The Jesus Myth

[carrdero]

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: The Catholic Church has never ever made any infallible proclamations on matters of science, such as cosmology. She can teach infallibly on faith and morals alone, as every informed person knows, so your example isn't relevant.[/quote]It was not my intention to lead you to believe that the Catholic Church started or promoted this theory (I do not think I even mentioned the words 'Catholic Church') but at one time this was a held belief in primitive societies to what we understand today. This is advancement. There have been other examples of primitive superstitions that we have out grown over the centuries through scientific and social advancement.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: 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 there are many ways that you can prove that in your lifetime. Jesus and first century Christians did not hold a monopoly on wisdom. In fact some of the best examples of wisdom aren’t read from a book, they are experienced first hand. There are many teachings in the Bible that are practical and can be applied in today’s current society (the quotation you cited above is a fine example). There are also some teachings that can’t be applied to today’s society. Animal sacrifices, stoning disobedient children and owners of unruly oxen to death or the killing of unbelieving men, women and children who won’t give up their land that has been promised to someone by a Supreme deity I would admit isn’t a very wise or practical idea in this day and age.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: The Bible can speak for itself on this issue. No myth-maker would create the kind of things that Jesus taught.[/quote]Apparently you haven’t read Aesop’s Fables or Grimm’s Faity Tales or Hans Christian Anderson.

'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: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.

How would you know? Did you watch the video? Are you ready to challenge the information contained therin? Did you read The Gods Of Eden book yet or did you just do a quick internet search and immediately conclude that you have already been well informed of this understanding?Actually there is no difference. It is someone’s word against another person’s word. If I wrote a book claiming to be inspired by GOD and if the inspirations in this book made complete sense but were different than what the Bible taught, would you give it the same consideration as the Bible? Do you think that you would be completely overwhelmed by my authorship or would you treat these “scriptures” skeptically?

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: 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.[/quote]
Great floods I am not disputing, there was one in New Orleans a couple of years ago. An aged old man who was instructed to build an ark to carry 10,000 species from a BEing claiming to be God I may need more convincing with.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: 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.[/quote]Okay so maybe the existence of Moses is easy on the belief meter but staffs that turn into snakes, rivers that turn to blood and seas that split and divide on demand to allow slaves to safely pass I may need more convincing with.


[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Questioning his miracles is reasonable enough, but questioning his existence is nothing short of absurd.[/quote]
Okay we will set aside the miracles for now but when do we get to the accurate information that these Biblical authors were inspired from God?

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Calling somebody a conspiracy theorist is hardly defamation.[/quote]So what you are telling me is that their claims and writings are to be considered and taken as seriously as the Biblical prophets, saints, scholars, bishops and university degree authors that you are interested in?

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: The Church is 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]
How did the Protestants get mixed up in this conversation

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: That is totally irrelevant to what I wrote, which was, "I look for reputable scholars." [/quote]Define reputable and please include qualifications of expertise in relation to God inspirations….
[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: 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]….And while you are looking reputable up, I think we should revisit the definition of defamation.
[b]2 : to harm the reputation of by libel or slander[/b]
So what you are saying is (and you may correct me if I am mistaken) that the reason you will not consider the sources that I have provided for you is because you believe the authors of these sources of information by reputation are lying, ignorant, inferior, uninformed, stupid con men who do not rate with your specific definition of intelligence and are unworthy of your time, reasoning abilities and consideration.

[color="#000080"]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Let's not forget that Penn and Teller's 'research' also led them to conclude that secondhand smoke cannot cause cancer.[/color]

From what I am to understand the evidence that was presented to them only came to light after that show was aired. Whether this was true or not I can't confirm but they freely and honestly admitted this error in judgment and amended it in an upcoming show.

Edited April 23, 2007 by carrdero

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Define reputable and please include qualifications of expertise in relation to God inspirations…. [/quote]But we weren't talking about 'God's inspirations'. We were talking about Biblical exegesis and Church history. In this modern age, when people begin to expound on the Bible and profess to teach about Christian history I look for the following:

1.) Fluency in the languages in which the Scriptures were written. (A lot of people propose maverick theories based on linguistic loopholes.)
2.) An in-depth knowledge of first-century Jewish culture and tradition - the sort that can only be gained through a thorough course in anthropology.
3.) Great familiarity with the canon of Catholic theologians throughout the ages.
4.) A qualification that attests to the soundness of your research methodology and the scope of your reading - usually a PhD in your specialist subject.

To the best of my knowledge, William Bradley and P&T do not meet a single one of those criteria.

[quote]So what you are saying is (and you may correct me if I am mistaken) that the reason you will not consider the sources that I have provided for you is because you believe the authors of these sources of information by reputation are lying, ignorant, inferior, uninformed, stupid con men who do not rate with your specific definition of intelligence and are unworthy of your time, reasoning abilities and consideration.[/quote]

I did not say that they were lying. I did not say that they were inferior. I did not say that they were stupid. I did not say that they were conmen.

