painstakingly acquired throughout your lifetime will be gone as soon as your life ends. Memories of the love you shared with others will be gone not long after that. How much do you personally love one of your ancestors from a mere 8 or 9 generations back? So it will be for you with any of your descendants 8 or 9 generations hence.

With no "external source" to give your existence meaning, your meaning will have no existence.

When all is said and done, you, everyone you know, the human race, and all life on this planet will be gone. Love, life, joy, pain, suffering, beauty, sacrifice, fairness, equality, justice – it will be as if these things never existed in the first place.

There will be nothing, because nothing will be.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 2, 2009 @ 8:04 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 8:47 pm
Hi Pez,
In a previous comment you wrote…

I get a little concerned when people profess to respect or admire a liar or a lunatic.

Are you of the position that Mohammad had to be either a liar or a lunatic?

Have you no respect or admiration for what he accomplished during his life?

But you've admitted on a previous thread that Jesus was neither of these. That leaves you with a Jesus worthy, and deserving, of an awful lot more than your admiration and respect

Could you please direct me to a biblical passage where Jesus asked to be worshipped?

Your returning with Zeitgeist talking points and a previously-failed Library of Alexandria slur seems to indicate my hope was misplaced.

I was unaware the "Zeitgeist talking points" existed prior to commenting on this thread. From what I have read, the extreme arguments lack credibility.

As to the Library of Alexandria, the issue comes down to whether or not the Serapeum and/or other “Pagan” buildings contained libraries of scrolls. It is my bias to think the major center of Hellenistic ideals and academia would obviously value written knowledge.

Here is a link to a historical narrative with one view…

To avoid a naval combat, Caesar burnt 110 Egyptian ships at dockyards that enabled him to occupy Pharos, control the entrance to the harbor and establishing direct communication with his main forces across the sea. The fire extended to the city and the Great Library (Megale Bibliotheke), and a number of 40,000 books (400,000 in some sources) were burnt, with a tremendous loss of treasures and human heritage.
…
After Caesar's death, Cleopatra allied with Mark Anthony, and in 34 BC they celebrated his successful conquest of his opponent Octavius at the Gymnasium in Alexandria. Anthony gave Cleopatra a new library of 200,000 scrolls as compensation to the original ones.
…
The Daughter Library became the principle one after the burning of the Great Library, and survived for many centuries until the late 3rd century AD. In AD 312, Christianity was announced as the official religion of the Roman Empire and the state support for indigenous cults ceased, while the Alexandrian triad of Gods (Serapis, Isis and Harpocrates) was still prominent. The sanctity of temples began to be threatened, and the library endangered due its location inside the Sarapeum.
…
Some scholars believe that the reason for burning the Daughter Library was not only in pursue of pagans, but also to end the Alexandrian Church and theological studies and to transfer the center of Christianity to Rome.

Some scholars survived until AD 415, when Hypatia the philosopher and the last scholar who taught at the Mouseion was assassinated. Her body was shattered into pieces and burnt in accusation of teaching Plato's philosophy that was considered heretic. Her death marked the end of Alexandrian school of philosophy.

Here is a link to an opposing viewpoint…

It is hard enough to establish beyond doubt that there was a library in the Serapeum at all but if there was, Ammianus makes clear that it was no longer there by the mid-fourth century. This is confirmed by the silence of all the sources, including one that would be keen to report Christian atrocities, for the destruction of the temple in 391AD. Note that this is not an 'argument from silence' because there is no reason at all to expect a mention of books in the Serapeum when it was demolished. An invalid 'argument from silence' is when we claim something that is not mentioned did not happen, even though other evidence suggests it did. There is no positive evidence for the existence of the library and instead near conclusive eye witness evidence against.

The story that Theophilus destroyed a library is clearly a fiction that we can very precisely lay at the door of Edward Gibbon. It is in his monumental Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire that we first find the allegation made. Gibbon seems mainly concerned to clear the Arabs of the responsibility of destroying the library and allows his marked anti-Christian prejudice to cloud his better judgement. His excellent footnotes show he had exactly the same sources as we do but drew the wrong conclusions. The story has recently been popularised by Carl Sagan who includes it in Cosmos. He spices the story up with a role for the murdered philosopher Hypatia, even though there is no evidence connecting her to the library at all.

I think there is one thing we can agree on, that Caliph Omar is innocent. He did not order (in 640AD) that all the scrolls in the Library of Alexandria should be destroyed because "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 2, 2009 @ 8:47 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:07 pm
Hi Pez,

You asked…

Those are pretty vague allusions to what Paul may have been exposed to.
What do you mean that he was "exposed to pagan concepts of eternal salvation through sacrifice"?
Is this supposed to have influenced his idea of man's redemption by Christ's sacrifice?
Isn't it far more likely that this man, a Pharisee among Pharisees, expertly trained in the Hebrew scriptures, a master of the Midrash amd Tanakh, was influenced by the actual Scriptures of which Jesus was the fulfillment (if you don't accept that Paul's actual source was what he said it was – Jesus Himself)? Or, again, without appealing to where he actually got the idea of Jesus Crucified and Resurrected, that his view was shaped by the people who knew Jesus and ha been preaching His Resurrection from immediately after His Crucifixion?

These questions border on being rhetorical but you make a good case for biblical precedence.

My only retort is to ask why would "…a Pharisee among Pharisees, expertly trained in the Hebrew scriptures, a master of the Midrash and Tanakh…" suddenly decide to start preaching to gentiles?

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 2, 2009 @ 9:07 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 9:34 pm
Hi Pez,

You asked…

As I'm thinking about it, you graciously stated that Paul did not, in your opinion, consciously incorporate Pagan concepts into Christianity.
Which ones do you think he unconsciously incorporated? In other words, which Pauline concepts of Christianity are best explained as being incorporated from a mystery cult as opposed to existing first in Judaism or being altogether original?

Judaism has been around for a long time and includes quite a few Pagan concepts including sacrifices and jealousy of other Gods.

It isn't so much unconsciously incorporating ideas as it was taking advantage of timing. The known world was changing. Philosophies and religious concepts from far away lands were spreading and merging.

The masses had just the right mixture of ignorance, knowledge and beliefs. It was time for a worldwide religion to take hold.

All it took was a little flexibility in things like how and when the Sabbath was observed and, oh yea, that circumcision requirement just had to go.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 2, 2009 @ 9:34 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 10:14 pm
Hi angryoldfatman,

Worship is love.

What would you suffer to reconcile with a child of yours, TP? And the child looks at the lengths you go through to bring him back to you and says "somebody who tries that hard for my love is not worthy of love"?

Not bad. In fact, it is quite a good comment/question.

Respect and admiration is also love.

I don't hate Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef or even God.

What I dislike is organized religions that use scare tactics (among other things) to force conformity and compliance.

If Yeshua Ben Yosef were to suddenly appear dressed in yellow robes I would be very respectful and admire the feat. However, I don't know how I would react to him joining the Mahdi to kill Masih ad-Dajjal (The Impostor Messiah) and his followers.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...)

I think there for I am. This is what makes me, "me". Not my flesh, not my brain.

I need to understand for myself.

If God wanted me to understand, then I would.

Appeals to "free will" rings hollow. If providing evidence would negate free will, doesn't withholding evidence do the same thing?

With no "external source" to give your existence meaning, your meaning will have no existence.

When all is said and done, you, everyone you know, the human race, and all life on this planet will be gone. Love, life, joy, pain, suffering, beauty, sacrifice, fairness, equality, justice – it will be as if these things never existed in the first place.

There will be nothing, because nothing will be

And your point?

Are you suggesting my belief, or lack thereof, will change the scenario you described?

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 2, 2009 @ 10:14 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 2nd, 2009 at 11:39 pm
Thought Provoker wrote:

I don't hate Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef or even God.

What I dislike is organized religions that use scare tactics (among other things) to force conformity and compliance.

Then love Yeshua and God and don't follow those organized religions.

I think there for I am. This is what makes me, "me". Not my flesh, not my brain.

Do you think after you die? No? Then you will no longer be. Eventually, no one else shall be, either. Finally, nothing shall be.

If nothing shall be, does anything you do now matter at all?

I need to understand for myself.
If God wanted me to understand, then I would.

You do understand. You simply deny that you do.

Appeals to "free will" rings hollow. If providing evidence would negate free will, doesn't withholding evidence do the same thing?

He has provided all the evidence you ever need. The simple fact that you want proof is evidence itself. No animal desires proof of anything beyond themselves. No animal knows of science. No animal knows of fairness or justice. No animal dreams of improving itself, or of achieving a destiny.

You make yourself out to be an animal in order to deny One who made you more than an animal. To avoid the possibility of a Higher Power than yourself, you would cut yourself off from a destiny to become part of that Higher Power.

And your point?
Are you suggesting my belief, or lack thereof, will change the scenario you described?

Yes.

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 2, 2009 @ 11:39 pm

Pez Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:04 am
Hi TP,

Could you please direct me to a biblical passage where Jesus asked to be worshipped?

No. Why?
I will, however, give you one of many times where, unlike angels and mere men, Jesus accepted worship (fitting only for God) without rebuke:

Matthew 14:33 (New International Version)

33Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, "Truly you are the Son of God."

When angels were offered worship, and when Paul and Barnabas were, they, being mere creatures, refused it.

Acts 10:25-26 (New International Version)

25As Peter entered the house, Cornelius met him and fell at his feet in reverence. 26But Peter made him get up. "Stand up," he said, "I am only a man myself."

Acts 14:11-18 (New International Version)

11When the crowd saw what Paul had done, they shouted in the Lycaonian language, "The gods have come down to us in human form!" 12Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul they called Hermes because he was the chief speaker. 13The priest of Zeus, whose temple was just outside the city, brought bulls and wreaths to the city gates because he and the crowd wanted to offer sacrifices to them.

14But when the apostles Barnabas and Paul heard of this, they tore their clothes and rushed out into the crowd, shouting: 15"Men, why are you doing this? We too are only men, human like you. …Even with these words, they had difficulty keeping the crowd from sacrificing to them.

.
Revelation 19:10 (New International Version)

10At this I fell at his feet to worship him. But he said to me, "Do not do it! I am a fellow servant with you and with your brothers who hold to the testimony of Jesus. Worship God! For the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy."

I can also show you where the Father commanded that even the angels will worship Jesus and that every creature owes Him worship, glory and honour.
—

As to the Library of Alexandria, the issue comes down to whether or not the Serapeum and/or other “Pagan” buildings contained libraries of scrolls. It is my bias to think the major center of Hellenistic ideals and academia would obviously value written knowledge.

This is what it boiled down to last time as well – something got burned, and there was probably writing in there as well. A far cry from burning and destroying the greatest library in history.

Very impressive your including both links. Good on you.

I think there is one thing we can agree on, that Caliph Omar is innocent. He did not order (in 640AD) that all the scrolls in the Library of Alexandria should be destroyed because "they will either contradict the Koran, in which case they are heresy, or they will agree with it, so they are superfluous."

We can indeed. That's quite irrelevant, but it is nice to agree.

My only retort is to ask why would "…a Pharisee among Pharisees, expertly trained in the Hebrew scriptures, a master of the Midrash and Tanakh…" suddenly decide to start preaching to gentiles?

Why indeed? Because the Son of God revealed Himself to Paul and showed him that all could be saved who believed on Him – not just Jews. The Lord told Ananias in the same passage regarding HIs revelation to Paul that He had chosen Paul to teach His Word among the Gentiles. Just as told in the Tanakh, he was preaching to all nations, and everyone was allowed to enter and convert. Besides which, there was never any prohibition among the Pharisees from preaching to Gentiles, as seen in Matthew 23.

Judaism has been around for a long time and includes quite a few Pagan concepts including sacrifices and jealousy of other Gods.

What makes this a Pagan concept? As I said, the Jewish teachings hold that from the beginning Cain and Able were to sacrifice to God.

It isn't so much unconsciously incorporating ideas as it was taking advantage of timing. The known world was changing. Philosophies and religious concepts from far away lands were spreading and merging.

The masses had just the right mixture of ignorance, knowledge and beliefs. It was time for a worldwide religion to take hold.

All it took was a little flexibility in things like how and when the Sabbath was observed and, oh yea, that circumcision requirement just had to go.

So the answer to the question, " which Pagan concepts did Paul consciously or unconsciously incorporate into Christianity ?" seems to be "none".

Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 12:04 am

Pez Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:07 am
Hi AOFM,
I'm enjoying your comments. Glad to see them.

Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 12:07 am

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:09 am
Pez: And yet we have tens of thousands of surviving ms.

Not from the Roman period we don't. From the middle ages, sure, but not from the 1st through 3rd centuries.

We have numerous extant copies from the time of these purges and from well before the acceptance of Constantine of the religion.

Numerous? If by numerous you mean more than one I agree. Otherwise please show some sources.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2009 @ 12:09 am

GringoRoyale Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:34 am
Hi TP;

To me life is a process and, therefore, one gains purpose in life through the pursuit of Love and knowledge.

When you say "therefore" it's almost like that's the logical conclusion of the fact that, for you, life is a process. Now, no one can say correctly that you have no right to superimpose whatever purpose you want to over life. But it would still be arbitrary or at the very least not an inherent characteristic to life. But I would still take exception with the "therefore" simply by virtue of life being a process; because life can still be a process and no one (possibly) could gain any purpose in life.

Let's just grant that the "therefore" is perfectly legitimate. You said that one gains this purpose through the pursuit of Love and knowledge. But you also said that we all have different Truths. I commented that if knowledge isn't directed towards the Truth (singular) then why follow it. If we all have different Truths then what we are searching for doesn't really seem to be located in reality. It's something that we ultimately conjure up. Say we're terrible at developing a good understanding for what we actually experienced in our day to day living. That our inferences are usually off, myopic, and/or clouded by other assumptions that tend to skew our interpretation in the wrong direction.
But this person would be no more wrong that the person with their more-encompassing worldview, less clouded by assumptions that cause them to jump to unfounded conclusions. Because ultimately Truth is different for everyone.

