The Jesus Myth

[dairygirl4u2c]

below is some on info alledging the biblical jesus to be a myth. i have always just assumed this was false as someone would have surely refuted it and such. i do know he existed from the roman execution record, but beyond that, it's hard to look past the parrallels with horus and other people before jesus. i ask because i feel like i'm in denial on this issue and would like to then take it head on. if anyone has any info, that'd be great.


[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dvupiOb6D4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dvupiOb6D4[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2zNJcPiIDg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2zNJcPiIDg[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth[/url]

[FullTruth]

[quote name='dairygirl4u2c' post='1252315' date='Apr 21 2007, 11:25 PM']below is some on info alledging the biblical jesus to be a myth. i have always just assumed this was false as someone would have surely refuted it and such. i do know he existed from the roman execution record, but beyond that, it's hard to look past the parrallels with horus and other people before jesus. i ask because i feel like i'm in denial on this issue and would like to then take it head on. if anyone has any info, that'd be great.
[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dvupiOb6D4"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dvupiOb6D4[/url]

[url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2zNJcPiIDg"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2zNJcPiIDg[/url]

[url="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth"]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_as_myth[/url][/quote]
I've got one word for all the other parrallels, and many people might or might not like it, Nephilim.

The Devil wants to have his own copycats to confuse the matter, to give people an excuse to not believe in Jesus Christ.

I take it you have just watched, the God who never was, and watched the Blasphamey Challange!

[carrdero]

There were actually many messiahs during Jesus' time that have also healed the sick and performed many miracles in the name of God. It was very fashionable at that time to declare oneself as the Son Of God. Some people were documented some were not. In fact some researchers believe that "Monty Python's Life Of Brian" was probably more accurate than Mel Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ."

[carrdero]

Double Post

Edited April 22, 2007 by carrdero

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]There were actually many messiahs during Jesus' time that have also healed the sick and performed many miracles in the name of God. It was very fashionable at that time to declare oneself as the Son Of God.[/quote]Hmm. Care to give some examples, using specific names and precise dates? As for it being 'fashionable' to declare yourself the Son of God, that is the most incredible statement I've ever heard, including all the things that Budge and FullTruth write. Jesus provoked such an outcry precisely [i]because[/i] such a claim placed him beyond the pale. The idea of God being incarnate was and is seen as absolutely blasphemous to many Jewish people. Jesus' statement was definitely something out of the common.

[quote]Some people were documented some were not[/quote]

If some weren't documented, how on earth do you know about them?

[quote]In fact some researchers believe that "Monty Python's Life Of Brian" was probably more accurate than Mel Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ."[/quote]

Now that I've finished laughing long enough to type coherently, who are these 'researchers'?

[dairygirl4u2c]

claiming to be the son of God. look at 3:30 on the first link and listen to the guy and then see the list he gives of 16 people.

[carrdero]

[b][size=2]Will The Real Messiah Please Stand Up[/size][/b]

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: As for it being 'fashionable' to declare yourself the Son of God, that is the most incredible statement I've ever heard…Jesus provoked such an outcry precisely because such a claim placed him beyond the pale. The idea of God being incarnate was and is seen as absolutely blasphemous to many Jewish people. Jesus' statement was definitely something out of the common.[/quote]Though there were many who wanted to see thorugh these “Son Of God” claims or people who boasted of being the prophetic Messiah, you may find it additionally interesting that according to historian William Durant that Jesus “repudiated all claim to Davidic descent” and for a long time “forbade the disciples to call him Messiah”

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Hmm. Care to give some examples, using specific names and precise dates?[/quote]

William Bradley who wrote the book [u]The Gods Of Eden [/u]explains that there were many religious mavericks (I love that word) circulating among the society around Jesus’ time. One such story is “The Legend Of Issa” who depated to Asia at the age of thirteen. Issa studied under many religious masters of the East, did some preaching of his own, and returned to Palestine 16 years later at the age of 29. There are many people who believe that this figure was in fact the missing Jesus whose life was not available for documentation in the written scriptures.

In the book [u]The Jesus Dynasty[/u] by James D. Tabor it was John The Baptist who was regarded as one of the Messiahs. It goes on to explain that there was quite an expectation during that time that Biblical prophecy be fulfilled and there were certainly not a shortage of people claiming the role.

In Richard Horsley’s book [u]Bandits, prophets and messiahs: popular movements in the time of Jesus[/u], this book explores the rebellious activities of many charismatic saviors and messiahs preaching against the current religious doctrines and standards for that period.