The only word there that I will accept is uninformed. Couple that with unqualified and you have my views. If you linked me to a marine biologist who claimed to be able to teach me about Thomist philosophy, despite never having formally studied the subject in his life, I would say the same thing. This is neither slander nor libel but a simple statement of fact.

[quote]So what you are telling me is that their claims and writings are to be considered and taken as seriously as the Biblical prophets, saints, scholars, bishops and university degree authors that you are interested in? [/quote]No, they are not. By your definition, I would be defaming the character of my six-year-old nephew if I said that I am better qualified than he is to translate Middle English.

[i]How did the Protestants get mixed up in this conversation[/i]

You began to talk about 'personal interpretation' of the Bible, which is a Protestant concept.

[i]And there are many ways that you can prove that in your lifetime. Jesus and first century Christians did not hold a monopoly on wisdom.[/i]

No, they didn't. My point is that Jesus is wisdom personified. No one has possessed, or ever will possess, greater wisdom than the Son of Man. As for your remark about the Old Testament...that proves my point. Wisdom was revealed gradually and reached its completion in Jesus Christ. When I referred to the perfect of God's Law, I referred to the Person who is at the heart of the Gospels: Jesus. In the two thousand years since His death, no one has been able to offer an improvement on Gospel teaching.

[quote]Apparently you haven’t read Aesop’s Fables or Grimm’s Faity Tales or Hans Christian Anderson.[/quote]

Oh, I have. And I stick to my point: no myth-maker would create the kind of thing that Jesus taught. Aesop's fables are moral tales; in the style of the Greek pedagogues, he expected people to attend to the message and not the outer framework of the story. The Brothers Grimm and Hans Christian Andersen specialised in fantasy. They expected to entertain, not to be believed. And even in the height of their fantastical creations, these authors did not come close to the kinds of things that Jesus taught. Because even in fantasy, God does not wash His followers' feet and love them to the point of death. Red shoes that dance for an eternity are more acceptable than that.

[quote]If I wrote a book claiming to be inspired by GOD and if the inspirations in this book made complete sense but were different than what the Bible taught, would you give it the same consideration as the Bible? Do you think that you would be completely overwhelmed by my authorship or would you treat these “scriptures” skeptically?[/quote]Do you seriously believe that the Bible was written by one person all in one go? The numbers of Biblical authors (some of whom never even met) is one of its greatest proofs of authenticity, as despite living far from each other and in some cases writing with a gap of centuries in between them, their works speak with one voice.

[quote]How would you know? Did you watch the video? Are you ready to challenge the information contained therin? Did you read The Gods Of Eden book yet or did you just do a quick internet search and immediately conclude that you have already been well informed of this understanding?[/quote]

I am a university student on a limited budget. When I buy books, I choose wisely and make sure that they are good books. And as a student of literature and linguistics, I am able to separate the wheat from the chaff without having to spend hours reading the work in question. A few pages, a glance at the reviews in solid critical publications, and a summary of the author's qualifications is usually enough to make a sound judgement when it comes to non-fiction (or books that purport to be non-fiction).

[quote]Great floods I am not disputing, there was one in New Orleans a couple of years ago. [/quote]No, there wasn't. Several thousand years from now the geological evidence for that flood will have dissipated. Compared to the evidence for a really huge flood that has been found in Mesopotamia and around the Mediterranean, the New Orleans flood was a puddle.

[quote]An aged old man who was instructed to build an ark to carry 10,000 species from a BEing claiming to be God I may need more convincing with.[/quote]

It is ironic that somebody who will believe anything he sees on the television providing it is 'controversial' enough has difficulty with the concept of Divine Revelation.

[quote]Okay we will set aside the miracles for now but when do we get to the accurate information that these Biblical authors were inspired from God?[/quote]

As I have already explained, we can reach the conclusion that the Bible was God-inspired by taking into consideration a variety of factors, which other Phatmassers and I have already outlined. This means thinking critically, not deciding that everything you see on the TV screen is worthy of belief.

[SJP]

carrdero said:
"I can respect the belief but I cannot cater to your faith (that much is personal)."

But who said anything about catering to my faith? You stated that we could not "prove" many of the tenents of our faith, I agreed. However, you did not clairfy what your standard for proof was. If by proof you mean scientifically verifiable facts, then I would argue that requiring such proof in order to believe in anything would rob us of our humanity. How can you "prove" that you love someone? How can you "prove" that you trust someone? How can you "prove" that you have hope?

The truth of the matter is that we all live by faith, there is no experiment that can determine ones degree of love or commitment. Love, hope, trust all require [i]faith[/i].

Would you agree?

Carrdero said:
"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. "

But I could say the same for you. Everything becomes difficult to discern when one is sheltered in a state of perpetual scepticism.