This is probably why I don't feel a need for an external source to give meaning to my existence.

Alot of people who become religiously devout don't feel the need for an external source to give meaning to their existence. But if reality is such that this external source does exist and it truly gives meaning to each and every person's existence then it really doesn't matter what anyone thinks they need.
Also, what better source than an external source to give meaning to our lives? If we want that meaning to be real, something truly inherent to our life and not simply something superimposed over our life it seems that an external source would be much better at lending/imbuing that meaning than ourselves.

Comment by GringoRoyale — April 3, 2009 @ 1:34 am

Pez Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 am
Google "ancient copies new testament"
First hit.
http://www.geocities.com/Heart...

Second hit:
http://www.carm.org/questions/...

There are presently 5,686 Greek manuscripts in existence today for the New Testament.1 If we were to compare the number of New Testament manuscripts to other ancient writings, we find that the New Testament manuscripts far outweigh the others in quantity.2

In addition there are over 19,000 in copies in the Syriac, Latin, Coptic, and Aramaic languages. The total supporting New Testament manuscript base is over 24,000.

Furthermore, another important aspect of this discussion is the fact that we have a fragment of the gospel of John that dates back to around 29 years from the original writing. This is extremely close to the original writing date. This is simply unheard of in any other ancient writing and it demonstrates that the Gospel of John is a first century document.

Third hit:
http://www.josh.org/site/c.ddK...

The New Testament was originally composed in the Greek language. There are approximately 5,500 copies in existence that contain all or part of the New Testament. Although we do not possess the originals, copies exist from a very early date.

The New Testament was written from about A.D. 50 to A.D. 90. The earliest fragment (p. 52) dates about A.D. 120, with about fifty other fragments dating within 150–200 years from the time of composition.

Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 1:46 am

GringoRoyale Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 1:46 am
Not from the Roman period we don't. From the middle ages, sure, but not from the 1st through 3rd centuries.

Are you discounting Church Fathers as well? The writings of Ignatius, Clement of Rome, Iraneaus, Justin the Martyr, etc.

Also, what about the living body of Christ: The Church.
Books or not, you have a body of believers that were familiar with the stories. Randomly inject new stories or alter existing ones and people are going to say something along the lines of "huh?".

Comment by GringoRoyale — April 3, 2009 @ 1:46 am

Raevmo Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Hey Gringo, what purpose does Jesus give to your life?

Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2009 @ 9:58 am

angryoldfatman Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:15 am
Pez wrote:

I'm enjoying your comments. Glad to see them.

Thank you, and I'm sorry if I'm not as knowledgeable as most of you guys here and show my ignorance.

I'm just an old guy who's thought about these things a lot. It gets boring when you drive 2 hours a day back & forth to work for 11 years, like I used to do.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 3, 2009 @ 10:15 am

Pez Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:17 am
To Allen MacNeill

that people who live lives that conform to Christian values have a net positive effect on themselves and the people around them, and that therefore the only justification for professing a belief in such values might be that such a profession somehow causes them to live their lives in such a way. Once again, I have seen no evidence of this

Your reliance upon empiricism seems misplaced to me, but since you allude to it, have you looked at the empirical evidence regarding Christianity and "net positive" impact?
What is your take on the fact that empiricism indicates that Christians live longer, survive cancer better, give more to charity, donate more freely of their time, have longer happier marriages, exhibit a lower incidence of substance abuse, have a better mental outlook, are less given to depression, and are more likely to raise children with these same attributes?
I know you thought you had an empirical study that shows Christians are disproportionately represented in the penal system that received a thorough debunking. Have you looked further?

Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 11:17 am

Pez Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
TB said on another thread:

I want people to accept the authority of those who use rigorous standards of objectivity over (not instead of) the authority of those who just make up random nonsense (like "condoms worsen the Aids problem").

Or like 'Christianity's claims are identical to those of the mystery religions.'

Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 12:39 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:42 pm
Pez: Or like 'Christianity's claims are identical to those of the mystery religions.'

Now you are attacking straw men, I clearly said no such thing. I only said that many of its claims seem like fairly generic cultural elements of the time.

I think the main fact apologists neglect is that strength of the evidence must match the strength of the claim. Here's a quote from one of the links Pez provided:

If the critics of the Bible dismiss the New Testament as reliable information, then they must also dismiss the reliability of the writings of Plato, Aristotle, Caesar, Homer, and the other authors mentioned in the chart at the beginning of the paper.

If someone tried to convince me that Plato's Allegory of the Cave was describing an historical location I would not believe it. If someone told me ancient texts absolutely prove that Plato literally existed I would disagree. Combine ancient texts with archeological evidence such as stone busts of Plato and the evidence tips towards his most likely existing but I'm certainly not going to accept that everything Aristotle wrote about him was an accurate direct quote. I accept the existence of Plato largely because there is no reason not to, its a weak claim to simply say someone existed so weak evidence is sufficient. When Aristotle "quotes" Plato as saying specific things I doubt these are exact quotes while accepting that Plato may well have spoken on such issues; this is a slightly stronger claim so it is accepted more tenuously. Still, if someone could provide evidence that Plato was actually just invented by Aristotle I would shrug and admit, "sure, that seems possible."

Now you tell me that a man walked on water, raised the dead, and was resurrected, well those are remarkably strong claims and would require remarkably strong evidence. Yet we don't have so much as a stone bust of Jesus to tell us what he looked like. We have only a handful of people writing all these claims and those people are known to be radically devoted cult members. We have other evidence like the borrowing of ideas from other cultures. The evidence is far to weak for such amazing claims. Yet the apologists shout, "look, we can confirm these one or two historical details, therefore it must all be the literal truth."

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2009 @ 2:42 pm

Pez Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:47 pm
Todd B quotes me and says:

Or like 'Christianity's claims are identical to those of the mystery religions.'

Now you are attacking straw men, I clearly said no such thing. I only said that many of its claims seem like fairly generic cultural elements of the time.

FIND: 'Identical'

Bradford claims the resurrection of Jesus is so well documented that we should accept it while rejecting the myriad of other identical claims
…
Still, let's agree that there is a lot more written about Jesus that about the myriad other nearly identical mythologies.
…
Perhaps some of these unique elements contributed to why it won the popularity contest against hundreds if not thousands of other faiths that were otherwise largely identical in their content, I don't know.

Author: Todd Berkebile

Rigorous Objectivity: 1
Making Up Random Nonsense: 0
Strawman: Non-existent

Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 2:47 pm

Todd Berkebile Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 2:59 pm
Sigh, I can see you want to play word games. There are specific Christian claims which are nearly identical to other mythologies. That does not mean that all of Christianity’s claims are identical to other claims as your quote implies. Your quote is clearly a distortion so of course I called you on it. In fact, I clearly said:

Likewise the Jewish and Christian faiths borrowed heavily from various pagan religions but they mixed those into their own unique frameworks which of course leads to differences.

I acknowledged that their resulting religion was a unique creation.

The result was the adoption and adaptation of various mythologies combined with their unique cultural background to create a unique product.

Since you think your case is so strong I'm confused why you would resort to distortion.

Comment by Todd Berkebile — April 3, 2009 @ 2:59 pm

Pez Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:19 pm
Sigh. You clearly did say such a thing that Christianity's claims were identical to those of Pagan myths, and "other" mystery cults. Now you want to couch your defence behind "I said it but you are distorting it" and by selectively quoting yourself to obscure the fact that you said that the claims, borrowed individually from this that and the other cult, were combined into a unique religion, which you admitted when you couldn't sustain your first claim.
TB:

Likewise the Jewish and Christian faiths borrowed heavily from various pagan religions but they mixed those into their own unique frameworks which of course leads to differences. The didn't borrow from just one source, instead they may have borrowed Satan from the Zoroastrians during the Babylonian Captivity, they may have borrowed resurrection myths and virgin birth myths for the Cult of Mithrias, they may have borrowed Dec 25th from Horris and Easter from the goddess Eostre. But they combined these with a unique cultural heritage so of course they end up with a unique result. No one is suggesting otherwise.

…

What does this have to do with their borrowing significant mythological elements from neighboring contemporary societies? They didn't live in a protected bubble, much to the contrary they were scattered as slaves in Egypt, Babylon, and the Roman empire. During those experiences they undoubtedly exchanged cultural elements. The result was the adoption and adaptation of various mythologies combined with their unique cultural background to create a unique product.

To make clear what TB means by a unique religion, he said this in response to a challenge:

Now cite one of the "identical in their content" practices…including the purpose and moral behind the practice.

This demand shows that you don't understand what I mean about borrowing from other cultures. It seems unlikely that the "purpose and moral" behind a borrowed cultural reference would remain identical, what seems more likely is that an external story would be borrowed and twisted into something that supports whatever existing value the borrowing culture favors.

So TB confirms that the claims are borrowed (identically) and are then twisted to a different point and purpose (unique religion).

===

I have distorted nothing. I have highlighted the irony of your claim on one thread to adherence to rigorous objectivity over random inventions while on this thread you champion the random inventions. Inventions for which you've provided not a shred of evidence of having existed before the Christian era or having been borrowed by Christianity.
My case is strong and you haven't dented it a bit. You can't, because empirics are not on your side. Only eye-rolling and exclamations of "d'uh".

Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 3:19 pm

Pez Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Speaking of that thread, and rigorous objectivity and proper authorities, have you found an authority yet to counter my authority and to back up your random attack?

I want people to accept the authority of those who use rigorous standards of objectivity over (not instead of) the authority of those who just make up random nonsense (like "condoms worsen the Aids problem").

http://telicthoughts.com/whats...

Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 3:23 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 4:19 pm
Pez wrote:

Or like 'Christianity's claims are identical to those of the mystery religions.'

Todd Berkebile responded:

Now you are attacking straw men, I clearly said no such thing. I only said that many of its claims seem like fairly generic cultural elements of the time.

Pez countered:

FIND: 'Identical'

[quoting Todd]
Bradford claims the resurrection of Jesus is so well documented that we should accept it while rejecting the myriad of other identical claims
…
Still, let's agree that there is a lot more written about Jesus that about the myriad other nearly identical mythologies.
…
Perhaps some of these unique elements contributed to why it won the popularity contest against hundreds if not thousands of other faiths that were otherwise largely identical in their content, I don't know.

Todd Berkebile then claimed:

Sigh, I can see you want to play word games.

Yeah, that word game is called "being caught dead to rights".

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 3, 2009 @ 4:19 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 8:22 pm
I guess that many religious IDists at TT do not believe in the literal truth of the biblical flood story, with all of human kind reduced to 8 (or 6?) people in an act of unmatched genocide. I have heard (but I haven't verified, never actually having read the entire book) that in the Bible Jesus does appear to profess believe in the historicity of the flood. Same story with Adam and Eve. If true, does that mean some of Jesus' words as written down in the Bible are fabrications by the authors? And if that is true in turn, how do we know what he actually did say?

Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2009 @ 8:22 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:05 pm
Raevmo wrote:

I guess that many religious IDists at TT do not believe in the literal truth of the biblical flood story, with all of human kind reduced to 8 (or 6?) people in an act of unmatched genocide.

I can't speak for anyone else, so I won't.

But if the religious IDists of which you write did believe in the biblical flood story, "with all of human kind reduced to 8 (or 6?) people in an act of unmatched genocide", what's your problem with that?

I have heard (but I haven't verified, never actually having read the entire book) that in the Bible Jesus does appear to profess believe in the historicity of the flood.

I'll verify it for you. Here are the words of Christ:

Matthew 24:37-39

But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe [Noah] entered into the ark,

And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

Luke 17:26-27

And as it was in the days of Noe [Noah], so shall it be also in the days of the Son of man.

They did eat, they drank, they married wives, they were given in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, and the flood came, and destroyed them all.

Same story with Adam and Eve.

Adam and Eve are not mentioned by Christ. The Gospel of Luke mentions Adam in Christ's genealogy.

If true, does that mean some of Jesus' words as written down in the Bible are fabrications by the authors?

There are four Gospels for a reason. These are four different accounts of the life of the same man who didn't write down anything himself, much like Socrates. You can compare the Gospels yourself. I don't think there are any outright fabrications, but I have noticed different authors getting Jesus' words a little jumbled, like Matthew's account of Jesus talking about the end of the world versus Luke's.

And if that is true in turn, how do we know what he actually did say?

How do we know what anybody said 2000 years ago? Written accounts. And as Pez as studiously noted, written accounts of Jesus' words are more consistent and extant than any other figure of that period.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 3, 2009 @ 9:05 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:32 pm
Thanks for setting me straight about Adam & Eve, angry. So it's true then that Jesus confirmed the Noah story, even though science has shown it to be false. How do you explain this?

Comment by Raevmo — April 3, 2009 @ 9:32 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 9:56 pm
Raevmo wrote:

So it's true then that Jesus confirmed the Noah story, even though science has shown it to be false. How do you explain this?

I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak with authority on the scientific validity of the Flood.

What I do know, however, is the ubiquity of the story. It exists in practically every culture we've ever encountered, even in cultures that proliferated the story long before any exposure to Christianity, Judaism, or the supposed influentual religions before them. And to enforce the idea of common origin, rituals that make no sense except in context of such an event were passed down on both hemispheres.

That's more anthropology than geology or paleontology, but it's good enough for me.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 3, 2009 @ 9:56 pm

nullasalus Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Not to mention that Christ's reference to the flood is one of giving a familiar example to bolster an unconnected point about the coming of the Son. Christ isn't teaching about the flood, or declaring that the flood was worldwide, etc. He's pointing out that a dramatic event can take place without there being sirens and giant warning signs in the time immediately leading up to it. No weight is put on strict historicity or details of Noah or the flood in that context.