Appolynius (sp?) Of Tiana is the recent messiah who I have just heard about. This man was also considered a prophet claiming to come from God. He had followers and performed miracles and even healed the sick. Many considered him to be the coming savior that the prophets wrote about. Tiana, I have discovered, is in Italy. From what I am to understand this prophet lived in and around the time of Jesus, just in another country. I tried to do some internet searches on this character but haven’t received any hits, I suspect this might be because of my spelling.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes:Now that I've finished laughing long enough to type coherently, who are these 'researchers'?[/quote]
This little gem I received from the Emmy Award winning Showtime program Penn & Teller: BS from a show entitled The Bible: Fact Or Fiction. They did a nice little review on the New Testament. Actually the whole show is worth checking out.

[url="http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1095437078&fr=yfp-t-501"]http://video.yahoo.com/video/play?vid=1095...mp;fr=yfp-t-501[/url]

Edited April 22, 2007 by carrdero

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Though there were many who wanted to see thorugh these “Son Of God” claims or people who boasted of being the prophetic Messiah, you may find it additionally interesting that according to historian William Durant that Jesus “repudiated all claim to Davidic descent” and for a long time “forbade the disciples to call him Messiah” [/quote]And according to the gospels, He did neither of those things.

[quote]William Bradley who wrote the book The Gods Of Eden explains that there were many religious mavericks (I love that word) circulating among the society around Jesus’ time. One such story is “The Legend Of Issa” who depated to Asia at the age of thirteen. Issa studied under many religious masters of the East, did some preaching of his own, and returned to Palestine 16 years later at the age of 29. There are many people who believe that this figure was in fact the missing Jesus whose life was not available for documentation in the written scriptures.[/quote]

I asked for specific examples and precise dates - not a story that is billed as a legend. There are many documents apart from the gospels that testify to the existence of Jesus, including references by the ancient Roman historian Tacitus. What has 'the legend of Issa' got to support it?

[quote]In Richard Horsley’s book Bandits, prophets and messiahs: popular movements in the time of Jesus, this book explores the rebellious activities of many charismatic saviors and messiahs preaching against the current religious doctrines and standards for that period. [/quote]Give me their names - and tell me what ancient source documents this modern writer is working from. They had better not be documents with 'The legend of...' attached.

[quote]This little gem I received from the Emmy Award winning Showtime program Penn & Teller: BS from a show entitled The Bible: Fact Or Fiction. They did a nice little review on the New Testament. Actually the whole show is worth checking out.[/quote]

I ask again: who are these researchers? Are they fluent in the languages of the Bible? Which universities gave them their degrees in history and Semitic languages? I am sorry, but there is a slew of tripe out there that is spawned by nothing more than the whims and fancies of popular culture. People who claim that marriage doesn't mean anything and that casual sex is fine try to 'spiritualise' their views by turning Jesus into the lover of Mary Magdalene. People who believe that homosexual unions are perfectly moral try to give sanction to their own views by making out that Jesus was gay. (Gene Robertson made this claim in an interview once.) And there are plenty of people who are willing to give these views credence, to listen open-mouthed, to lap it all up...because if they believe in something 'controversial' it's a sure sign that they're thinking for themselves. Er, no.

[quote]claiming to be the son of God. look at 3:30 on the first link and listen to the guy and then see the list he gives of 16 people.[/quote]

Dairy, I don't know if you realise it, but everything from the opening of that video onwards is a sham. At the opening we are given the false impression that the camera is zooming in on alternate excerpts from the Bible and a Hindu holy scripture. But if you know your gospels well enough, you will realise that this is only a paraphrase of the gospel story - a paraphrase that has been deliberately exaggerated to make it more similar to the story of Krishna.

It's odd that the supposed translation of the Hindu text spelt it 'Crishna'. I have never seen that transliteration in my life. 'C' and 'k' have slightly different sounds in Hindi and Sanskrit, which is presumably why the name is always reproduced as Krishna - it's more accurate. My knowledge of Hindi is weak and my Sanskrit is even weaker, but I'm willing to bet that I'm practically fluent compared to the person who made that video.

Secondly, while I was teaching at a Hindu school in Nepal I read the Baghavad Gita and the Upanishads. The Gita is the story of Krishna, and it is a long epic poem. Not a piece of continuous prose got up to look like a Bible. And nowhere are those events given in the video retold in that style and in that order. It's clearly a hoax from the outset.

[carrdero]

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes:I asked for specific examples and precise dates - not a story that is billed as a legend.[/quote]What is this? An inquisition?