Edited April 23, 2007 by SJP

[carrdero]

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: The only word there that I will accept is uninformed. Couple that with unqualified and you have my views. If you linked me to a marine biologist who claimed to be able to teach me about Thomist philosophy, despite never having formally studied the subject in his life, I would say the same thing. This is neither slander nor libel but a simple statement of fact. To the best of my knowledge, William Bradley and P&T do not meet a single one of those criteria.[/quote]William Bramley is a practicing attorney with an interest in history and religion.

Telller taught High School Latin in Lawrenceville, NJ

Both Penn And Teller are visiting scholars at MIT.

And Jesus…well, Jesus was just a carpenter.

In the pursuit of understanding and enlightenment (spiritual or otherwise) I am concerned that one feels it is imperative to judge the teachers and disregard the teachings. I am concerned with the freedom of belief, our right to compare, reason and conclude our beliefs and the arrogant suppositions that one has to obtain a degree or follow anothers personal criteria to be considered intelligent, knowledgeable or even credible. It is this kind of judgment; it is this kind of prejudice and unsolicitied opinon that keeps some people in ignorance and encased in faith.

[quote]'Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: You began to talk about 'personal interpretation' of the Bible, which is a Protestant concept.[/quote]Personal interpretation and free thinking was fashionable way beore it became a Protestant concept.
[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: No, they didn't. My point is that Jesus is wisdom personified. No one has possessed, or ever will possess, greater wisdom than the Son of Man.[/quote]There are many people and many religions that may disagree with you. I also find it interesting how you could conclude this belief about one man (that you have never known or personally met) or from just one book that only explains a three year ministry. There are many years of Jesus’ life that are unaccounted for. Are you aware of the events that transpired during these missing years? Wisdom is also aquired knowledge applied to experience, you cannot possibly convince me of such a bold assumption unless you are familiar with the lives of every single human BEing that has ever lived or is currently living.

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Do you seriously believe that the Bible was written by one person all in one go?[/quote]
No, but I do believe that the Biblical authors should not have been bound and that that everyone should have been able to make their own discernments about the individual author’s particular relationships and writings with “divinity”.
[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: I am a university student on a limited budget. [/quote]It’s called a library and it’s free.
[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: As I have already explained, we can reach the conclusion that the Bible was God-inspired by taking into consideration a variety of factors, which other Phatmassers and I have already outlined. This means thinking critically, not deciding that everything you see on the TV screen is worthy of belief.[/quote]The only thng that you have revealed to me is how far your will extend your faith in the absence of evidence.

Edited April 23, 2007 by carrdero

[Mateo el Feo]

Poor carrdero...so misunderstood.

[mortify]

Dairygirl said,
[quote]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. [/quote]I don't fully understand your point here, but the "Q gospel" is speculation. It's a way for Scholars to explain the the similarity between the gospels. There are other (secular) explanations for the similarity between the gospels.

Carrdero said:
[quote]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]

The problem is you're not making any qualitative distinctions between the groups. The Gnostics believed some far out things that were not only totally disconnected from Apostolic Christianity but from Judaism as well. To suggest a Gnostic claim about Christ is equal to an Apostolic one is silly and this is precisely how the early Christians defeated the Gnostics. When the Gnostics were walking around claiming some Apostle handed them a secret teaching that is required for salvation, a Bishop like St Ireneus, who actually is a successor of Apostles, asked why he had not heard of such a thing. It was [b]apostolic succession[/b], which the gnostics lacked, that led to their defeat, and their erroneous ways were extinct for thousands of years.

[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?[/quote]

Think about this for a moment, are you saying Christians were ignorant about Christ for 35 years? We are talking about a religion [b]totally centered[/b] on the life, works, and teachings of Jesus Christ, I can't imagine Christians accepting the Lord and dying for Him without knowing anything about Him, it's simply not logical. The more reasonable explanation is that the Apostles, being from a culture which had a strong oral tradition, passed down the teachings this way. Jesus Himself most likely repeated the parables on numerous occasions, perhaps in slightly different forms, and by their very nature they would have been easy to memorize. This may explain why certain narrations of Christ are slightly different, or why they may be in a different order relative to others, because one Apostle may have remembered one form over another, and he may have recalled it occuring in one time before another.

That's the case for the parables, but take a look at the Passion narrative (from the Last supper to the Resurrection), what do you notice about it? It is incredibly consistent among gospels. What does this mean? It means the early Christians found this part of Jesus's life to be extremely important, thus they memorized not just the actions and sayings, but the chronology of events. This also reflects some theology, because it tells us the early Christians were very conscious that the center of their faith rested on the Crucifixion of Christ.