Comment by nullasalus — April 3, 2009 @ 10:33 pm

Pez Says:
April 3rd, 2009 at 11:11 pm
Since science defence requires discrediting the Bible some of these conversations have come up previously.

Here we had a short go at Todd B's recent slavery example but with a different pro-science interlocutor. It might be a little scrambled, but perhaps we can forego some of the inevitable back and forth:
http://telicthoughts.com/limit...

[evidence offered against Biblical morality]
Exodus 21:20 And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall be surely punished. 21:21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.

What's wrong with that religious truth? The Bible confirmed that servants were people with protection under the law. It provided the same punishment for injuring or killing a servant as was afforded free people.

If you kill your servent, then the Bible says your should be punished. So far so good. Did you read the second verse? If yiou beat him, and he survives a day or two, and then dies, there is NO punishment for beating your servent. Afterall, "he is his money", i.e., he is your property.

Faulty reading. It does not say if he dies in a day or two but that he gets up after a day or two. He [the perpetrator] owes nobody compensation for the missed work because the cost is his own. To understand this you have to read the previous verse where the free man also gets up after a day or two.

20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

You've misread the passage on the punishment of the slave-owner and his injured slave and your IHateGod.com websites aren't going to be of any help. You have to not only read the verse following but the verses preceding which give it context.
.
So if the servant (or slave) is beat up so he is incapacited a day or two, then no punishment is due. Afterall, he is your servant, and the two days lost work are your loss.

The servant can be punished no more severely than can a free man and the punishment for striking him is the same as that for striking a free man. The servant was equal as a person and equal under the law.

What about the servant (or slave)? Does he have no rights? Apparently not.

. Servants had the right to take their masters before the judges, could have him punished just as a free man could, and could have his freedom granted or his labour transferred to another master. They had the right to own property, the right to marriage and education, the right to earn, the right to protection, the right to rest, the right to religious observance, the right to pay off their debt, and the right to employ their own servants. I asked you to do some real reading before wasting our time with these issues. You don't know what you are talking about and you have no business admonishing anybody else to read the Bible.
The verse says the free man is not to be punished for beating his servant. Earlier it said the free man should be punished for hitting another free man. Strike a free man you get punished, strike your servant you do not. Where is the equality there?

That's why you read the whole thing and not just one verse from ArgueAboutTheBible.com.
a) He was not punished for hitting the other man, he was punished for causing the other man material loss.
b) He does not cause the slave material loss.
c) Free men were to be punished by striking with a rod just as slaves were.

18"If men have a quarrel and one strikes the other with a stone or with his fist, and he does not die but remains in bed,

19if he gets up and walks around outside on his staff, then he who struck him shall go unpunished; he shall only pay for his loss of time, and shall take care of him until he is completely healed.

Same chapter. Remember when I said you had to read the verses preceding the one you liked and then provided you a link?
Like I said, you don't need me for a middle man here, you can find this out yourself quite easily.

At the end fmm offers up some more sources:
http://telicthoughts.com/limit...

Comment by Pez — April 3, 2009 @ 11:11 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 11:28 am
Hi Pez,

Here is your biblical quote in context from the King James version…

29And he said, Come. And when Peter was come down out of the ship, he walked on the water, to go to Jesus.

30But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid; and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

31And immediately Jesus stretched forth his hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?

32And when they were come into the ship, the wind ceased.

33Then they that were in the ship came and worshipped him, saying, Of a truth thou art the Son of God.

Here are some more passages…

Matthew 5:9

"Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God."

Romans 8:14-17

14For as many as are led by the Spirit of God, they are the sons of God.

15For ye have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear; but ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.

16The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

17And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

1 John 3:1-3

1Behold, what manner of love the Father hath bestowed upon us, that we should be called the sons of God: therefore the world knoweth us not, because it knew him not.

2Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is.

3And every man that hath this hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.

This takes me back to my religous exploration during my teenage years. You see, my early exposure to religion was in a small Christian Science church where we recited the Scientific Statement of Being every Sunday morning.

There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter.
All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all.
Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error.
Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal.
Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness.
Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual.

My religious teachers focused on explaining "God is Love" to the point of rewritting the 23rd Psalm to something like…

Love is my shepherd; I shall not want.
Love maketh me to lie down in green pastures: Love leadeth me beside the still waters.
Love restoreth my soul: Love leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for Love's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for Love is in me; Love's rod and staff comfort me.
Love preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies: thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in the house of Love forever.

Concepts like this formed the foundation that Love and spirit (John 4:24) is what God is.

Jesus was described as showing us the way to understanding God is Love and that we ALL are the children of God. Sure, he was the son of God, just like I am the son of God.

When I got older (16-17 years old), I decided to explore other churches, starting with the big city Christian Science church. Initially I was exposed to the 20-something regulars. They liked me and I liked them. We enjoyed discussing and debating religious concepts to the point it became a regular after church ritual. Unfortunately, this activity didn’t sit well with at least one church elder and she put an end it by firmly stating there are certain things you MUST believe in order to call yourself a Christian and it was time for me to choose. After she walked away, it was obvious that the rest of the discussion group was going to bow to the church elder’s decree (for my own good, of course). So I chose.

I chose to explore several other religions. As you can probably image, not many modern Christian denominations would be comfortable with my interpretation. I even looked into Judaism. Unitarian Universalists were the most accommodating.

As I have indicated in the past, I think it is important for me to challenge my own thinking, my own understanding. You have helped me do that and I thank you for it.

However, when you point to a biblical passage that indicates Jesus was comfortable with being called a son of God, my reaction is “So what?” To me, that was the point. Jesus was leading by example.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 4, 2009 @ 11:28 am

Pez Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 12:04 pm
Hi TP,
Thanks for hanging around.

Sure, he was the son of God, just like I am the son of God.

Are you talking about a teaching you received or are you still personally making this claim?
The fact is Jesus Christ is The Son Of God in a very unique way (only begotten, first born (do not misinterpret that)) and emphatically NOT just like you are.
You are not the Alpha and the Omega, you are not the Word through Whom all things were created that were created, you are not worthy of worship, you are not the Lamb slain form the beginning, the Suffering Servant, our Living Redeemer, or our Savior.

If Jesus was leading by example then why did those that He most directly led not follow His example? Why did they, as I indicated above, most steadfastly and adamantly refuse to follow what you aver was His example? Angels and men are not the Son of God and they do not receive nor accept worship – only the One Eternal God does that. Jesus was making this claim about Himself by receiving worship (not just this one time) and in many other ways.

Speaking of context, you know there is a condition attached to those other verse you quote, right? Did you notice the mention of being led by the Spirit, suffering with Christ to be glorified with Him, adoption, etc. ? You see, when you provide the context of a few more verses you are still ignoring the context of the entire Word.

You still have to decide. Liar, lunatic or God? You've accepted the words of Paul and Luke so your previous option – lying biographers – is lost to you. You've also eliminated liar and lunatic, so why are you insisting there is some other magical choice?

Unitarian Universalists were the most accommodating.

God has been especially accommodating throughout history, to the point of condescending to reach down to us, become one of us and sacrifice His Son. He pursues you with a loving and broken heart asking you back into His family.

But your search for "accommodation" will not get you there. You are not God. You don't get to decide how the universe is and what Truth is. This is already decided and, just as you, against your own pride, have no choice but to succumb to the laws of physics and chemistry if you want to live (and even if you don't) you will not receive Life by standing in defiance, demanding accommodation and bandying a false and fragile pride.

With God running down the road, arms wide open to welcome us back into the family, however, we all can be His sons.

Thanks for your kind words. I've especially enjoyed many of these threads and talking with you and learning from the other science deniers.

Comment by Pez — April 4, 2009 @ 12:04 pm

Pez Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 12:08 pm
Since I am not qualified to be a teacher on this subject and I am certainly no preacher I ended that rant with an "end sermon" tag – a sarcastic jab at myself – but it didn't take for some reason. Just so you know.

Comment by Pez — April 4, 2009 @ 12:08 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 2:09 pm
Hi Pez,

Are you talking about a teaching you received or are you still personally making this claim?

I personally believe our true essence is a reflection of the spirit of Love that we call "God". It is by this refection that we call ourselves the "Children of God".

So yes, I think both you and I are Sons of God.

As for my view on religious concepts like baptism, Eucharist, heaven and hell…

From Christian Science's Science and Health with Keys to the Scripture.
Pages 35-36

Our baptism is a purification from all error. Our church is built on the divine Principle, Love. We can unite with this church only as we are newborn of Spirit, as we reach the Life which is Truth and the Truth which is Life by bringing forth the fruits of Love,–casting out error and healing the sick. Our Eucharist is spiritual communion with the one God. Our bread, "which cometh down from heaven," is Truth. Our cup is the cross. Our wine the inspiration of Love, the draught our Master drank and commended to his followers.
The design of Love is to reform the sinner. If the sinner's punishment here has been insufficient to reform him, the good man's heaven would be a hell to the sinner. They, who know not purity and affection by experience, can never find bliss in the blessed company of Truth and Love simply through translation into another sphere.

Personally, I don't know if there is an afterlife. However, if there is my religious upbringing biases me to think along the lines that after death our true essence passes on to a higher plane (i.e. "translation into another sphere…" of existence). I suggest we all are destined to the go to the same place regardless of choices we make while residing in our material bodies. However, our choices will influence our perceptions as to whether this higher plane of existence is "heaven" or "hell".

If Jesus was leading by example then why did those that He most directly led not follow His example?

For the same reason Peter had trouble following Jesus' example of walking on water. Material error is hard to recognize and reject.

You still have to decide. Liar, lunatic or God?

No I don't, "best intentions" is another possibility.

You've accepted the words of Paul and Luke so your previous option – lying biographers – is lost to you. You've also eliminated liar and lunatic, so why are you insisting there is some other magical choice?

As you are aware, I do not consider the bible to be the inerrant words of God or even the inerrant words of Paul and Luke. Even you have suggested the Bible needs to be viewed holistically. My philosophical outlook isn't based on words in an ancient book, it is based on loving and understanding the world around me and ALL of the people in it (not just the ones who agree with me).

Please excuse my preacher mode, but I thought it appropriate to further explain my philosophy.

I do have one question for you. Out of curiosity, what is your opinion of Arius? Were he and his followers Christians?

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 4, 2009 @ 2:09 pm

Pez Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Hi TP,

I enjoyed that post. Thanks.

Last things first, we have to be careful when we discuss matters of who is Christian and who isn't if we do not agree on definitions from the outset. I can not speak to whether or not God accepts Arius as a member in the body of Christ or if he is one who will cry "Lord, Lord…". That's not my place.
By my definition, however, Arius was a Christian, albeit a mistaken one, as I presume that he put his faith in the atoning death of the Son of God whose death and righteousness are imputed to his believers for their salvation.
I stand to be corrected by theologians, but I don't believe that when we stand before our Creator we will be given a quiz on right theology.

That is not to say that any person sincere in whatever they think to be true of the world will be saved. We do exist in reality and no matter how convinced you are you can fly you must still succumb to the power of gravity. We still have John 3:16 and 14:6 to deal with.

Let me also warn you that I don't intend to follow you down a progressive road of "well, is this a Christian? and if so, what about this?". I can only speak about what I know and believe and that from Scripture interpreted by people a lot smarter than I am.

So yes, I think both you and I are Sons of God.

But you haven't addressed what I said about the Unique Son of God. You can make up categories and labels all day long but that doesn't deal with the ontological truth.

re: your Christian Science blurb. How do you think one achieves this purification or reformation – by what power?
Please don't throw around a bunch of words in the manner of your quote like Spirit, Truth and God if you don't mean them. I am asking a real question about what you are claiming and if you don't know what it is you are claiming or have to obfuscate behind words you won't/can't define then I'd much prefer you say so.

If Jesus was leading by example then why did those that He most directly led not follow His example?

For the same reason Peter had trouble following Jesus' example of walking on water. Material error is hard to recognize and reject.

But this is not the case at all. Peter failed when walking upon the water for the same reason he denied Jesus three times and ran and hid upon the Crucifixion – lack of Faith, not "material error".
Once he was given this Faith he not only didn't run from death and punishment but rejoiced when he was counted worthy to be beaten in Jesus' name. He healed illness, brought people back to life and then went to his death for proclaiming Christ the Son of God risen. Whatever "material error" he had suffered on the sea he no longer had – and yet he, like the angels and all other creatures, rightfully refused worship.
Jesus accepted worship and never taught his disciples, by word or example, that they were to.

You still have to decide. Liar, lunatic or God?

No I don't, "best intentions" is another possibility.

You have eliminated no category here. Was He supposed to be a well-intentioned liar, or a well-intentioned lunatic? Regardless of His intentions He was still claiming to be the Son of God through Whom was the only way to salvation and life and knowledge of the Father.
You have solved no problem here by avoiding the question.

My philosophical outlook isn't based on words in an ancient book, it is based on loving and understanding the world around me and ALL of the people in it (not just the ones who agree with me).

Interesting. Do you think you can ever love anyone? Can you love perfectly? Do you think you will ever know everything? Or even completely and thoroughly know anything?
If not, what is the ultimate end of this so-called philosophy of yours?
And, I guess more to the point, what is the basis or grounding of this philosophy as a worldview?

How much do you think you'll have to know? Is Stephen Hawking smart enough to get to your "heaven" – if it exists?
Or how well will you have to love? Is Hefner on his way? Or would Mother Teresa the standard?
How will you ever know?