I’m not sure if you really understand the Bible then. The Bible is a collection of stories that are billed as legend.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: I ask again: who are these researchers?[/quote]The researchers selected for the episode are plainly explained in the video. Did you watch it yet?

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Are they fluent in the languages of the Bible?[/quote]What does the fluency of the language have to do with the amount of faith you profess in this book?

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Which universities gave them their degrees in history and Semitic languages?[/quote]Perhaps you could provide me photo copies of the university degrees of all the members of the Council of Nicea that compliled these books or how about the list of prominent schools of which the scholars who translated the books went to?

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: I am sorry, but there is a slew of tripe out there that is spawned by nothing more than the whims and fancies of popular culture. People who claim that marriage doesn't mean anything and that casual sex is fine try to 'spiritualise' their views by turning Jesus into the lover of Mary Magdalene.[/quote]I’m sorry if you feel that way but if you aren’t interested in furthering your research and listening to dfferent perspectives on what the Bible is and what has been recently discovered, there is not much of a chance you are going to conclude your beliefs one way or the other. I am interested in the Bible, I am interested in keeping abreast of the latest developments, I am interested in challenging and comparing my beliefs to what I do know and to search the knowledge of what I don’t know.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: People who believe that homosexual unions are perfectly moral try to give sanction to their own views by making out that Jesus was gay. (Gene Robertson made this claim in an interview once.) And there are plenty of people who are willing to give these views credence, to listen open-mouthed, to lap it all up...because if they believe in something 'controversial' it's a sure sign that they're thinking for themselves. Er, no.[/quote]
I can’t help but get the feeling that no matter what I posted it was never going to influence your opinion. It seems that you have made up your own mind in accordance to the life of Jesus and the Bible as a whole. And the most interesting part of this exchange is that you have the same access to these resources as I do and neither you or I or anyone else can ever produce the evidence needed to conclude the myth of Jesus as truth.

Edited April 22, 2007 by carrdero

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]What is this? An inquisition?[/quote]No. It's a search for accurate information. If you can't provide it, don't plant threads that anyone with an iota of common sense could uproot.

[quote]I’m not sure if you really understand the Bible then. The Bible is a collection of stories that are billed as legend.[/quote]

No, it is not. The Bible is the inspired word of God. Biblical exegesis is a complex process that requires you to pay attention to the original language(s), to the prevalent Jewish culture and custom of the time, to idiom and metaphor, and...drum roll...to the Church that was given the Spirit-inspired task of finalising the Scriptural canon. Consequently, when I want to know what the Bible is I will look to the Church. Not Dan Brown, not Bishop Spong, not the latest flimsy idea dreamed up by pop culture, not YouTube, not carderro. The Church.

[quote]I’m sorry if you feel that way but if you aren’t interested in furthering your research and listening to dfferent perspectives on what the Bible is and what has been recently discovered, there is not much of a chance you are going to conclude your beliefs one way or the other.[/quote]I do read, and extremely widely at that. If you want a list of the theological titles that are on my shelves, ranging from Eusebius to Scott Hahn, I can provide one. But what I wanted to know was what [i]you[/i] have been reading to get the information that you have. In response, you weren't able to give me a single primary source - you directed me to two conspiracy theorists. Now is not the time to criticise my reading habits.

[quote]What does the fluency of the language have to do with the amount of faith you profess in this book?[/quote]

Fluency of language has everything to do with the amount of faith you profess in your particular [i]translation[/i] and [i]interpretation[/i] of the Bible - which is why I will not trust the information given out by just anybody on YouTube. I look for reputable scholars.

[quote]Perhaps you could provide me photo copies of the university degrees of all the members of the Council of Nicea that compliled these books or how about the list of prominent schools of which the scholars who translated the books went to?[/quote]Firstly, many members of the council spoke New Testament Greek as their mother tongue, so language was not such a barrier. Secondly, [i]all[/i] Catholic translations of the Bible into vernacular languages are made by the most distinguished scholars available. Thirdly, the Council of Nicea was made up of cardinals and bishops - meaning that they had all undergone formal schooling in theology and history, which is more than can be said of the conspiracy theorists whom you're trying to advance.

[quote]I can’t help but get the feeling that no matter what I posted it was never going to influence your opinion. It seems that you have made up your own mind in accordance to the life of Jesus and the Bible as a whole.[/quote]

If I referenced the 'Showtime' programme in one of my essays, my tutors would probably accuse me of trying to be funny or else severely mark down the essay in question. Cambridge does have very rigorous academic standards, which I also apply to my study of theology. What you write will only influence my opinion if you can offer me something that is worthy of serious academic consideration, which hasn't happened so far.