Now that's just oral tradition, what about writings that simply did not survive unto our times?[b] We have to accept the reality that the early Christians had tons of evidence before them which simply no longer exist[/b], and not because of some sinister motive but because the materials they wrote on decayed into non existence. It is perfectly possible that an apostle such as St Matthew, who was a tax collector and thus would have been knowledgeable of three languages (latin, aramaic, and greek) would have written some of the Lord's sayings down. The fact that Jesus chose someone who could write suggests He may have intended them to serve as a Chronicler of sorts. Even among the Apostles who could not write as well, it's possible they had a pupil or scribe whose sole purpose was to document the life of Christ.

It's obvious that Christianity being a religion which totally centers around Christ would have necessitated a means of preserving the sayings of Christ. In the beginning they would have memorized sayings of Christ, passed down certain creeds, and even some personal writings. St Paul in 1 Corinthians 15 testifies to this living tradition which passed down knowledge unto him, and keep in mind St Paul is writing some twenty years after the Lord's resurrection when the Apostles were STILL LIVING. More so, from the Apostles to their successors, we see a great focus on preserving the Truth. From the beginning St Paul was prolifically writing, even from jail, to ensure the communities he passed the faith onto were sticking to the Apostolic teachings. In other words, Christians did not lay back and allow their faith to disintegrate before them, they were aggressive in making sure the Faith was accurately passed down.


Finally, I'd like to see any 2,000 year old secular writing pass the criteria some of you people try to fit the bible through.

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]William Bramley is a practicing attorney with an interest in history and religion.[/quote]I'm a published and award-winning author in the field of autistic spectrum disorders. By your logic, I'm qualified to write on cosmology as well. After all, I have an interest in it. Unfortunately, being 'interested' in something does not mean that you are qualified to talk about it - especially if your 'interest' can be summed up in the very vague category of 'history and religion'. Bradley's status as an attorney has no relevance whatsoever to the subject of his book.

[quote]Telller taught High School Latin in Lawrenceville, NJ[/quote]

Unfortunately the Bible wasn't written in Latin. As for teaching [i]high school[/i] Latin...that is not exactly much to write home about. High school Latin is easy. How does this give Teller the necessary exegetical and linguistic knowledge to make a thorough and informed study of the Bible?

[quote]Both Penn And Teller are visiting scholars at MIT.[/quote][i]In what?[/i] Engineering? Mathematics? The knitting of fluffy socks? Something else totally unrelated to the topic of their programme?

[i]And Jesus…well, Jesus was just a carpenter.[/i]

And Jesus is the [i]subject[/i] of the discussion, not the person responsible for making sure that it is well informed and conducted with due academic rigor.

[quote]In the pursuit of understanding and enlightenment (spiritual or otherwise) I am concerned that one feels it is imperative to judge the teachers and disregard the teachings.[/quote]

When I learn something, I want to make sure that I am learning it from a good teacher. A reasonable stipulation, I think.

[quote]I am concerned with the freedom of belief, our right to compare, reason and conclude our beliefs and the arrogant suppositions that one has to obtain a degree or follow anothers personal criteria to be considered intelligent, knowledgeable or even credible.[/quote]I return to what I said earlier: by your standards I am being 'arrogant' when I say that my six-year-old nephew is not as well qualified as I am to translate Middle English. There are objective standards in certain fields of education and learning. Some things can be learnt by experience, but ecclesiology and New Testament Greek don't fall under that umbrella.

[quote]It’s called a library and it’s free.[/quote]

Cambridge is the home of a world renowned university. Our libraries don't stock rubbish titles.

[quote]The only thng that you have revealed to me is how far your will extend your faith in the absence of evidence.[/quote]

That is a strange remark coming from someone who believes that a high school Latin teacher's qualification is equivalent to those of someone who has spent fifty years immersed in Biblical languages.

[carrdero]

[quote]SJP writes: But who said anything about catering to my faith?
You stated that we could not "prove" many of the tenents of our faith, I agreed. However, you did not clairfy what your standard for proof was. If by proof you mean scientifically verifiable facts, then I would argue that requiring such proof in order to believe in anything would rob us of our humanity. How can you "prove" that you love someone? [/quote]Ask yourself. And if your response is “I think I do,” it is pretty safe to assume you need more understanding about love. If your response is “I hope I do,” then you may be inviting all the irregularities that hope embraces, like discouragement and disappointment.
[quote]SJP writes: How can you "prove" that you trust someone?[/quote]
Ask yourself, ask the person that you have a concern of trust about. Wait until that person proves that you can or cannot trust them.
[quote]SJP writes: How can you "prove" that you have hope?[/quote]Hope is a disturbing distraction to reality.
[quote]SJP writes: The truth of the matter is that we all live by faith,[/quote]
No that is an Untruth. I do not live by faith. How do you think that I have been able to accumulate, encourage and examine so many beliefs? If I am not mistaken here, I think that you may be confusing the concepts of belief, faith and Truth.
[quote]SJP writes: there is no experiment that can determine ones degree of love or commitment. [/quote]First you have to decide what kind of love you will be in acceptance of. Once you have established that, you try to discover someone who shares this kind of love, if that is what you desire.
[quote]SJP writes: Everything becomes difficult to discern when one is sheltered in a state of perpetual scepticism.[/quote]
I would recommend that a little skepticism is healthy. Though I am an avid collector of beliefs, I am careful not to abuse or insult by beliefs by displaying or describing them to be something they are not.