However, if there is my religious upbringing biases me to think along the lines that after death our true essence passes on to a higher plane (i.e. "translation into another sphere…" of existence). I suggest we all are destined to the go to the same place regardless of choices we make while residing in our material bodies. However, our choices will influence our perceptions as to whether this higher plane of existence is "heaven" or "hell".

I had this milquetoast view of Heaven a few years back as well. Not very motivating, is it?
My new-age-inspired pap of a view was so lame, in fact, that I really couldn't care less if I drifted blandly, without consciousness or form, into this useless cosmic whatever. I certainly didn't even care if my loved ones found their way there since I wouldn't know them in this great energy of oneness.

What is inspiring, of course, is trusting and having hope in the words of the only person to ever have come down to Earth and Who has gone back to Heaven to prepare us our place. But this hope is not mere wishful thinking (though it certainly is that) but rather is grounded in the Faithfulness and promise of God who proved Jesus to be who He said He was by raising Him to Glory – the first of the Resurrection.

As I bring up wishful thinking and belief I would suggest that our beliefs are shaped to some degree by our desires. This, of course, does not make them true. But my question to you would be why on Earth would you want your view to be true when you have such a well-attested and infinitely greater one presented to yo?

Comment by Pez — April 4, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

Pez Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Oops.
I meant "Do you think you can ever love everyone?"

Comment by Pez — April 4, 2009 @ 4:15 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 5:30 pm
Hi Pez,

I'm glad you enjoyed my post. However, I'm concerned we may be moving past explaining and into attempted conversion.

It was not my intent to go "…down a progressive road of…" of defining what is and is not Christian. I'm glad you leave open the possibility that Arius might have been right because I happen to think it is quite possible that billions of people can be fooled into accepting Group Think. The historical schisms are obvious as is the fact the prevaling opinion was decided by who had the political muscle. Might makes right?

Since I'm not inclined to think of God as some meddling supreme being, I tend to think it is quite possible we messed up and went down the wrong path around 300 AD.

But you haven't addressed what I said about the Unique Son of God.

We are all unique. Stephen Hawking is unique. You're unique. I'm unique. And since we are all Son's of God, we are all a "Unique Son of God".

In case I have to spell it out for you. I do not think Rabbi Yashua Ben Yosef was any more a deity than you or I are.

Was he "begotten" in the traditional sense? Since I don't consider God to be material, the question becomes either nosensical or answered in the negative.

Was he born to a virgin? Maybe, but I don't think it is very relevant one way or another.

re: your Christian Science blurb. How do you think one achieves this purification or reformation – by what power?
Please don't throw around a bunch of words in the manner of your quote like Spirit, Truth and God if you don't mean them. I am asking a real question about what you are claiming and if you don't know what it is you are claiming or have to obfuscate behind words you won't/can't define then I'd much prefer you say so.

I provided a link to the Christian Science's Science and Health with Keys to the Scripture Its 700 pages provides an introduction to what it means to be a Christian Scientist. You can also find Christian Science reading rooms in most cities around the world (link). In these reading rooms are many books to help one find meaning to such words as "Spirit, Truth and God".

These ideas are not easily expressed with the limited vocabulary available to us.

While my philosophy diverges from the formal tenents of Christian Science it is close enough that if I were to attempt to create my own organized religion, I would start with Christian Science books and modify them.

Frankly, I am not that interested in trying to form my own church.

But this is not the case at all. Peter failed when walking upon the water for the same reason he denied Jesus three times and ran and hid upon the Crucifixion – lack of Faith, not "material error".

Lack of faith = Focusing on material world instead of believing in the spiritual world.

Regardless of His intentions [Jesus] was still claiming to be the Son of God through Whom was the only way to salvation and life and knowledge of the Father.

I suggest this interpretation of John 14:6 is inconsistent with Rabbi Yeshua Ben Yosef's general message. I don't know if he was misquoted or this was a translation error. Plus, there are reasonable sounding arguments that viewing the passage in context provides a different meaning. Here is a link to one such argument.

To most people the point is long passed being moot. The myth called "Jesus" has been so deified that the man has been elevated to be co-equal with God himself and now included as part of God.

I find it kind of sad how many people don't even consider how this might be viewed as an extreme claim by non-Christians. Group Think mechanisms reinforce their confidence along the lines of “there is no doubt this is True and always has been.”

Do you think you can ever love [everyone]? Can you love perfectly? Do you think you will ever know everything? Or even completely and thoroughly know anything?

Life's a process. All I can do is try my best and, yes, I will undoubtedly fall short of perfection. However, if there is an afterlife, my efforts will help me deal with what I find there.

For example, I think I'm in a good position to deal with a plane of existence where square-circles exist. I suspect Fifth Monarchy Man might react by believing he ended up in hell.

And, if I end up facing a large bearded man with a booming voice, I would feel no shame.

This, of course, does not make them true. But my question to you would be why on Earth would you want your view to be true when you have such a well-attested and infinitely greater one presented to [you]?

I think, therefore I am.

If I deny my own thinking, I deny myself.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 4, 2009 @ 5:30 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 8:19 pm
Jesus/Yeshua claimed to God.

He claimed that his followers – his "sheep" – would receive eternal life from him.

He claimed to be the Messiah [Christ/Kristos], which had a very specific religious meaning to his fellow Jews.

He claimed that he and his Father, God, were one.

And when he claimed this, the Jewish religious authorities were going to stone him for blasphemy – explicitly charging him, whom they saw as a mere man, with claiming to be God Himself. A claim he did not deny to these authorities, unlike Paul and Barnabas.

Lewis' trilemma still stands strong. If you believe everything Jesus/Yeshua claimed, then you have to accept he was God. If you don't accept this, then Jesus/Yeshua either:

1. Claimed to be God when he knew very well he wasn't – which makes him a liar, or

2. Claimed to be God and really thought he was – which makes him like any other homeless, jobless drifter claiming to be God.

And either of these cases makes Yeshua ben Yosef a less-than-desirable moral teacher.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 4, 2009 @ 8:19 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 8:22 pm
aofm:

I'm not knowledgeable enough to speak with authority on the scientific validity of the Flood.

What I do know, however, is the ubiquity of the story. It exists in practically every culture we've ever encountered, even in cultures that proliferated the story long before any exposure to Christianity, Judaism, or the supposed influentual religions before them. And to enforce the idea of common origin, rituals that make no sense except in context of such an event were passed down on both hemispheres.

That's more anthropology than geology or paleontology, but it's good enough for me.

It's not good enough for me. Why is it good enough for you? If geology can't find any evidence for a world-wide flood 4000 or so years ago, then it probably didn't happen. Meaning the Bible is probably not literally true. That makes it kind of hard to believe anything else in the Bible, especially if Jesus, who presumably must have known that the flood didn't really happen, did nothing as far as we know to dispel these superstitions.

Comment by Raevmo — April 4, 2009 @ 8:22 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 9:16 pm
Raevmo wrote:

It's not good enough for me. Why is it good enough for you? If geology can't find any evidence for a world-wide flood 4000 or so years ago, then it probably didn't happen. Meaning the Bible is probably not literally true.

I've done a little more studying on the subject since I posted that comment, and I appreciate your persistence urging me to educate myself.

There seems to be some dispute among Bible scholars on whether the Flood was a global one or a local one. Mainly an argument over the Hebrew words "adamah" and "aretz" and their corresponding meanings in the text. I don't really understand it yet, but the gist of it is that one means "world" and the other means "region" or "area".

So I guess Genesis could have been describing an extremely large local flood.

Global or local, the Flood's purpose was still the same – to destroy the portion of mankind that had known God but then turned away from Him.

But turning away from God wasn't the only reason they had to be destroyed. After all, Cain had not suffered instant death from the Hand of the Almighty when he killed his brother.

The wages of sin is death, which will inevitably be paid by every man. God could have just waited and time plus His original curse would have taken care of these humans. Unless…

Unless they posed a danger that needed to be prevented to head off a greater calamity.

The greater calamity was to be the elimination of Noah and his family, who were the only ones left on Earth who knew God and loved Him. The people who laughed, jeered, and ridiculed Noah as he built the ark would have eventually either killed him and his family for not sharing in their sins or made all of their descendants turn away from God.

That is why we find this strange wording of the event in 1 Peter 3:20:

Which sometime were disobedient, when once the longsuffering of God waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was a preparing, wherein few, that is, eight souls were saved by water.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 4, 2009 @ 9:16 pm

AnaxagorasRules Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:10 pm
Regarding the world-wide flood reported in many cultures, I think the stories refer to an actual flood event, one that occurred at the end of the last ice age. The flood myths (I think) are the remnants of humanity's experience with that event, retained orally through the milleniums, but drastically revised and changed down through the oral tradition, to suit needs.

Of course, this is a speculation. However, there are sources which back up an ice-age flood, and one of them (which is just beginning to gain a little traction) is about a comet strike, which could explain the sudden disapearance of the Clovis people, along with the other mass extinctions that took place.

Comet Chilled and Killed Ice-age Beasts

Missoula Floods

Comment by AnaxagorasRules — April 4, 2009 @ 10:10 pm

Pez Says:
April 4th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
Hi AOFM,
Thanks for that perfect summary.

==

Hi TP,
I knew I was going to be disappointed when I scrolled up after loading this page and saw this from you as passed by:

I think, therefore I am.

We've gone right past "group think" back into your slogans.

I'm glad you enjoyed my post. However, I'm concerned we may be moving past explaining and into attempted conversion.

That concerns you? You said you loved me and asked if I didn't love you. Wouldn't you be glad that I am demonstrating it?
I don't know what is so special about your thinking that I should be enthralled with its explication, but the only thing that makes my explanations of any interest is whether or not they are true.

The historical schisms are obvious as is the fact the prevaling opinion was decided by who had the political muscle. Might makes right?

The royal family were Arians and Constantine himself was baptized by Eusebius. In Christianity truth makes right and the best arguments based upon the Scriptures usually will win out over time. Had Arius not involved the public at large this obscure theological concern would have been settled quietly with none much the wiser.

Since I'm not inclined to think of God as some meddling supreme being, I tend to think it is quite possible we messed up and went down the wrong path around 300 AD.

This isn't evolution, there are no frozen accidents and we can always work our way back from wrong paths. Many groups wrestle with the supra-rational concept of the Trinity and, coming up short, have tried to argue from their reason back into Scripture to some other conclusion. The best conclusion and most consistent still remains that Jesus was Who He said He was. God has told us about Himself in His Word and that is where we need to look for His truth. As AOFM pointed out "I and the Father are One".

We are all unique. Stephen Hawking is unique. You're unique. I'm unique. And since we are all Son's of God, we are all a "Unique Son of God".

Yes, we are very special and completely unique – just like everyone else.
Jesus was not "an" Unique Son Of God. Jesus is the Alpha and Omega, the Ego Eimi.

In case I have to spell it out for you. I do not think Rabbi Yashua Ben Yosef was any more a deity than you or I are.

And yet He claimed to be and accepted worship and didn't tell us to accept worship.
So, liar or lunatic?

You have supplied a link that supposedly answers my use of John 14 but it answers the wrong question (incorrectly). I didn't provide it for the 7th verse, regarding His divinity, but the 6th, regarding the rule of the universe, that there is only one Way to God, and that is through the Son. Nonetheless, if you think this is somehow inconsistent with Jesus' real message I would suggest you haven't actually read it.
Here's a quick thought on this verse:
http://www.leestrobel.com/vide...

In these reading rooms are many books to help one find meaning to such words as "Spirit, Truth and God".

These ideas are not easily expressed with the limited vocabulary available to us.

Yes, I have a Christian Science reading room directly in my path to 7-11 and I guess I could stop there some day and read through their volumes to find out what you might be saying. But we have a shared meaning of Spirit, Truth and God and if you are trading on that meaning by use of these words but you are knowingly hiding your own definition then you owe it to decent communication to say so and to say what you are talking about.

Lack of faith = Focusing on material world instead of believing in the spiritual world.

You seem here able to define "faith" well enough. But what is the "spiritual world" and what is "spirit?

I find it kind of sad how many people don't even consider how this might be viewed as an extreme claim by non-Christians.

Of course it is an extreme claim. It is an offence. The Cross is an offence and Jesus is offensive. Everybody knows it and Jesus told us so Himself. And often the truth offends because, contrary to your square-circle anticipation there really is right and wrong and when two things are truly contradictory one must be wrong. Jesus Crucified is an offence and a stumblingblock.
Jesus, you might recall, offended a lot of people. So did his disciples; they were beaten, imprisoned and killed because their message was so extreme and offensive.

Life's a process. All I can do is try my best and, yes, I will undoubtedly fall short of perfection. However, if there is an afterlife, my efforts will help me deal with what I find there.

On your own you most assuredly will fall short of perfection – as will we all. You cannot attain righteousness or atone for your own sins.

And, if I end up facing a large bearded man with a booming voice, I would feel no shame.

This is a rather bold prediction and indicates the exact kind of hubris that separates us from the truth.
It seems to me that anyone who can say this has not contemplated God's Holiness or his own condition. You boast of this kind of arrogance, and you have since coming here, but I should think the number of times you've been humbled would indicate to you that your confidende is misplaced. C.S. Lewis spoke of, and I've experienced, the futility of really examining one's thought life and motivations and attempting to ferret out the unrighteous. Everytime you think you've exposed and dealt with one impure element there is another exposed beneath it. Like Eustace when he tried to remove his scales, we cannot dig through the layers of our own sin. With such an exalted view of yourself I am sure right now you will be thinking that you surely have no such problem and I imagine that this humbling aspect of Christianity is what really turns you off – as opposed to the claim that Christ is God or that we can know the truth.
But being laid bare is exactly what it is about.

As Isaiah declared when contemplating God "Woe is me, for I am undone!"