[quote]And the most interesting part of this exchange is that you have the same access to these resources as I do and neither you or I or anyone else can ever produce the evidence needed to conclude the myth of Jesus as truth.[/quote]

All it proves is that some people take two thousand years of unbroken history and unrivalled scholarship to be convinced of a particular fact, while others are just as easily convinced by 'Showtime' and YouTube.

[carrdero]

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: No, it is not. The Bible is the inspired word of God.[/quote]And the accurate information that you can provide for this is………………

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Biblical exegesis is a complex process that requires you to pay attention to the original language(s), to the prevalent Jewish culture and custom of the time, to idiom and metaphor, and...drum roll...to the Church that was given the Spirit-inspired task of finalising the Scriptural canon.[/quote]In case of you haven’t figured this out yet that no matter what language the Bible was written in, no matter how accuarate the language, no matter how accurate the translation, we cannot prove that there was a Moses, we cannot validate that there was a flood and that Noah was chosen to head the expedition on the "Lord's" command. You may be able to prove that there was a man named Jesus but you cannot prove that he performed miracles, was crucified or was resurrected. You might be able to speculate that the authors of the Bible were in contact with some sort of intelligence but you will not be able prove that they were inspired by a one and only true Supreme Being and if you have any factual evidence to support this, I would be willing to seriously consider it.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes:Consequently, when I want to know what the Bible is I will look to the Church. Not Dan Brown, not Bishop Spong, not the latest flimsy idea dreamed up by pop culture, not YouTube, not carderro. The Church.[/quote]Then you will only receive one perspective of what the Church faithfully promotes. For someone who is trying to recover the bigger picture of a book written over 2000 years ago there are bound to be some people who require a much broader canvas to draw upon. There are thousands of interpretations and agendas that many people are trying to promote about this book called the Bible and there will be many who claim to be an “expert”. The most anyone could do is to personally interpret what the book means to their lives until more factual evidence surfaces.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: I do read, and extremely widely at that. If you want a list of the theological titles that are on my shelves, ranging from Eusebius to Scott Hahn, I can provide one. But what I wanted to know was what you have been reading to get the information that you have. In response, you weren't able to give me a single primary source - you directed me to two conspiracy theorists. Now is not the time to criticise my reading habits.[/quote]
Nor is it the time to defame the character of the authors of my resources. You can learn a lot from reading. Reading is an excellent way to temper our beliefs but you have already explain to me that you have prejudices against your sources. I do not judge my resources, I compare and reason them to what I already know and see how they stand up to my established beliefs, my current understanding and most importantly, how they reflect against the existence that I am currently experiencing.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Fluency of language has everything to do with the amount of faith you profess in your particular translation and interpretation of the Bible - which is why I will not trust the information given out by just anybody on YouTube. I look for reputable scholars.[/quote]You don’t want trust, you want Truth. You cannot believe something to Truth. You cannot hope the Bible to be True. If it is just faith that you want to encourage and promote than there really is no reason for you to open up any other book than the Bible.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Firstly, many members of the council spoke New Testament Greek as their mother tongue, so language was not such a barrier. Secondly, all Catholic translations of the Bible into vernacular languages are made by the most distinguished scholars available. Thirdly, the Council of Nicea was made up of cardinals and bishops - meaning that they had all undergone formal schooling in theology and history, which is more than can be said of the conspiracy theorists whom you're trying to advance.[/quote]
Good, let’s go with that word "advance". Compare to the knowledge that they had back them compared to the scientific facts and studies we have today, do you still believe the earth to be the center of the universe? Your bishops and cardinals and linguists do not impress me as much as they do you. I do not know them, I never met them, I do not know what purpose or agenda that they had for the Bible and they cannot be reached for further questioning or understanding.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes:If I referenced the 'Showtime' programme in one of my essays, my tutors would probably accuse me of trying to be funny or else severely mark down the essay in question. Cambridge does have very rigorous academic standards, which I also apply to my study of theology. What you write will only influence my opinion if you can offer me something that is worthy of serious academic consideration, which hasn't happened so far.[/quote]Don’t knock it until you watched it. I never said you were going to be popular by watching the episode of Penn and Teller but I do promse you that you will be informed. They won an Emmy for their researched endeavors and to this day no one has been able to present evidence to refute them.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: All it proves is that some people take two thousand years of unbroken history and unrivalled scholarship to be convinced of a particular fact, while others are just as easily convinced by 'Showtime' and YouTube.[/quote]
Two thousands years of practicing a habit that you “feel is right” does not mean you are doing it correctly, it just means that it is going to be harder to undo when you relearn something differently.