Edited April 24, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Carrdero quotes: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. 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 proposing theories.[/quote][quote]Mortify writes: The problem is you're not making any qualitative distinctions between the groups.[/quote]And if it is okay, I’d like to keep it that way. It is unfair to introduce labels into this discussion. Some people tend to put too much attention or undeserved judgment on the group and not enough focus on the belief.
[quote]Mortify writes: The Gnostics believed some far out things that were not only totally disconnected from Apostolic Christianity but from Judaism as well.....[/quote]See what I mean?

These are the Jesus myths. Many of them have been documented and published. I am more interested in why people don’t believe in some or all of these Jesus myths. They’re still valid beliefs, many of them are still in circulation and all of them are beliefs that haven’t been proven yet.

[quote]Mortify writes: Think about this for a moment, are you saying Christians were ignorant about Christ for 35 years?[/quote]No, not at all. What I am trying to express is that 35 years is a long time to begin writing the biography of a man who was to be the most influential religious figure to the world past, present and future.

[quote]Mortify writes: This may explain why certain narrations of Christ are slightly different, or why they may be in a different order relative to others, because one Apostle may have remembered one form over another, and he may have recalled it occuring in one time before another.[/quote]I never had any concerns about the narrations or the way that they were written or organized but at the same time I do not feel it was necessary to include four different versions. What I would have preferred were more alternative views from different authors and scribes (if they were available) to get a balanced view of Jesus’ life and try to get a fuller understanding of the way other people had perceived him. The NT books that are present in the gospels are a bit biased, they are, after all, written, compiled and bound by followers of Jesus. Their agenda was not to include or write about or describe Jesus in an unfavorable light.

[quote]Mortify writes: Finally, I'd like to see any 2,000 year old secular writing pass the criteria some of you people try to fit the bible through.[/quote]
Mortify…It’s not a test.

Great post by the way, you brought out some very interesting points worthy of thought

Edited April 24, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: I'm a published and award-winning author in the field of autistic spectrum disorders. By your logic, I'm qualified to write on cosmology as well.[/quote]Why not, if you have something to add to the field or just want to share your beliefs and theories on the subject, writing and publishing is a great way to get your point across to other people. Hey, if John The Fisherman can write about the life of Jesus and the Book Of Revelation and other spiritual matters, why can’t you write a book about cosmology?

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Bradley's status as an attorney has no relevance whatsoever to the subject of his book.[/quote]

But it does tend to lead towards the evidence that he had to go to college and that he may have taken other courses to strengthen his knowledge in those particular fields of studies. Unfortunately a fruitless internet search provided no biographical information on him but I did discover he recently wrote another book.

[b]Jesus Goes to Hollywood: The Alternative Theories About Christ[/b]
By William Bramley
[b]Book Description[/b]
You've heard the theories, now here's the evidence! Jesus Goes to Hollywood: The Alternative Theories About Christ is a fascinating and extensively-researched exploration of the many controversial theories that have been expressed about Jesus over the centuries. For the first time ever, these theories and the evidence surrounding them are brought together in a single book that is both scholarly and highly readable. It would take a reader years of digging through hundreds of sources to get the information found in this remarkable one-of-a-kind volume. Jesus Goes to Hollywood is truly a "must read" for any person who wants to discover more about the historical Jesus, his life, and his teachings.

It got a Five Star rating!!

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Unfortunately the Bible wasn't written in Latin. As for teaching high school Latin...that is not exactly much to write home about. High school Latin is easy. How does this give Teller the necessary exegetical and linguistic knowledge to make a thorough and informed study of the Bible?[/quote]Did I mention he had a degree from B.S.U.?
So in order for anyone to make a thorough and informed study of the Bible everyone has to learn, read and write Hebrew and Greek before they can explain or debunk The Bible and it's history and doctrine?

[quote]Carrdero quotes: And Jesus…well, Jesus was just a carpenter.[/quote]

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes:And Jesus is the subject of the discussion, not the person responsible for making sure that it is well informed and conducted with due academic rigor.

Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: “The only word there that I will accept is uninformed. Couple that with unqualified and you have my views. If you linked me to a marine biologist who claimed to be able to teach me about Thomist philosophy, despite never having formally studied the subject in his life, I would say the same thing. This is neither slander nor libel but a simple statement of fact.”[/quote]Now let me see if I understand this correctly-You would never accept the teachings of Thomist Philosophy from a marine biologist, you refuse to be informed of the researched historical and religious investigations from two magicians and a attorney but yet you do not have a problem whole heartedly accepting the “spiritual” life teachings, and “Godly wisdom” from a carpenter or defending the scriptural insights and inspirations from a fisherman. I find that to be a bit hypocr-well let’s just say it’s unfair.