Here's R.C. Sproul on this subject:

Isaiah was a man of integrity, yet one glimpse of God's holiness makes him come apart at the seams. As long as our gaze is fixed on the horizontal plane of this earth, we have no problem with ourselves. But if we lift our gaze to heaven and contemplate what God is, we will be broken. Security and smugness is annihilated. Holy men are reduced to trembling with one glimpse of God.

When Isaiah discovers who God is he pronounces an oracle of doom on himself—a curse. The first time he saw what God is was the first time he saw who he was. He saw that he had a dirty mouth and that his dirtiness was epidemic, pandemic

http://www.desiringgod.org/Blo...
But somehow Thought Provoker is going to stand before God confident in his own deeds.

You "think", but do you examine?

This is one reason people can't embrace the Gospel – they can't get past this human illusion that they are pretty good as they are, that they really aren't so bad afterall. This, of course, is the original deceit, that we can go it on our own. And until you can admit that you are sick you will never look for the cure. Martin Luther, a brilliant and pious man if ever there was one, and surely an immense thinker, knew this. He knew he could never be right by his own works and it drove him to despair – until he discovered Grace.

If I deny my own thinking I deny myself.

Better that than denying the one Who made you and in Whose righteousness you can actually find the real confidence and boldness to approach the throne of God.

Am I trying to convert you? I am only called as a witness, and a feeble one at that. Your conviction will come from elsewhere.

1 Timothy 2:5
For there is one God and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.

Comment by Pez — April 4, 2009 @ 10:21 pm

Raevmo Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Pez:

And yet He claimed to be and accepted worship and didn't tell us to accept worship.
So, liar or lunatic?

Or perhaps he never made that claim at all. If he did however, my money is on lunatic.

Comment by Raevmo — April 5, 2009 @ 5:30 am

Pez Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 9:06 am
Based upon what?

Comment by Pez — April 5, 2009 @ 9:06 am

angryoldfatman Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:33 am
Raevmo wrote:

Or perhaps he never made that claim [being God] at all.

According to the Gospels, He certainly did.

That was the accusation that almost got Him stoned to death at least twice and ultimately that was the charge upon which He was crucified.

The Roman governor even mocked Him and the Jewish leaders simultaneously by having a sign put over His head stating as much: [THIS IS JESUS OF NAZARETH] THE KING OF THE JEWS.

If he did however, my money is on lunatic.

It certainly is your prerogative to believe such. However, considering what kind of bet you're making here and your belief in the power of chance in general, I'd love to own a casino that had a bunch of customers like you.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 5, 2009 @ 10:33 am

Thought Provoker Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 11:47 am
Hi AngryOldFatman,

You made reference to Lewis's Trilemma.

And summarized it as…

Jesus/Yeshua either:

1. Claimed to be God when he knew very well he wasn't – which makes him a liar, or

2. Claimed to be God and really thought he was – which makes him like any other homeless, jobless drifter claiming to be God.

And either of these cases makes Yeshua ben Yosef a less-than-desirable moral teacher.

Why?

Are you looking for perfection in the imperfect, material world?

Of course you are.

History is full of "lunatics" whose contributions are uniquely and undeniably superior to what "normal" people have done.

So even if Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was a "homeless, jobless drifter claiming to be God", that doesn't invalidate his message (Ad Hominem logical fallacy).

In summary, I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. There are too many opportunities for error. Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef could have been misquoted or his meaning could have been misunderstood. The words inevitably were modified in translation, first to Greek and then to English.

From my holistic understanding of the new testament, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was teaching by example and telling everyone they needed to reject the material world (eye of needles, etc) and embrace the spiritual (i.e. God).

It would have been inconsistent for Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef to have suggested worshiping a mortal human being, even if it was himself. Therefore, I believe his words and/or meaning has been badly misinterpreted to the point that the myth called “Jesus” has become the modern graven image.

We are ALL the sons and daughters of God.

I will get into more of this in follow up comments.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 11:47 am

angryoldfatman Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
TP, thanks for your response. I appreciate your willingness to discuss this subject.

Are you looking for perfection in the imperfect, material world? Of course you are.

Well, not really. If Jesus had never claimed to be God, then Lewis' trilemma falls flat. He, like the apostles and disciples that succeeded Him, or Confucius, or Lao Tzu, or the Buddha, could have simply been considered a wonderful teacher and/or prophet. And I would have happily accepted that.

But He did claim it, if one believes even one of the Gospels.

History is full of "lunatics" whose contributions are uniquely and undeniably superior to what "normal" people have done.

So even if Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was a "homeless, jobless drifter claiming to be God", that doesn't invalidate his message (Ad Hominem logical fallacy).

What you say about lunatics is partially true. I vaguely remember the story of a male Egyptologist who measured the pyramids wearing a ballerina's tutu.

But the Egyptologist's claims were modest and verifiable. Jesus' claims were much more. So much more that some people today would prefer to believe He never existed rather than believe any words He spoke.

As for my "homeless, jobless drifter claiming to be God" comment, it is an accurate description of Jesus' life when He began His ministry. I somehow doubt you would hold on to your ideals about finding wisdom in the words of such a person if they came up to you on the street in real life.

In summary, I don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. There are too many opportunities for error. Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef could have been misquoted or his meaning could have been misunderstood. The words inevitably were modified in translation, first to Greek and then to English.

Of course you can believe what you want to believe, and I can't help that.

There are certainly metaphorical portions and encoded portions of the Bible; few people dispute this. The story of Jesus' life is not one of these portions. It is meant to be history.

To fall back on the "many translations equals many errors" excuse would have us discount most of written human history. The Greek manuscripts that make up the New Testament are some of the best preserved history we have of any event in that time period, written much closer in time to the actual event than most Roman histories usually were.

And though we haven't ventured there yet, I used to think the same way you did about the Hebrew scriptures until I learned that they've used checksums for centuries to ensure the integrity of copying.

It would have been inconsistent for Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef to have suggested worshiping a mortal human being, even if it was himself.

The temple priests called for His death just for this very reason. His message was not the threatening message of the Zealots, so the anticipated rebuttal of "He was killed for political expediency" rings hollow here. If anything, His message was the exact opposite of what the Zealots wanted to hear – render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

This goes double if you want to believe in the Hippy "All You Need Is Love" Jesus. Hippy Jesus isn't a very good hero to lead an insurrection to overthrow Herod Antipas, the temple priesthood, and the Roman governor. All Hippy Jesus' followers would probably do is sit around, smoke hemp, and talk about how they're going to save Judaea with drum circles and good vibes.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 5, 2009 @ 1:25 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 1:43 pm
Hi Pez,

Having given my warning about crossing the threshold from explanation to conversion, your response seemed to indicate a permission to continue.

I don't know if your motivation is just bravado or a conscious decision to risk questioning fundamental foundations of beliefs.

I will presume the latter.

I am not interested in trying to make my Truth your Truth. However, the deeper we go into the details of why I reject what you feel is obvious; it may start to sound like I am trying to convert you. Again, that is not my intent.

That being said…

Now that I have exposed more details of my beliefs, I would hope it is clearer why I find the accusation of "materialist" amusing. From my point of view, most of the religious faithful are desperately clinging to a material-focused philosophy.

Examples of the material focus starting with how Jesus was "begotten" and continues through having both the "virgin" Mary and Jesus ascensions include their physical bodies. And, of course, the ultimate in "taking it with you" is the promise that ALL true believers will PHYSICALLY ascend to heaven to an eternity of contentment.

So let's start with Jesus being God's only begotten son. How did that work exactly? Did God take a physical form allowing Mary and him to copulate? Or did God poof his sperm into Mary's fallopian tubes to impregnate one of Mary's eggs?

Think of the ramifications of finding usable DNA samples of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef and his mother, Mary. Would we be able to determine God's blood type? Would any of Mary's genes be dominant enough to overcome omnipotent genes?

I think common sense would suggest that if Jesus was actually born to a Virgin, the resultant DNA would be either exclusively Mary's or entirely God's.

I understand human virgin births are theoretically possible, but the result would be a female child. But for the sake of argument, let's presume the Supreme Being could morph an X chromosome into a Y. Either that, or Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was actually a female pretending to be male so her message wouldn’t be automatically rejected in a male-dominated society.

To me, the “begotten son” claim is either nonsensical or unimportant.

“I think, therefore I am” isn’t a slogan, it is THE fundamental philosophical presumption.

My thoughts are what make me, me. From there, I deduce that everyone’s thoughts are what make them who they are. Not the physical container. Jesus could have been a talking parrot and the message would still be valid. I could respect, admire and, even, love the talking parrot, but I would think it silly to worship it to the exclusion of all others.

In other words, I rejection the materialist dogma mandating a physical form be the “Truth”.

…there are no frozen accidents and we can always work our way back from wrong paths. Many groups wrestle with the supra-rational concept of the Trinity and, coming up short, have tried to argue from their reason back into Scripture to some other conclusion. The best conclusion and most consistent still remains that Jesus was Who He said He was. God has told us about Himself in His Word and that is where we need to look for His truth. As AOFM pointed out "I and the Father are One".

Again, that implies materialist thinking. I suggest, "We and the Father are One" if, and when, we reject the physical and embrace the spiritual. Once again, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was teaching by example.

I agree "…we can always work our way back from wrong paths" and am hopeful we can. I expect that the ramifications of discoveries in Quantum Mechanics will shake the materialist philosophy at its core. Hopefully, we can then get back on the right path. Unfortunately, there will probably be a lot of ugliness during the transition.

And often the truth offends because, contrary to your square-circle anticipation there really is right and wrong and when two things are truly contradictory one must be wrong.

You might want to look further into Quantum Physics to see how two contradictory states can "exist" at the same time. BTW, the classical resolution depends on how the system is observed.

Philosophically, I reject the assumption there is only one Truth that applies to everyone. Now, we have experimental evidence challenging that old materialist-based assumption.

This is a rather bold prediction and indicates the exact kind of hubris that separates us from the truth.

Hopefully, you understand these kinds of statements come across to me as a suggestion that I give up my Truth for someone else's.

I do not claim to know everything. I know I don't, that is why I am continually searching and modifying my philosophical outlook.

I am not afraid to recognize mistakes in other people's writings I previously thought were correct. I am even willing to reject my own previous statements.

My "hubris" doesn't come from a presumption that I am right, it comes from a presumption that I must think for myself and understand for myself.

Otherwise I am not me.

Your Truth isn't my Truth.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 1:43 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 3:25 pm
Hi AngryOldFatman,

To my suggestion Jesus wouldn't want people to worship him you responded with…

The temple priests called for His death just for this very reason. His message was not the threatening message of the Zealots, so the anticipated rebuttal of "He was killed for political expediency" rings hollow here. If anything, His message was the exact opposite of what the Zealots wanted to hear – render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.

This goes double if you want to believe in the Hippy "All You Need Is Love" Jesus. Hippy Jesus isn't a very good hero to lead an insurrection to overthrow Herod Antipas, the temple priesthood, and the Roman governor.

First of all, I hope you agree the official charge was political. Pontius Pilate labeled him King of the Jews.

While it is difficult to separate true motivations from rationalizations and excuses, please recall the biblical accounts of how Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef drove out the money changers and called the temple a "den of thieves".

So which is it? Were the Pharisees greedy Roman lackeys or pious religious leaders protecting their faith against Blasphemy? The answer may be a little of both.

I suggest the Pharisees rationalized what they were doing was right and just for multiple reasons. It is of no surprise that the charge that stuck was political. The claim of protecting “national security” has always been an effective tool used by those in charge.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 3:25 pm

Pez Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:13 pm
Hi TP,

Having given my warning about crossing the threshold from explanation to conversion, your response seemed to indicate a permission to continue.

I don't know if your motivation is just bravado or a conscious decision to risk questioning fundamental foundations of beliefs.

Bravado? Like that time you told me how troubling I'd find it to have you show me your insights into Biblical exegesis? Now as then, I think I can take it. To be honest, I guess I misread you, because I presumed your concern was that I was trying to persuade you, not vice versa. Risk questioning fundamental beliefs? Are you kidding? How do you think I got my fundamental beliefs?

I am not interested in trying to make my Truth your Truth. However, the deeper we go into the details of why I reject what you feel is obvious; it may start to sound like I am trying to convert you. Again, that is not my intent.

I'm not concerned and you can follow any motivation you like. What could you possibly have to offer a Christian in your worldview?

John 6:68

The best an atheist can tell me, erroneously, of course, is "at least you'd know the truth" but you've admitted you don't have the truth – and you certainly don't have anything to offer like Jesus does with your "maybe there's an afterlife and maybe there isn't and if there is it's some kind of different plane of existence. As I already told you – I've already walked away from that view.

Examples of the material focus starting with how Jesus was "begotten" and continues through having both the "virgin" Mary and Jesus ascensions include their physical bodies.

The Bible says nothing about Mary ascending and yes, Jesus was Glorified physically, as will be His followers.

So let's start with Jesus being God's only begotten son. How did that work exactly? Did God take a physical form allowing Mary and him to copulate? Or did God poof his sperm into Mary's fallopian tubes to impregnate one of Mary's eggs?

You just bragged about your non-materialism and yet, as always, your first instinct is to fall-back on your materialistic demands for mechanisms. Do you not think the the Person who MADE DNA, and life itself, can arrange for a Son t be born of a natural woman? How could your challenge possibly touch a Christian who believes in the sovereign Creator of the Universe ex nihilo (how much less materialistic can it get?) and the giving of life by His breath?