Edited April 22, 2007 by carrdero

[SJP]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1253288' date='Apr 22 2007, 06:42 PM']In case of you haven’t figured this out yet that no matter what language the Bible was written in, no matter how accuarate the language, no matter how accurate the translation, we cannot prove that there was a Moses, we cannot validate that there was a flood and that Noah was chosen to head the expedition on the "Lord's" command. You may be able to prove that there was a man named Jesus but you cannot prove that he performed miracles, was crucified or was resurrected. You might be able to speculate that the authors of the Bible were in contact with some sort of intelligence but you will not be able prove that they were inspired by a one and only true Supreme Being and if you have any factual evidence to support this, I would be willing to seriously consider it.[/quote]


I'm sure you're already aware of this, but if by "prove" you mean a scientifically verifiable fact, than we are in complete agreement. We don't attempt to "prove" the existence of Moses, the flood, or the miracles of Christ. We hold these beliefs through faith.

To be honest with you, we all believe things that we cannot "prove"

[Starets]

Sounds like they are using the work of a 19th century "freethinker" and lecturer named Kersey Graves. He published a book called [u]The World's 16 Crucified Saviours[/u] in 1875. There you'll find the very same list as is shown in the 1st youtube video. I haven't read the book, and I also have not made any indepth analysis of its claims. From what I can tell, the general academic consensus is that the book is unreliable. I am not aware, however, of anyone who has made a sustained critique of its claims. Maybe no one thinks its worth the bother.

I won't provide any links this time. To do so would involve linking to sites that are virulently anti-religion, not just anti-catholic. Besides which, it is simply not wrothy of serious academic consideration. The book is, however, something that pops up now and again among conspiracy theorists, militant atheists, and even some wiccans I've come across over the years. Maybe somebody does need to do a definitive "smackdown". But now me. I am not a scholar. I am just a bear of little brain

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Good let’s go with that word "advance". Compare to the knowledge that they had back them compared to the scientific facts and studies we have today do you still believe the earth to be the center of the universe? Your bishops and cardinals and linguists do not as impress me as much as they do you.[/quote]Catholic teaching has nothing to do with science. The Catholic Church has never ever made any infallible proclamations on matters of science, such as cosmology. She can teach infallibly on [b]faith and morals[/b] alone, as every informed person knows, so your example isn't relevant.

I know the Gospels. It is my hope that one day I will live and breathe nothing but the Gospels. And now that we have this good news of Jesus Christ, there is certainly no 'advance' in faith or morality possible. There is no ethical teaching in this world to rival, "You have heard it said, 'Love your neighbours and hate your enemies, but I tell you, Love your enemies and bless those whose persecute you." These were not just cheap words. Jesus lived what He taught. I have yet to meet the person who even claims to advance on that.

[quote]And the accurate information that you can provide for this is………………[/quote]

The Bible can speak for itself on this issue. No myth-maker would create the kind of things that Jesus taught. There is no market value in teachings like 'Take up your cross and follow me'. It is not what people wanted to hear - which explains why the early Christians were martyred in their droves. This, too, is verifiable historical [i]fact[/i]. References to the killings pepper the writings of the Roman historians. Several of those who were persecuted, such as Paul, saw Jesus and His miracles for themselves. A very potent myth indeed, if these people were prepared to be murdered for it.

This does not amount to definitive, irrevocable 'proof', such as a Made in Heaven stamp. But it is a lot better than the evidence to the contrary that you have provided so far.

[quote]In case of you haven’t figured this out yet that no matter what language the Bible was written in, no matter how accuarate the language, no matter how accurate the translation, we cannot prove that there was a Moses, we cannot validate that there was a flood and that Noah was chosen to head the expedition on the "Lord's" command.[/quote]There is geological evidence for a great flood of some description, such as the flood stratum discovered by the archaelogist and geologist Leonard Woolley as he was excavating in what was once Mesopotamia. The existence of Moses and the other people featured in the Bible is undisputed by all but a few hardened conspiracy theorists, as his memory and legacy were passed down the tribes of Israel - together with the Torah scrolls. There is also a variety of historical evidence to show that various events described in the OT did happen - the enslavement in Egypt, the exodus to Canaan, the capture and removal to Babylon. All these things are corrobated by sources outside the Bible. So to claim that Moses did not exist is like saying that the Battle of Hastings never happened. Questioning his miracles is reasonable enough, but questioning his existence is nothing short of absurd.