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: When I learn something, I want to make sure that I am learning it from a good teacher. A reasonable stipulation, I think.[/quote]
Again, I must ask, if you cannot accept or consider the ramblings of my “unqualified/uninformed” candidates, what credentials and qualifications did Jesus and his apostles possess that you seem to accept without question and why do you adamantly embrace them wholeheartedly as expert teachers? What special and unique teachings could they possibly profess that you could not arrive at by yourself in this day and age or with the assistance from another existing entity?

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Cambridge is the home of a world renowned university. Our libraries don't stock rubbish titles.[/quote]

I bet they have an extensive religious section though.

Edited April 24, 2007 by carrdero

[Starets]

stubborn fellow, aren't you carderro?

[carrdero]

[quote name='Staretz' post='1254893' date='Apr 24 2007, 05:13 AM']stubborn fellow, aren't you carderro?[/quote]
Studious would be the word I would choose. I just don't want to miss anything.

[Starets]

One of the things that distinguishes amateur and professional scholars from the studious is the ability to determine the quality of sources. Not everything is of equal value, and not everyone's opinions are equally good.

[carrdero]

[quote name='Staretz' post='1254900' date='Apr 24 2007, 06:21 AM']One of the things that distinguishes amateur and professional scholars from the studious is the ability to determine the quality of sources. Not everything is of equal value, and not everyone's opinions are equally good.[/quote]

Everyone who has a belief should be able to express it freely regardless of their profession, race, gender. creed or color. When I purchased my Bible, it didn’t come shrink-wrapped with a qualified scholar or even a list of authorative resources. When we are talking about Biblical interpretations and translations there is/was no quality control standard for the sources, there are no experts on divine inspirations. Not one living person today was present when these original writings were compiled.

Edited April 24, 2007 by carrdero

[cathoholic_anonymous]

[quote]Why not, if you have something to add to the field or just want to share your beliefs and theories on the subject, writing and publishing is a great way to get your point across to other people. Hey, if John The Fisherman can write about the life of Jesus and the Book Of Revelation and other spiritual matters, why can’t you write a book about cosmology?[/quote]Because cosmology is an incredibly complex field, involving an extremely precise knowledge of mathematics, physics, and astronomy. I [i]could[/i] produce a few scribblings on cosmology, I suppose, but I wouldn't be presumptuous or foolish enough to expect people to take me anywhere near seriously as they take Professor Stephen Hawking. I'd be worried if they did.

As for John and the Book of Revelation, he merely wrote about what he saw.

[quote]But it does tend to lead towards the evidence that he had to go to college and that he may have taken other courses to strengthen his knowledge in those particular fields of studies.[/quote]

Possible minors in an undergraduate degree (that we do not even know that he took) do not give him much credence either. French is my minor. That doesn't mean that I am ab expert on all things French. It just means...that French is my minor.

[quote]It got a Five Star rating!![/quote]Does this mean that when I rate a book at five stars on Amazon everyone must recognise my opinion as correct or even worthwhile? Hordes of people rated [i]The Da Vinci Code[/i] at five stars, even though it is utter rubbish from a literary perspective as well as a historical one. Quality, like truth, is not determined by majority vote. I can't believe this is your idea of being 'studious'.

[quote]Now let me see if I understand this correctly-You would never accept the teachings of Thomist Philosophy from a marine biologist, you refuse to be informed of the researched historical and religious investigations from two magicians and a attorney but yet you do not have a problem whole heartedly accepting the “spiritual” life teachings, and “Godly wisdom” from a carpenter or defending the scriptural insights and inspirations from a fisherman. I find that to be a bit hypocr-well let’s just say it’s unfair.[/quote]

Jesus was able to teach about prayer because anybody can pray. Prayer is not taught in a classroom, and wisdom is not the same thing as education. One of the wisest people I know also meets the criteria for mental retardation.

But Thomist philosophy [i]can[/i] be formally taught. So can Church history. So can Biblical languages and exegetical methods. They require not only wisdom but an awful lot of knowledge as well. Let's not forget that the men whom you are championing are not sharing personal insights about prayer, but are claiming to teach historical fact. There is a big difference.

It is not hypocritical to point it out. It is just common sense.

[quote]Did I mention he had a degree from B.S.U.?
So in order for anyone to make a thorough and informed study of the Bible everyone has to learn, read and write Hebrew and Greek before they can explain or debunk The Bible and it's history and doctrine? [/quote]That's exactly what I'm saying. Most observant Jews still study Hebrew today for the purpose of their knowledge and prayer. If you don't know these languages or have time to learn, look to scholars who can read and translate for guidance. Not to any man who happens to have a television programme.