That said, if you want a materialistic explanation of how God could arrange for a virgin to give birth to a male i will point you to Frank Tipler. By the way, QM fan that you are, why have you not read him? Do so in order and you may be able to follow him along from atheist to agnostic to Christian.
The Physics Of Christianity

There are at least three ways to generate a male human being from genetic information that comes entirely from the mother.
…
I shall now describe a simple mechanism, completely consistent with known physical law, whereby a virgin birth can occur via the action of the Father through the Holy Spirit. In this mechanism, the mind of the virginally conceived Jesus would be in resonance with, and in complete harmony with, the Son from the instant of formation of the mind in the nervous tissue of the embryo.
…
(re: parthenogenesis)
But birds and mammals, including humans, are nevertheless similar to reptiles in that virtually all that the Y chromosome does is instruct male genes on other chromosomes to activate. The Y chromosome itself has no true sex determination genes.
…
It is easy to induce a human oocyte to begin cell division without first being fertilized by a sperm.
…
the essential genes to create a male are available in every human female, on other, non-X chromosomes.
…
I propose that Jesus was a special type of XX male (my emphasis)
a type that is quite rare in humans but extensively studied. Approximately 1 out of every 20,000 human males is an XX male..

That's probably enough info to get you to question your fundamental beliefs.

I think common sense would suggest that if Jesus was actually born to a Virgin, the resultant DNA would be either exclusively Mary's or entirely God's.

Yup.

To me, the “begotten son” claim is either nonsensical or unimportant.

Really? Then why did you just go on about why it seemed odd to you?
And, since you claim to be reading the NT holistically, why are you referring to "begotten" with reference to the physical birth of the man Jesus? The term, holistically, is a reference to the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity.

“I think, therefore I am” isn’t a slogan, it is THE fundamental philosophical presumption.

Once again, this is not a presumption but a logical proof of existence.

Jesus could have been a talking parrot and the message would still be valid. I could respect, admire and, even, love the talking parrot, but I would think it silly to worship it to the exclusion of all others.

Jesus' mission was not merely to deliver a message. And if a talking parrot said the things Jesus said then that talking parrot would be the Son of God to whom you would owe worship and obedience, not merely respect, admiration, and even love. Unless his claim was not validated, in which case he would be a lying talking parrot or a deranged talking parrot who would not warrant your respect and admiration – even if he meant well.

Again, that implies materialist thinking.

I guess you ought to demonstrate what this is supposed to mean.

I suggest, "We and the Father are One" if, and when, we reject the physical and embrace the spiritual. Once again, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was teaching by example.

You seem not to have read the Book so your claims to what Jesus was teaching are not convincing. Jesus quoted from 24 books of the OT including affirming that in the beginning God made them male and female, that they should be married and that they should become one flesh. Jesus not only validates the OT by quoting from its books but here he confirms the physical Creation and the fleshly existence of man.
When He tells us about Heaven He tells us about a physical place with many dwelling places, somewhere to where He is going and where is preparing us places to which He will take us. When He addresses worriers He tells them that God will provide for their food and clothing (as He did when He physically led them through the desert, by the way) and when they hungered He physically fed them Himself. When the winds and the waves roiled He made them stop physically, He didn't say "don't worry about it, transcend the physical".
And when He died for our sins His body was physically pierced and broken and He bled real blood.
Your conception of Jesus is not at all Biblical. That means it is not Jesus of Whom you conceive, whichever name you feel like applying to Him.

You might want to look further into Quantum Physics to see how two contradictory states can "exist" at the same time. BTW, the classical resolution depends on how the system is observed.

I've read Schroeder, Davies, and Tipler. I know Davies was on your list when you told me previously to read about QM. So which will tell me that when Jesus said "No man can come to the Father but through Me" he meant something else? Or when He accepted worship He actually wasn't?

Hopefully, you understand these kinds of statements come across to me as a suggestion that I give up my Truth for someone else's.

Wait a second. Don't you always say you don;t know the Truth? When did you gain access?

My "hubris" doesn't come from a presumption that I am right, it comes from a presumption that I must think for myself and understand for myself.

If your thinking leads you to the conclusion that you can somehow be worthy to stand before the Holy Creator of the Universe without shame – based upon your learning and goodness – then it is hubris indeed – and terribly misguided.

Comment by Pez — April 5, 2009 @ 10:13 pm

Pez Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:26 pm
Moderators …. If you get a chance you could delete my previous comment, at 10:13.
Thanks.

Sorry for the sloppiness. I guess I was too long editing as I've lost my opportunity.

Comment by Pez — April 5, 2009 @ 10:26 pm

Pez Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:27 pm
This isn't much different, but here's the slightly better version …
Hi TP,

Having given my warning about crossing the threshold from explanation to conversion, your response seemed to indicate a permission to continue.

I don't know if your motivation is just bravado or a conscious decision to risk questioning fundamental foundations of beliefs.

Bravado? Like that time you told me how troubling I'd find it to have you show me your insights into Biblical exegesis? Now, as then, I think I can take it. To be honest I guess I misread you because I presumed your concern was that I was trying to persuade you, not vice versa.
Risk questioning fundamental beliefs? How do you think I got my fundamental beliefs?

I am not interested in trying to make my Truth your Truth. However, the deeper we go into the details of why I reject what you feel is obvious; it may start to sound like I am trying to convert you. Again, that is not my intent.

I'm not concerned about it and you can follow any motivation you like.

What could you possibly have to offer a Christian in your worldview?

John 6:68

The best an atheist can tell me, erroneously, of course, is "at least you'd know the truth" .
But you've admitted you don't have the truth – and you certainly don't have anything to offer like Jesus does with your "maybe there's an afterlife and maybe there isn't and if there is it's some kind of different plane of existence. As I told you – I've already walked away from that view.

Examples of the material focus starting with how Jesus was "begotten" and continues through having both the "virgin" Mary and Jesus ascensions include their physical bodies.

The Bible says nothing about Mary ascending and yes, Jesus was Glorified physically, as will be His followers.

So let's start with Jesus being God's only begotten son. How did that work exactly? Did God take a physical form allowing Mary and him to copulate? Or did God poof his sperm into Mary's fallopian tubes to impregnate one of Mary's eggs?

You just spoke about your non-materialism and yet, as always, your first instinct is to fall-back on your materialistic demands for mechanisms. Do you not think the the Person who MADE DNA, and life itself, can arrange for a Son to be born of a natural woman? How could your challenge possibly touch a Christian who believes in the sovereign Creator of the Universe ex nihilo (how much less materialistic can it get?) and the giving of life by His breath?

That said, if you want a materialistic explanation of how God could arrange for a virgin to give birth to a male I will point you to Frank Tipler. By the way, QM fan that you are, why have you not read him? Do so in order and you may be able to follow him along from atheist to agnostic to Christian.
The Physics Of Christianity

There are at least three ways to generate a male human being from genetic information that comes entirely from the mother.
…
I shall now describe a simple mechanism, completely consistent with known physical law, whereby a virgin birth can occur via the action of the Father through the Holy Spirit. In this mechanism, the mind of the virginally conceived Jesus would be in resonance with, and in complete harmony with, the Son from the instant of formation of the mind in the nervous tissue of the embryo.
…
(re: parthenogenesis)
But birds and mammals, including humans, are nevertheless similar to reptiles in that virtually all that the Y chromosome does is instruct male genes on other chromosomes to activate. The Y chromosome itself has no true sex determination genes.
…
It is easy to induce a human oocyte to begin cell division without first being fertilized by a sperm.
…
the essential genes to create a male are available in every human female, on other, non-X chromosomes.
…
I propose that Jesus was a special type of XX male (my emphasis)
a type that is quite rare in humans but extensively studied. Approximately 1 out of every 20,000 human males is an XX male..

That's probably enough info to get you to question your fundamental beliefs.

I think common sense would suggest that if Jesus was actually born to a Virgin, the resultant DNA would be either exclusively Mary's or entirely God's.

I think so, too.

To me, the “begotten son” claim is either nonsensical or unimportant.

Really? Then why did you just go on about why it seemed odd to you?
And, since you claim to be reading the NT holistically, why are you referring to "begotten" with reference to the physical birth of the man Jesus? The term, holistically, is a reference to the relationship between the First and Second Persons of the Trinity.

“I think, therefore I am” isn’t a slogan, it is THE fundamental philosophical presumption.

Once again, this is not a presumption but a logical proof of existence.

Jesus could have been a talking parrot and the message would still be valid. I could respect, admire and, even, love the talking parrot, but I would think it silly to worship it to the exclusion of all others.

Jesus' mission was not merely to deliver a message or to teach – though He did so by example as well as by direction. And if a talking parrot said the things Jesus said then that talking parrot would be the Son of God to whom you would owe worship and obedience, not merely respect, admiration, and even love. Unless his claim was not validated, in which case he would be a lying talking parrot or a deranged talking parrot who would not warrant your respect and admiration – even if he meant well.

Again, that implies materialist thinking.

I guess you ought to demonstrate what this is supposed to mean.

I suggest, "We and the Father are One" if, and when, we reject the physical and embrace the spiritual. Once again, Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was teaching by example.

You seem not to have read the Book so your claims to what Jesus was teaching are not convincing. Jesus quoted from 24 books of the OT including affirming that in the beginning God made them male and female, that they should be married and that they should become one flesh. Jesus not only validates the OT by quoting from its books but here he confirms the physical Creation and the fleshly existence of man.
When He tells us about Heaven He tells us about a physical place with many dwelling places, someplace to where He is going and is preparing us places to which He will take us. When He addresses worriers He tells them that God will provide for their food and clothing (as He did when He physically led them through the desert, by the way) and when they hungered He physically fed them Himself. When the winds and the waves roiled He made them stop physically, He didn't say "don't worry about it, transcend the physical". When He hungered He ate, when He was tired He slept, when He stressed there was blood in His sweat and when His disciple wanted empirical verification He presented His physical wounds.
And when He died for our sins His body was physically pierced and broken and He bled real blood.
He never rejected the physical and your conception of Jesus is not at all Biblical. That means it is not Jesus of whom you conceive, whichever name you feel like applying to Him.

You might want to look further into Quantum Physics to see how two contradictory states can "exist" at the same time. BTW, the classical resolution depends on how the system is observed.

I've read Schroeder, Davies, and Tipler. I know Davies was on your list when you told me previously to read about QM. So which will tell me that when Jesus said "No man can come to the Father but through Me" he meant something else? Or when He accepted worship He actually wasn't?

Hopefully, you understand these kinds of statements come across to me as a suggestion that I give up my Truth for someone else's.

Wait a second. Don't you always say you don;t know the Truth? When did you gain access?

My "hubris" doesn't come from a presumption that I am right, it comes from a presumption that I must think for myself and understand for myself.

If your thinking leads you to the conclusion that you can somehow be worthy to stand before the Holy Creator of the Universe without shame – based upon your learning and goodness – then it is hubris indeed – and terribly misguided.

Comment by Pez — April 5, 2009 @ 10:27 pm

Pez Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 10:37 pm
It would have been inconsistent for Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef to have suggested worshiping a mortal human being, even if it was himself.

Of course it would be. He wasn't accepting worship as a mortal human being but as a fully mortal human being and fully the eternal Son of God incarnate.

Comment by Pez — April 5, 2009 @ 10:37 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 5th, 2009 at 11:59 pm
Hi Pez,

Half of your comment could have been skipped over by recognizing my previous admission that…
"…for the sake of argument, let's presume the Supreme Being could morph an X chromosome into a Y."
It was a pretty cheap shot to suggest I didn't think about this in the face of this comment.

I appreciate the tip about Frank Tipler (pun not intended) and I will try looking into it. As far as the concept of XX males, it may indeed change my perceptions but probably not in the way you are thinking. You see, if Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef had exclusively Mary's DNA but with a Y chromosome, it would be hard to explain naturally. But, now, you have eliminated any need for God's direct involvement at all.

Hopefully, you can see your logic results in Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef being PHYSICALLY indistinguishable from a naturally created human.

Therefore, I argue the circumstances of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef's physical creation are unimportant. Mary could have been gang raped and still have birthed the Son of God.

IMO, the modern myth called "Jesus" includes the standard deity-impregnates-virgin story in order to make the message more attractive to the mass public. All done with the purist of motivations, of course.

You seem not to have read the Book so your claims to what Jesus was teaching are not convincing.

I'm not trying to convince, I am explaining my philosophy.

I suspect by now you understand what I mean when I suggest most other people who call themselves Christians (or even Muslims) cling to a materialist worldview more than I do. You even wrote several paragraphs defending the materialist aspects of your philosophy.

I'm not going to try to convince you that you are wrong and I'm definately not going to get into an old testimate debate over it.

I will just fall back on my childhood religious training…

There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter.
All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all.
Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error.
Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal.
Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness.
Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual.

Obviously you disagree with this but, hopefully, you now understand what I am saying.

Wait a second. Don't you always say you don't know the Truth? When did you gain access?

I have always had access to MY Truth (which has changed from time-to-time). I just don't claim access to THE Truth.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 5, 2009 @ 11:59 pm

Pez Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 12:23 am
Hi TP,

But, now, you have eliminated any need for God's direct involvement at all.

Not at all. The fact that God doesn't violate a natural law does not mean that there is any probability of mindless nature taking care of the action with His intervention. You are familiar with and have used probabilistic design arguments yourself.

Hopefully, you can see your logic results in Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef being PHYSICALLY indistinguishable from a naturally created human.

Jesus was a natural human (fully… but also fully God). But by Tipler's theory you would be able to tell if He was the result of a miraculous virgin birth – i.e. His birth would not be considered "natural".

Therefore, I argue the circumstances of Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef physical creation is unimportant. Mary could have been gang raped and still have birthed the Son of God.

Interesting that you thought bringing this unimportant topic up then would challenge my fundamental beliefs.

IMO, the modern myth called "Jesus" includes the standard deity impregnates virgin story in order to make the message more attractive to the mass public. All done with the purist of motivations, of course.

This tale is standard, is it? The ones you offered (without comment) previously fell flat, so which others involve a virgin human giving birth to God?