[quote]Nor is it the time to defame the character of the authors of my resources.[/quote]

Calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is hardly defamation.

[quote]Reading is an excellent way to temper our beliefs but you have already explain to me that you have prejudices against your sources.[/quote]Reading is also an excellent way to inform our beliefs. This is why I don't consider all sources to be of equal weight. It is not 'prejudiced' to refuse to place Dairy's YouTube videos on the same level as the [i]Summa Theologica[/i]. It is sheer common sense.

[quote]Then you will only receive one perspective of what the Church faithfully promotes. For someone who is trying to recover the bigger picture of a book written over 2000 years ago there are bound to be some people who require a much broader canvas to draw upon.[/quote]

The Church [i]is[/i] the canvas, and has been since AD 33. The Protestants only began painting in the sixteenth century, and I'm not a fan of modern art.

[quote]There are thousands of interpretations and agendas that many people are trying to promote about this book called the Bible and there will be many who claim to be an “expert”. [/quote]Catholics, like the apostles mentioned many times in the New Testament, believe Tradition to be equally valuable, so the myriad of interpretations and agendas that you speak of has never plagued us. Tradition and the Bible have a symbiotic relationship.

[quote]You don’t want trust, you want Truth. You cannot believe something to Truth. You cannot hope the Bible to be True. If it is just faith that you want to encourage and promote than there really is no reason for you to open up any other book than the Bible.[/quote]

That is totally irrelevant to what I wrote, which was, "I look for reputable scholars." I will read anything providing it was written by a well educated person with a good head on their shoulders. And yes, I do believe that many non-Catholics fall into that category. But William Bradley isn't one of them. Neither are two comedians who specialise in conjuring tricks, like Penn and Teller.

[quote]Don’t knock it until you watched it. I never said you were going to be popular by watching the episode of Penn and Teller but I do promse you that you will be informed. They won an Emmy for their researched endeavors and to this day no one has been able to present evidence to refute them.[/quote]They did not win an Emmy for their 'researched endeavours'. They were nominated for an Emmy for putting on a good show that people liked to watch. It is not the place of the Emmy Awards to reward people for sound scholarship, but rather for good TV. Let's not forget that Penn and Teller's 'research' also led them to conclude that secondhand smoke cannot cause cancer. That tells me a lot about their research methology, and it isn't good. As for refutations, sensationalism easily refutes itself. Most well educated and serious theologians/historians only turn their attention to arguments that are worth attention.

[quote]Two thousands years of practicing a habit that you “feel is right” does not mean you are doing it correctly, it just means that it is going to be harder to undo when you relearn something differently.[/quote]

Whoever said it was about 'feeling'? You put it in quotation marks, as if I said it. But my faith has absolutely nothing to do with feelings. In fact, sometimes I 'feel' like believing in something that wouldn't make so many demands on me. What I feel and what I trust are often different.

Edited April 22, 2007 by Cathoholic Anonymous

[Mateo el Feo]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1253288' date='Apr 22 2007, 06:42 PM']Good, let’s go with that word "advance". Compare to the knowledge that they had back them compared to the scientific facts and studies we have today, do you still believe the earth to be the center of the universe?[/quote]Maybe this would be the appropriate time for you to share with us the "scientific facts and studies" that have advanced our knowledge regarding the location of the center of the Universe. Please share with us when modern science made [i]any[/i] claims about the location of the center of the Universe.

[Socrates]

The Gospels of Jesus Christ were written about a specific historical man in a specific historical time and place, and all the evidence suggests that they were written by eyewitnesses, or by the immediate disciples of eyewitnesses.

It is not a vague myth set in no particular historical setting, such as the tales of Horus, etc. No one claims to have personally witnessed the events of the Horus myth, nor to have been an original disicple of Horus. (Same is true of any other pagan god.)

The Gospels are clearly a different type of account than pagan mythology.

For those who say we cannot prove the existence of Christ or events of the Gospels, to be consistant we would have to say we have no proof of the existance of Socrates, Plato, Alexander the Great, or Julius Caesar.
For knowledge of those men, we must rely also on ancient writings and records (most of which were written much longer after-the-fact than the Gospels of Christ).

And there is absolutely zero solid historical evidence that the writers of the Gospels or the early Church were influenced in any way by Egyptian myth, Hinduism, or anything else. That is nothing but idle speculation. The original Christians were devout Jews who would have avoided any such paganism.

And this great skepticism regarding the Gospels is inconsistant coming from one who has suggested Christ was a space alien, and other wild claims.