So unless his degree was in Biblical history, theology, or Biblical languages, it really doesn't count for much with regards to his theories.

[quote]Again, I must ask, if you cannot accept or consider the ramblings of my “unqualified/uninformed” candidates, what credentials and qualifications did Jesus and his apostles possess that you seem to accept without question and why do you adamantly embrace them wholeheartedly as expert teachers? What special and unique teachings could they possibly profess that you could not arrive at by yourself in this day and age or with the assistance from another existing entity?[/quote]

Jesus teaches us how to love when we are in danger of forgetting how. That is not a lesson that can be successfully learned anywhere but on Mount Calvary. And it is a lesson that requires a great deal of humility. If you are puffed up with a sense of your own importance Jesus will always remain 'just a carpenter'. People who have got beyond their pride even a litte way see Someone different.

Again, it is not something that is taught in a classroom...but theology and the resulting philosophical approaches [i]are[/i]. And it is theology and philosophy that Bramley and Co. are trying to talk about, so they do need a good formal education in those topics.

[Starets]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1254918' date='Apr 24 2007, 09:22 AM']Everyone who has a belief should be able to express it freely regardless of their profession, race, gender. creed or color. When I purchased my Bible, it didn’t come shrink-wrapped with a qualified scholar or even a list of authorative resources. When we are talking about Biblical interpretations and translations there is/was no quality control standard for the sources, there are no experts on divine inspirations. Not one living person today was present when these original writings were compiled.[/quote]

Non sequitur.
Yes there are "quality control standards". Simply because no living person today was present when these writings were compiled does not mean that there is no way for us to determine those standards. Furthermore, it does not mean that everyone's opinion is ipso facto just as meritorious as everyone else's opinion. For example, I used to think that Robert Spencer was a credible source for islamic jihad. I no longer do so.

[123]

If Jesus's kingship was a myth and he was just anoher man, Christianity would be the biggest hoax in all of mankind.

[Guest T-Bone]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1254891' date='Apr 24 2007, 02:49 AM'][b]Jesus Goes to Hollywood: The Alternative Theories About Christ[/b]
By William Bramley
[b]Book Description[/b]
You've heard the theories, now here's the evidence! Jesus Goes to Hollywood: The Alternative Theories About Christ is a fascinating and extensively-researched exploration of the many controversial theories that have been expressed about Jesus over the centuries. For the first time ever, these theories and the evidence surrounding them are brought together in a single book that is both scholarly and highly readable. It would take a reader years of digging through hundreds of sources to get the information found in this remarkable one-of-a-kind volume. Jesus Goes to Hollywood is truly a "must read" for any person who wants to discover more about the historical Jesus, his life, and his teachings.

It got a Five Star rating!![/quote]

Who gave it a five star rating?

Harper's Journal? The NY Times? USA Today? A roving band of space aliens?

[mortify]

Carrdero said,
[quote]These are the Jesus myths. Many of them have been documented and published. I am more interested in why people don’t believe in some or all of these Jesus myths. They’re still valid beliefs, many of them are still in circulation and all of them are beliefs that haven’t been proven yet.[/quote]Let me give you an example. One person claims Jesus was crucified, while another claims He wasn't. These are two different statements, it seems your position is to leave it that way and pretend like we can't determine which statement is more reliable. Let's say we investigate the background of each person, and we discover that one is an Apostle of Jesus named St John, the other is a self proclaimed prophet named Muhammad, who lived 600 hundred years after Christ in a geographical location apart from Jerusalem and the civilized world. Why would you hold both statements in equal regard? How can you blaim us for accepting one and rejecting the other? Isn't it reasonable from a purely historical point of view to give greater weight to St John than Muhammad?

It's perfectly reasonable to judge the authenticity of something by looking at the sources. I think an apostle or his disciple would offer more reliable information than a gnostic. The gnostic had no apostolic link; they mixed certain Christian beliefs with their already existing pagan ones.

That is why we accept one and reject the other.

[quote]No, not at all. What I am trying to express is that 35 years is a long time to begin writing the biography of a man who was to be the most influential religious figure to the world past, present and future.[/quote]

Again, the principle mode of transmitting knowledge may not have been writing but a rigid oral tradition which required memorizing narrations verbatim. We also don't know whether there were writings before, reason suggests there were private writings of what the Lord did and said. As for why the Evangelists decided to write years later it could simply be because the Apostles and first hand witnesses began to pass away, a need would have arisen to try to preserve that Apostolic knowledge.

[quote]I never had any concerns about the narrations or the way that they were written or organized but at the same time I do not feel it was necessary to include four different versions. What I would have preferred were more alternative views from different authors and scribes (if they were available) to get a balanced view of Jesus’ life and try to get a fuller understanding of the way other people had perceived him.[/quote]

You say you do not feel there was a need for multiple gospels yet you also would like to have seen alternative views? From a historical point of view we want more independent sources that are also reliable. Each gospel is an independent source that is reliable, either the Apostle or some pupil of an Apostle was responsible for writing them. In them we see a consistent belief surrounding the Person of Christ.