I suspect by now you understand what I mean when I suggest most other people who call themselves Christians (or even Muslims) cling to a materialist worldview than I do. You even wrote several paragraphs defending the materialist aspects of your philosophy.

No, I haven't a clue what you mean. Are you implying that belief that "material" exists is now equivalent to "materialism"? It isn't and you are misusing the word if that is what you are trying to imply.
But yes, I absolutely confirm that material exists and that God created a good world which actually exists.
And you believe material exists as well.

Obviously you disagree with this but, hopefully, you now understand what I am saying.

No, I don't because instead of using words the way I do you have other meanings and instead of telling me what they are you refer me to Christian Science libraries.
For instance, this sentence makes perfect sense until you get to the last quality. What does it mean to say there is no substance in matter?

There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter.

How can I know what you mean when you fall back on New-Age, Gnostic quotes like this :

Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error.
Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal.
Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness.
Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual.

but can't tell me what you mean by Spirit, Truth, God or spiritual?

To me a spirit is a living, incorporeal person. How about to you?
To me God is a spirit, the Infinite Spirit free from any admixture of matter. How about to you?

I have always had access to MY Truth (which has changed from time-to-time). I just don't claim access to THE Truth.

This kind of post-modernism makes it very difficult to discuss any topics. It kind of makes it pointless to discuss topics when you can always have your own personal and mutable truth. I guess this is why you can continually aver without evidence, that Jesus was merely "teaching by example", because, in your opinion, He was.

Comment by Pez — April 6, 2009 @ 12:23 am

Pez Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 12:32 am
Half of your comment could have been skipped over by recognizing my previous admission that…
"…for the sake of argument, let's presume the Supreme Being could morph an X chromosome into a Y."
It was a pretty cheap shot to suggest I didn't think about this in the face of this comment.

Really? Which half?
You posed a series of questions which, apparently, were supposed to challenge my most fundamental beliefs and then waved them away rhetorically with "for the sake of argument". So if anything could have been skipped over it was your comment.
My response shows that we don't have to make this presumption for the sake of argument.

Comment by Pez — April 6, 2009 @ 12:32 am

angryoldfatman Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 7:50 am
Thought Provoker wrote:

First of all, I hope you agree the official charge was political. Pontius Pilate labeled him King of the Jews.

You can't have it both ways.

You want to believe Jesus was preaching "Love Love Love Spirit In The Sky" but then have Him get angry and violent enough in the Temple to be executed.

Was He was the Gnostic Hippy Jesus you envision? That would make Him a poor candidate as a dangerous insurgent who threatened the priests' and Herod Antipas' power and caused Pilate to execute Him while mocking Him as the King of the Jews.

Whereas the Jesus we find in the New Testament Who claimed to be God Incarnate and the Messiah and demonstrated the miraculous powers to back up His claims to any and all witnesses would be a threat to the Jewish authorities. Jewish authorities who would try to explain their concept of the Jewish Messiah to Pilate in describing Jesus' offenses and why they needed Him dead. Which would then result in Pilate misunderstanding the concept and mocking the priests and Jesus by labeling Him the King of the Jews.

The Crucifixion makes no sense for your Gnostic Hippy Jesus, whereas it makes perfect sense for the Gospels Jesus.

TP, you have very selective skepticism. You easily accept what the Christian Science orthodoxy has taught you about the Bible, but you are skeptical of the Bible itself, which is supposed to be the main source document for Christianity.

You should do what I did many years ago – put the orthodoxy and dogma out of your mind and read the source document for yourself, with a freshened mind and clean vision. Even if you don't believe any of it, it is a worthy intellectual exercise to undertake.

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 6, 2009 @ 7:50 am

Thought Provoker Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 10:39 am
Hi Pez,

You wrote…

This tale is standard, is it?

I will get to your other comments when I get more time. Meanwhile, here is a list of virgin births to check to see if they "fall flat".

Egyptian religions

*Mut-em-ua: The virgin Queen of Egypt, supposedly gave birth to Pharaoh Amenkept III through a god holding a cross to her mouth.
*Ra: The Egyptian sun god, was said to be born of a virgin.

Hinduism

*Krishna
*Karna

Assyrian and Babylonian religions

*Tammuz
*Zoroaster
*Tukulti-Ninurta II
*Ashurbanipal

Greco-Roman religions

*Alexander the Great [Plutarch, Life of Alexander,2-3]
*Antiope: Antiope was seduced by Zeus and bore him twin sons, Zethus and Amphion
*Attis: Attis was born to the virgin Nana who got pregnant after eating a pomegranate.
*Auge
*Dionysus:
*Melanippe
*Mithras: Mithras was born in a cave, to a rock.
*Romulus:Romulus was born to Rea Sivia, a mortal Vestal virgin. [Livy, History 1:3-4]

Chinese tradition

*Genghis Khan
*Lao-Tzu

Buddhism

*Gautama Buddha: Buddha was conceived to Maya without sexual activity.

Stories sometimes interpreted as of virgin births

Mythology

Perseus: Perseus was the son of Danaë. She was locked away while a young girl, to prevent her having children, but Zeus came to her in the form of a shower of gold and impregnated her."

link

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 6, 2009 @ 10:39 am

Pez Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 11:52 am
Are any of these divinely engendered births really parallel to the non-sexual virginal conception of Jesus described in the NT?

Glenn Miller perfectly noted above that, "there is a surprising tendency of scholars of all persuasions to adopt Christian terminology in describing non-Christian religions, rituals, myths, etc.
…
Another very common alleged similarity is the virgin birth. Other religious figures, especially warrior gods (and actually some heroic human figures such as Alexander the Great) over time became associated with some form of miraculous birth, occasionally connected with virginity. It is all too easy to simply accept this on face value without investigating further.8
Some have claimed that Buddha, along with a host of other pagan 'gods', also have had virgin births. As Josh McDowell notes,
"Some have attempted to account for the virgin birth by tracing it to Greek or Babylonian mythology. They argue that the Gospel writers borrowed this story from the mythology of their day. This view does not fit the facts, for there is not any hero in pagan mythology for which a virgin birth is claimed, and moreover it would be unthinkable to the Jewish mind to construct such a story from mythology.
"Many deities among Greeks, Babylonians and Egyptians were reported born in an unusual manner, but for the most part these beings never actually existed. The accounts are filled with obvious mythological elements which are totally absent from the Gospel narratives. They are reports of a god or goddess being born into the world by sexual relations between some heavenly being or by some adulterous affair among the gods and goddess."9

In almost all of the pagan parallels, a god or a goddess has sexual intercourse with the woman/goddess. The exception to the fact is the son of Zoroaster, who was reported to have been conceived by a virgin bathing in a lake, which Zoroaster spilled his seed in before his death. Brown notes, "It is also difficult to date the tradition that, after Zoroaster's death, his seed which had been preserved in a body of cold water impregnated a virgin who bathed therein."10 Brown also mentions four "seeming exceptions" but says, "I show that divine intercourse is really presupposed in all four." One fact, among many, which has seemed to escape the minds of the 'pagan parallel proponents' (say that three times fast), is that after sexual intercourse, you are no longer a virgin! However, the 'virgin birth parallel' argument still continues to be claimed by the skeptics. Brown perfectly questions,
"Are any of these divinely engendered births really parallel to the non-sexual union virginal conception of Jesus described in the NT, where Mary is not impregnated by a male deity or element, but the child is begotten through the creative power of the Holy Spirit? These "parallels" consistently involve a type of hieros gamos where a divine male, in human or other form, impregnates a woman, either through normal sexual intercourse or through some substitute form of penetration. In short, there is no clear example of virginal conception in world or pagan religions that plausibly could have given first-century Jewish Christians the idea of the virginal conception of Jesus."11
It could be noted that Buddha's mother did not have sexual intercourse, however, Brown notes that Boslooper in Virgin Birth, "states that the most ancient Buddhism knew nothing of the virginity of the Buddha's mother, and that later came the tradition of her conception from the white elephant who entered her side."12

Unfortunately for the "anti-missionaries" their case crumbles when claiming the virgin birth, pagan parallel argument. As Brown notes that, "Despite claims to the contrary, Alexandrian paganism had no myths of virginal conceptions by the mothers of the Pharoahs - only myths of male gods using their divine seed to beget royal children of women."13 And that, "when, after the first century, Christians did compare the virginal conception of Jesus to the pagan birth legends, they could see no affinity but rather a sharp contrast between the two," citing Tertullian Apologeticum XV, XXi; Origen Against Celsus I 37. Just simply studying the miraculous births of the pagan gods and leaders, doesn't strike one as parallel to Messiah Yeshua's birth, but rather grossly distinct from their mythological stories. As Dr. Thomas Thorburn notes,

" All these various stories of supernatural conceptions and births, which we meet with in folklore and the history of mythology, have this one point in common – they serve to point not so much to the similarity as to the complete contrast and dissimilarity which exists between the Christian birth-story and the tales which are current in various pagan circles."14
So, to answer the question, and the "anti-missionaries": No, the pagan birth stories are not parallel to the birth of the Messiah Yeshua, barukh haba, and neither is the virgin birth borrowed from them, but is rather rooted in the background of the miraculous births in the Tanakh. The lesson learned is that one must be critical of wild claims, and research what you read thoroughly. Sadly many have failed to do this, and thus, the need to write this paper. As the brilliant apologist J.P. Holding states,
In spite of having been pronounced dead even by intelligent skeptics, the thesis that Judaism and Christianity consist merely of stolen pagan myths and ideas continues to be promulgated by the uncritical and accepted by the gullible.

http://www.messianicart.com/ch...

Comment by Pez — April 6, 2009 @ 11:52 am

Pez Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
http://web.archive.org/web/200...

Alexander's mother wasn't a virgin until 1,000 years after her death (and well after Christ's), Buddha was a normal born prince of a woman who had sex with her husband, Krishna had six older siblings, Rhea Sylvia was raped by Mars, Mithras was (after Christ) born of a rock, Dionysos' mother was impregnated sexually by a snake, Isis impregnated herself via necrophilia with Osiris.

Rather than a list of supposed parallels your task is simple; produce the tokens of the mother's virginity, show their existence before the time of Christ and show that such tales were standard in Palestine at the time of Christ.
Here's another question for you while you pursue with gusto this issue that doesn't matter to you – explain why the Jewish Talmud alludes to Jesus' unusual circumstances (claims Mary had sex with a Roman soldier) and doesn't say "they claimed he was born of a virgin, just like Buddha, Krishna, Alexander, Mithra/s … Ha! They aren;t even original!"

Comment by Pez — April 6, 2009 @ 12:14 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 2:56 pm
Hi Pez,

I'll forgo further explanations as to why I feel Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef's material shell is irrelevant until later. However, please remember that I am not attempting to convert you, my intent is to explain my thoughts and philosophy.

You wrote…

Are you implying that belief that "material" exists is now equivalent to "materialism"? It isn't and you are misusing the word if that is what you are trying to imply.

I think I have avoided using the term "materialism". However, I suggest it is a materialistic tendency to emphasis the importance of specific physical details instead of generalizing immaterial concepts in the development of a personal philosophy.

But yes, I absolutely confirm that material exists and that God created a good world which actually exists.
And you believe material exists as well.

I also believe a game of Monopoly exists too. That doesn't mean it has any relevance to real world finances. BTW, I love to play monopoly and can get rather animated in the wheeling and dealing.

To me, science is an interesting logic puzzle with rules and interesting challenges. However, that isn't what I hold as "real" or Truth because my reality is based on…

I think, therefore I am.

What does it mean to say there is no substance in matter?

There is no substance in a game of Monopoly.

To me a spirit is a living, incorporeal person. How about to you?
To me God is a spirit, the Infinite Spirit free from any admixture of matter. How about to you?

This is close enough. I do apologize for not taking the time to provide formal definitions, but I'm not viewing this so much as a debate but more of a philosophical discussion. That, and I doubt copying and pasting Christian Science explanations would be all that helpful in having us understand each other's positions.

And, yes, philosophical discussions are inherently difficult because all assumptions are subject to challenge, including the assumption that philosophy must be logical and consistent.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 6, 2009 @ 2:56 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 5:47 pm
Hi AngryOldFatman

You wrote…

You want to believe Jesus was preaching "Love Love Love Spirit In The Sky" but then have Him get angry and violent enough in the Temple to be executed.

I am not sure how old you are, but if you are as old as me, you should remember the "Love Love Love Spirit In The Sky" hippy types set fire to ROTC buildings and were otherwise actively expressing their anger. And, oh by the way, they were killed for it (e.g. Kent State).

Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef's actions are quite consistent for someone who had dedicated his life to helping his fellow man see a better way. This includes overturning some tables and challenging a den of thieves.

As to you implying the powers-that-be would be reluctant to execute a popular, but "harmless" figure. Allow me to point out that Socrates was executed though he was little more than a Gadfly. John the Baptist was killed because he dared render an opinion on King Herod's marriage to Herodias (they both divorced their previous spouses). Let us also remember how 6600 slaves were crucified on crosses along the Appian Way from Brundisium to Rome and left hanging for years.

I'm sorry but I think it is quite plausible Rabbi Yeshua ben Yosef was executed for little more than being a popular irritant who was rumored to be the prophesized "King of the Jews" and refused to deny it.

TP, you have very selective skepticism. You easily accept what the Christian Science orthodoxy has taught you about the Bible, but you are skeptical of the Bible itself, which is supposed to be the main source document for Christianity.

First of all, I am not a Christian Scientist and I didn't "easily accept" their orthodoxy. On the contrary, I vigorously challenged it, left the church in search of other denomination and, even, other religions.

While I quote things from both the Bible and Christian Science literature I accept neither as some magical portal to Truth. However, they and many other sources help me consider alternatives while I think for myself.

BTW, do you think I am a Christian?