[mortify]

[quote]In case of you haven’t figured this out yet that no matter what language the Bible was written in, no matter how accuarate the language, no matter how accurate the translation, we cannot prove that there was a Moses, we cannot validate that there was a flood and that Noah was chosen to head the expedition on the "Lord's" command. You may be able to prove that there was a man named Jesus but you cannot prove that he performed miracles, was crucified or was resurrected. You might be able to speculate that the authors of the Bible were in contact with some sort of intelligence but you will not be able prove that they were inspired by a one and only true Supreme Being and if you have any factual evidence to support this, I would be willing to seriously consider it. [/quote]There is no doubt concerning the following: Jesus existed, He was executed via Crucifixion, that He was buried by a Joseph of Arrymathia, and that three days later His Apostles and disciples were convinced that they saw and interacted with a ressurected Christ. These facts, more or less, are preserved not only in Christian writings but non-Christian as well and archeology (a Tubungen Scholar believes he discovered the ACTUAL Tichelas (sp? The plank over Christ's crucified head)! Imagine that, TUBUNGEN!! Not like they have a history of defending the Christian faith) I always wonder, if Jesus wasn't a miracle worker, why did the Jews regard Him as a magician? If He wasn't crucified, or if He never existed, why weren't the Jews puzzled by a bunch of fisherman wandering around claiming the religious authority crucified the Messiah? Imagine if some Rabbi or Roman slammed the Cult of Christ by simply saying this Man never existed. Of course, that didn't happen, because for them to deny the existence of Christ would be absurd because He did exist, He was crucified, and He did perform extraordinary acts.

Now the question is, if Christ was crucified, and His dead body was buried in a tomb, what happened three days later? Someone took His body and hid it? This doesn't explain the fact that His apostles and disciples were convinced they saw Him, and that He ordered them to go to the farthest reaches of the world and spread His Gospel. The fact is, these people were CONVINCED they saw Christ, and this belief motivated them to undergo the most horrific punishments to spread His message. Thus I ask you, can you offer a simpler explanation than the resurrection of Christ?

[quote]Good, let’s go with that word "advance". Compare to the knowledge that they had back them compared to the scientific facts and studies we have today, do you still believe the earth to be the center of the universe? Your bishops and cardinals and linguists do not impress me as much as they do you. I do not know them, I never met them, I do not know what purpose or agenda that they had for the Bible and they cannot be reached for further questioning or understanding.[/quote]

This is absurd, science can't travel back in time, it's obvious people who lived in proximity to the events in terms of time and geography are more reliable. Do you honestly suppose someone like St Ireneus, who was the pupil of St Polycarp, who was the Pupil of St John, who was the Apostle of Christ, knew less than some Scholar living 2,000 years later? We have difficulty discovering what happened a hundred years ago, what of thousands of years?

Again, it's absurd, but here's the dilemma: from the Scholar's point of view, Christ CAN'T be Divine, He COULDN'T have resurrected, there MUST be a natural explanation. It's impossible that anyone witnessed Christ changing water to wine, or healing some incurable disease, or resurrecting from a grave, this [i]must[/i] be fake. The problem is we have the writings of Apostles, the pupils of those Apostles, and the pupils of those pupils and they all have a consistent belief. The solution is to doubt the gospels, ascribe some sort of anonymous writer distant from the events, who collected some spurious narrations of Christ and later had his writing attributed to an apostle by a naive community. The problem is, in the case of John's Gospel for example, his successors ascribe the Gospel to him, yet the modern scholar will have us believe they wrote it. That's simply unintelligent. In the case of Mark's Gospel, St Papias who was a pupil of St John and learned from pupils of other apostles, said St Mark was a pupil of St Peter, who faithfully committed Peter's sayings of Christ to memory and wrote them word for word. This is totally plausible, we know the Jews had an oral tradition which consisted of carefully memorizing narrations verbatim. Plus, it's possible St Peter was around to guide St Mark in composing the Gospel. Thus we see the faith was carefully passed down to succeeding generations by men who KNEW Christ, and these pupils of Apostles were convinced of the testimony the Apostles. Direct witness account of people who actually were among Christ's inner circle is incredibly valuable. Thus we return to the dilemma, these witnesses point to what the scholar simply can't accept.

The earliest Christians, like Sts Papias and Ireneus were not some gullible geniuses who accepted a gospel from nowhere. They were intelligent and deeply concerned with preserving the truth of Christ. If any scholar claims that Christ was fictionalized, he must demonstrate how and when this happened, since we know these early Christian leaders were aggressive in rooting out error and preserving the historical truth of Christ.