You should do what I did many years ago – put the orthodoxy and dogma out of your mind and read the source document for yourself, with a freshened mind and clean vision. Even if you don't believe any of it, it is a worthy intellectual exercise to undertake.

I did just that "many years ago". I remember running across a particular passage concerning premarital and adulterous sex that made for an interesting discussion topic with several of my religiously oriented female friends.

Deuteronomy 22:22-29

22If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.

23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her;

24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

25But if a man find a betrothed damsel in the field, and the man force her, and lie with her: then the man only that lay with her shall die.

26But unto the damsel thou shalt do nothing; there is in the damsel no sin worthy of death: for as when a man riseth against his neighbour, and slayeth him, even so is this matter:

27For he found her in the field, and the betrothed damsel cried, and there was none to save her.

28If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

29Then the man that lay with her shall give unto the damsel's father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife; because he hath humbled her, he may not put her away all his days.

One of the reasons I tend to quote from the King James Version is because that is the version I remember.

BTW, have you read the entire Quran?

Here is a link to an on-line version incase you want to "…put the orthodoxy and dogma out of your mind and read the source document for yourself, with a freshened mind and clean vision. Even if you don't believe any of it, it is a worthy intellectual exercise to undertake."

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 6, 2009 @ 5:47 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 9:44 pm
Hi Pez,

You wrote…

Here's another question for you while you pursue with gusto this issue that doesn't matter to you – explain why the Jewish Talmud alludes to Jesus' unusual circumstances (claims Mary had sex with a Roman soldier) and doesn't say "they claimed he was born of a virgin, just like Buddha, Krishna, Alexander, Mithra/s … Ha! They aren;t even original!"

While I am not surprised you are aware of the Talmud references to Yeshu ben Pandera and/or Yeshu ben Pantera, I am surprised you would bring it up when I hadn't.

Unless you can show me otherwise, the Jewish Talmud makes no references to anyone claiming Yeshu was born to a virgin, period.

From what I can tell, the story is that late 5 BC a Roman general led a three legions through the holy land, including Galilee, to conduct a standard imperial suppression operation which, naturally, included pillaging, plundering and raping. It was during this operation that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier named Pantera. While this was a very awkward situation for Mary and Joseph, I doubt it was all that unusual and, apparently, it wasn't kept very secret.

The Talmud indicated this Yeshu ben Pandera/Pantera goes on to preach, heal the sick, etc. It also references others attempting to heal in his name.

Interestingly, the older gospels do not mention a virgin birth.

The reason I didn't bring this up, is because it shouldn't matter whether Mary was, or was not, a virgin. That is irrelevant materialistic trivia. God is spiritual. Surely, a son of God is also spiritual and good, regardless of the physical container he resides in.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 6, 2009 @ 9:44 pm

angryoldfatman Says:
April 6th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Thought Provoker wrote:

I am not sure how old you are, but if you are as old as me, you should remember the "Love Love Love Spirit In The Sky" hippy types set fire to ROTC buildings and were otherwise actively expressing their anger. And, oh by the way, they were killed for it (e.g. Kent State).

The Huxleyians/Marcusians? They had a radically (stress on "radical") different idea of "love" than Jesus did, even Hippy Jesus. "Love" to them was drugs, sex, rock & roll, and kill the pigs.

Much different than that whole turning the other cheek, going the extra mile, the meek inheriting the Earth, blessed are the peacemakers, pay your taxes to Caesar like a good serf kinda thing.

Herod wanted Judea to be pacified so he could enjoy his opulent, decadent lifestyle. The Pharisees and Sadducees wanted Judea to be pacified so they could continue making their money from the temple rituals. And the Roman governor of Judea most assuredly wanted Judea to be pacified so he could continue collecting taxes and ultimately retire with authoritas and dignitas – and enough cash for a decent villa with hot-and-cold-running slaves, of course.

So some ordinary non-miracle-working guy from a middle class Jewish family tells people to forgive their enemies, pay their taxes, and love each other no matter what, and that's what angers all of these authorities who cling to the status quo?

Not only that, but this ordinary non-miracle-working fellow convinces thousands of people to follow him around with this pitiful "knuckle under your masters for the sake of peace" message, instead of the Zealots who promised freedom from oppression and corruption?

And finally, this fine, ordinary, peace-loving-but-certainly-not-miracle-working fellow gets flogged and crucified for his antics like innumerable other ordinary people (e.g., the 6600 slaves you mentioned) did but somehow his story was kept alive for over 200 years until its adoption as a base for an imperial state religion?

Sounds a little farfetched to me.

First of all, I am not a Christian Scientist and I didn't "easily accept" their orthodoxy. On the contrary, I vigorously challenged it, left the church in search of other denomination and, even, other religions.

So you don't believe all the neo-Gnosticism you've been using as a cudgel against Pez, like:

There is no life, truth, intelligence, nor substance in matter.
All is infinite Mind and its infinite manifestation, for God is All-in-all.
Spirit is immortal Truth; matter is mortal error.
Spirit is the real and eternal; matter is the unreal and temporal.
Spirit is God, and man is His image and likeness.
Therefore man is not material; he is spiritual.

If the above is one of the fundamental statements of Christian Science doctrine, and you're supposedly not a Christian Scientist, which part of the above don't you believe?

BTW, do you think I am a Christian?

Not if you don't believe John 3:16 to be true.

However, I'm not going to be your Ultimate Judge, so what I think about your spiritual status is unimportant. It's not me you need to impress.

All I know is what you write. If everything you've claimed about yourself is true, then you don't really believe anything. Except, of course, that everybody else is wrong so that you can be right by default.

Reminds me of the infantile Deconstructionists. Can't build a philosophy taller than a mud hut? Declare that the skyscrapers around you are all flattened, delude yourself into thinking your hut is the highest point in the land, and finally proclaim yourself the greatest architect who ever lived!

Comment by angryoldfatman — April 6, 2009 @ 11:15 pm

Pez Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 2:07 am
Hi TP,

While I am not surprised you are aware of the Talmud references to Yeshu ben Pandera and/or Yeshu ben Pantera, I am surprised you would bring it up when I hadn't.

Really, why? You've already admitted my bravado in the face of your challenge to my faith.

Unless you can show me otherwise, the Jewish Talmud makes no references to anyone claiming Yeshu was born to a virgin, period.

It says what I said it does.
Moi:Here's another question for you while you pursue with gusto this issue that doesn't matter to you – explain why the Jewish Talmud alludes to Jesus' unusual circumstances (claims Mary had sex with a Roman soldier) and doesn't say "they claimed he was born of a virgin, just like Buddha, Krishna, Alexander, Mithra/s … Ha! They aren;t even original!"Period.

It was during this operation that Mary was raped by a Roman soldier named Pantera. While this was a very awkward situation for Mary and Joseph, I doubt it was all that unusual and, apparently, it wasn't kept very secret.

Strange they had to have a story to explain her pregnancy prior to her marriage to Joseph, don't you think? Now why would those trying to debunk Christianity have a story about His birth that admits He was not the son of His mother's husband?
To me it seems very likely that they knew, from the beginning, that Jesus' family and His supporters had an unusual claim about the circumstances of His birth which they needed to counter.
Otherwise the Talmudic story would have been debunked immediately – "what? Raped by a Roman officer? How dare you? Everyone knows Mary was a verified and honest virgin when she was wed."

That is irrelevant materialistic trivia. God is spiritual. Surely, a son of God is also spiritual and good, regardless of the physical container he resides in.

Surely. But you keep bringing bogus information and arguments to the table to try to cast doubt on these 'irrelevant' issues.
Such as …

Interestingly, the older gospels do not mention a virgin birth.

Now why is that interesting since it relates only to this irrelevant issue?

But out of interest let's look into this latest claim a little bit. Both Matthew and Luke explicitly mention the virgin conception. Mark and John (supposed to be the last of the Gospels, not the first) do not preserve a birth narrative at all, so it is unsurprising that they say nothing of Mary's virginity. Obviously her virginity was either so well-known that they didn't need to mention it or His divinity didn't rely upon it (and don't forget that John presents a purportedly inordinately high Christological view – without a virgin birth narrative – interesting, no?).
And it is a matter of opinion that Mark predates Matthew. Matthew was considered by the Church fathers as the first of the Gospels, attesting to an older version yet, which Matthew wrote in Hebrew (Aramaic, I presume) and there are still scholars who date it as the first. The version we have definitely preserves an earlier source of the narrative, as does Luke's Gospel.
Luke, of course, is a first rate, tested and true historian who makes a point of the fact that he compiled reliable sources in his investigation of Jesus' story. Luke had access to the family of Jesus for his interviews, if not the mother herself (much of his telling from her perspective indicate she spoke to her). Luke, for instance, focuses on God's revelation to Mary, while Matthew presents it from Joseph's point of view.
But you are right, Jesus' divinity and position of Son of God does not rely upon His being born of a virgin – a fact His disciples and biographers knew as well as you. If the story were not true they would not have made up such a dangerous claim only to invite suspicion and the charge (as seen evidenced by the Jewish and Pagan opponents) that He was an illegitimate son of a human father and a less than virtuous mother.

Unfortunately I found nothing in your Monopoly comment either informative, clarifying, or worthy of comment. If you said anything there that you think relates to my questions or to the matters at hand that warrants any response or discussion please bring it to my attention, perhaps with some rephrasing toward that intent.
Thanks.

On your citation of a sampling of the Hebraic rape laws from Deuteronomy, if you have a point you find relevant and would like to discuss I just spent some time on this exact passage this weekend with a lady in our clergy and might be able to help you out.

Comment by Pez — April 7, 2009 @ 2:07 am

Pez Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 2:20 am
Oops.
Moi:

Here's another question for you while you pursue with gusto this issue that doesn't matter to you – explain why the Jewish Talmud alludes to Jesus' unusual circumstances (claims Mary had sex with a Roman soldier) and doesn't say "they claimed he was born of a virgin, just like Buddha, Krishna, Alexander, Mithra/s … Ha! They aren;t even original!"

Period.

Comment by Pez — April 7, 2009 @ 2:20 am

Pez Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 2:43 am
Here's an interesting tidbit from Craig Evans' Fabricating Jesus which I'm perusing tonight.
At one time some critics argued that the idea that the Messiah would be called "Son Of God" reflected Greco-Roman influence on early Christianity (in that the Roman Emperor was called "son of God and the like). But the expected saving figure of 4Q246, an Aramaic text that dates to the first century B.C. is called "Son of the Most High" and "Son of God". This idea was right at home in Palestine after all.
page 45

Comment by Pez — April 7, 2009 @ 2:43 am

Pez Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 2:50 am
Also, Jews of Jesus' day and before knew from Psalm 2 that the Messiah would be God's begotten Son – as attested to by Qumran Rule scroll 1QSa.
same book, same page.
Obviously Jesus' followers needed nothing from any source but their own religion to tell them that the Messiah would be the begotten Son of God

Comment by Pez — April 7, 2009 @ 2:50 am

kornbelt888 Says:
April 7th, 2009 at 8:17 pm
I do not agree with her main hypothesis (that Elohim was the High God, and Yahweh was his son), but this book is a decent source for pre-Christian "son of God" references.

Comment by kornbelt888 — April 7, 2009 @ 8:17 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 6:36 pm
Easter greetings from my favorite authority on the historical Jesus

peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 10, 2009 @ 6:36 pm

Thought Provoker Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 7:48 pm
Hi Fifth Monarchy Man,

Easter greetings to you too.

Here is something else from your favorite authority on Easter…

From the lecture Can a Scientist Believe in the Resurrection?

That is why, although the historical arguments for Jesus’ bodily resurrection are truly strong, we must never suppose that they will do more than bring people to the questions faced by Thomas and Peter, the questions of faith and love. We cannot use an supposedly ‘objective’ historical epistemology as the ultimate ground for the truth of Easter. To do so would be like someone who lit a candle to see whether the sun had risen. What the candles of historical scholarship will do is to show that the room has been disturbed, that it doesn’t look like it did last night, and that would-be ‘normal’ explanations for this won’t do. Maybe, we think after the historical arguments have done their work, maybe morning has come and the world has woken up. But to find out whether this is so we must take the risk and open the curtains to the rising sun. When we do so, we won’t rely on the candles any more, not because we don’t believe in evidence and argument, not because we don’t believe in history or science, but because they will have been overtaken by the larger reality from which they borrow, to which they point, and in which they will find a new and larger home. All knowing is a gift from God, historical and scientific knowing no less than that of faith, hope and love; but the greatest of these is love.

Comment by Thought Provoker — April 10, 2009 @ 7:48 pm

fifth monarchy man Says:
April 10th, 2009 at 9:09 pm
Hey TP,

While we are sermonizing

From the link:

quote:

Insofar as the event is interpreted in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, it has a very "this-worldly" meaning, relating to what is happening here and now. "Jesus is raised," they say, "therefore he is the Messiah; he is the true Lord of the whole world; therefore we, his followers, have a job to do: we must act as his heralds, announcing his lordship to the entire world."

It is not, "Jesus is raised, therefore look up into the sky and keep looking because one day you will be going there with him." Many hymns, prayers, and Christian sermons have tried to pull the Easter story in that direction, but the line of thought within the Gospels themselves is,

"Jesus is raised, therefore God's new world has begun, and therefore we, you, and everybody else are invited to be not only beneficiaries of that new world but participants in making it happen."

end quote

To those inside the kingdom have a glorious time sunday celebrating the beginning of the fifth monarchy. To those outside it’s not too late the invitation is still open.

You know what you have to do.

Peace

Comment by fifth monarchy man — April 10, 2009 @ 9:09 pm

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Open Thread for Todd B. and friends

198 Responses to “Open Thread for Todd B. and friends”

Leave a Reply

Featured Books