A good site: [url="http://www.tektonics.org/"]http://www.tektonics.org/[/url]

Edited April 23, 2007 by mortify

[dairygirl4u2c]

you have some compelling arguments mortify (and a unique buddy icon). and you're definitely right, or at least in the right direction.

i think we'd have to agree the gospels could be false. given the Q gosple could be a foundation from all those past 15 saviros, and tehy smply made some of the old testament prophesies fit the old testament, or any number of things.

but the writings of those who said they talked to the apostles in person, when they said the apostles said they saw jesus resurrected etc is the best proof.
i think i should look at some of the specific writings from those persons who talked to the apostles:
to see where they actually said they talked to the apostles and heard these miralces and resurrection etc.
to see how we are calling them their successors, what's the basis for that?
to see what exactly they are basing their relationship on. what is "pupil of st. john" based on for example?
and how they date the letters of certain writings. if they date they assuming it's all true, that might not be the best basis.
do you know the best way to locate this specific information?

and ya know. probably the best evidence was from saint paul. unless we were to believe all that happened was fake, and st. paul had an illusion (or was lying which i don't know why we'd beleive). the chances of that isn't very high.

Edited April 23, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c

[carrdero]

[quote name='SJP' post='1253338' date='Apr 22 2007, 06:13 PM']I'm sure you're already aware of this, but if by "prove" you mean a scientifically verifiable fact, than we are in complete agreement. We don't attempt to "prove" the existence of Moses, the flood, or the miracles of Christ. We hold these beliefs through faith.[/quote]

I can respect the belief but I cannot cater to your faith (that much is personal). I can examine and reason, share, compare and in some cases help you conclude them but it is more difficult to discern them when they are sheltered in faith. Besides why would you want to hold your beliefs in faith? When someone is exercising with weights, they do not get results by "holding" the weight bar. YOU get bigger and stronger by "working with" the weights. The only thing YOU get from "holding" something is fatigue.
[quote]SJP writes: To be honest with you, we all believe things that we cannot "prove"[/quote]
And there is no shame in that. But applying faith to the belief is not going to make it any more acceptable or attractive or get you any nearer to the belief being a Truth or an Untruth.

[carrdero]

[quote]Mortify writes: Of course, that didn't happen, because for them to deny the existence of Christ would be absurd because He did exist, He was crucified, and He did perform extraordinary acts.[/quote]Some people believed that another man took Jesus’ place on a cross. Another group of people say he had never died. One group of people says that he was nailed to a pole, another says a cross. One group says that Jesus was God, another group say that he was the son of God, another states that he was just a man who knew better. Another group of people say he was married. Another group of people say he had children. One group claims that Christ resurrected after death another group claims that Jesus visited America soon after. One group claims that Jesus will come again, another group claims that he hasn’t come at all and another person believes that Jesus has reincarnated to earth many times already. Can all these people be correct? No. Can we believe all these beliefs? Certainly, I say!!! Why? Because the possibility exists one of these scenerios could be True or they could all be Untrue. The Jesus myth seems to be ever-growing, ever changing, ever evolving and it doesn’t seem like someone’s faith is going to stop anyone from continuing to propose theories.


[quote]Mortify writes: The solution is to doubt the gospels, ascribe some sort of anonymous writer distant from the events, who collected some spurious narrations of Christ and later had his writing attributed to an apostle by a naive community.[/quote]
Or God could “inspre” another human to write another Bible to restore clarity and understanding to a gospel lost in transition but who could believe it?

[quote]Mortify writes: That's simply unintelligent. In the case of Mark's Gospel, St Papias who was a pupil of St John and learned from pupils of other apostles, said St Mark was a pupil of St Peter, who faithfully committed Peter's sayings of Christ to memory and wrote them word for word.[/quote]Already we have second hand information. The life and story of Jesus marinated for well over a third of a century before anyone decided to construct this into a comprehensive narrative. If Jesus were alive today, would you wait 35 years after his death to document his impressive ministry? The real author of the New Testament gospels should have been Jesus Himself, Who else would have been more qualified to receive His Father’s “inspirations” than the earthly form of His son?

[quote]Mortify writes: The earliest Christians, like Sts Papias and Ireneus were not some gullible geniuses who accepted a gospel from nowhere. They were intelligent and deeply concerned with preserving the truth of Christ.[/quote]
Preserving the Truth or the faith? You cannot have both. Because in the face of undeniable Truth, faith is no longer necessary.

Edited April 23, 2007 by carrdero