We also have the testimonies of non canonical writers (writings not in the bible but still reliable), such as St Clement's letter to the Corinthians (96 AD.), St Ignatius' numerous letters (105 AD), etc. We also have the testimony of non Christian historians, such as Tacitus, Pliny the Elder, Josephus (though one mention surrounding Christ may have been interpolated), etc. We also have archeological evidence. For years scholars claimed Pontius Pilot was a non existent figure created by Christians, then a first century Judean pillar was discovered with an inscription of his name. The same was said of Caiphas, and the numerous physical accounts of Jerusalem mentioned in St John's Gospel. I mentioned in another post that the Plank above Christ's crucified head was discovered, and there is ample evidence suggesting that it is the real Plank. It is even supported by a Tubungen scholar, which is interesting considering Tubungen University was the origin of many radical interpretations on Christianity's origins.



I firmly believe there is no 2,000 year old secular document that could stand up to the scrutiny the bible stands up to, even though these documents are accepted by modern scholars.

Edited April 24, 2007 by mortify

[carrdero]

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Because cosmology is an incredibly complex field, involving an extremely precise knowledge of mathematics, physics, and astronomy. I could produce a few scribblings on cosmology, I suppose, but I wouldn't be presumptuous or foolish enough to expect people to take me anywhere near seriously as they take Professor Stephen Hawking. I'd be worried if they did.

As for John and the Book of Revelation, he merely wrote about what he saw.[/quote]So since we couldn’t obseve and experience the visions that John The Baptist had we shouldn’t take his books seriously either, right?


[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Possible minors in an undergraduate degree (that we do not even know that he took) do not give him much credence either. French is my minor. That doesn't mean that I am ab expert on all things French. It just means...that French is my minor.[/quote]
So if you encountered a French speaking person, you would be unqualified to understand them and even more uninformed to respond them, is this correct? I mean why should a French person seriously communicate and listen to you, it wasn’t your major, French was only your minor.

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Does this mean that when I rate a book at five stars on Amazon everyone must recognise my opinion as correct or even worthwhile? [/quote]Actually rating systems rarely influence me. If I wanted to read William Bramley’s new book, it would most likely be because I was interested in the subject material and in this particular case because I am familiar with and enjoyed his previous writings. Who knows, he may be presenting a few perspectives of Jesus that I was unaware of or that someone has overlooked or the book could just be B.S. but I won’t know that until I have read and processed the information myself now would I?

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Quality, like truth, is not determined by majority vote. I can't believe this is your idea of being 'studious'[/quote]
Quality is a matter of opinion, Truth just is. My belief is that the sun will come out tomorrow. When you wake up tomorrow you will see I spoke the Truth (unless you reside in Alaska). I do not care if the sun wasn’t “orange” enough for you or that the rate in which the sun rose was not as fast or slow or as spectacular as you expected, the Truth is that the sun came out and here’s the kicker……I don’t have to even have a degree in astronomy to know that.

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Jesus was able to teach about prayer because anybody can pray.[/quote]Then what do we need Jesus’ insights about praying for if everybody could pray? Sure anyone can talk to God, that’s not a skill but what qualifications did Jesus have about the power of prayer and the way in which we were to pray to the “Father”? What qualified Jesus to ensure that our prayers would reach the destination of the Almighty and what qualifications did Jesus possess to think He had the right in proclaiming that he knew what the Almighty wanted and desired from us? And what qualifications gave Jesus the right to proclaim that the only way to get to the Father was through him? What evidence do we have that Jesus was even the promised Messiah?

[quote]Carrdero writes: So in order for anyone to make a thorough and informed study of the Bible everyone has to learn, read and write Hebrew and Greek before they can explain or debunk The Bible and it's history and doctrine?[/quote]
[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: That's exactly what I'm saying. [/quote]So anyone who is reading a Bible that has been translated in English has absolutely no right to understand what they are reading, has absolutely no right to interpret the scriptures and has no right to espouse an a opinion or a comment about what they have just learned until these “crack teams” of scholars and translators have given you their “qualified” estimation and judgment of what it all means, am I understanding you correctly?

[color="#000080"]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Most observant Jews still study Hebrew today for the purpose of their knowledge and prayer. If you don't know these languages or have time to learn, look to scholars who can read and translate for guidance. Not to any man who happens to have a television programme.[/color]

So if your interest in the Hebrew scriptures leads you to further understanding and guidance am I to assume that you are Jewish or about to be converted? I am to assume that no one is allowed to make assumptions about any of the events or characters of the Bible until some “expert” gives them to you? What do we have an English translation of The Bible for anyway if it so inferior and complex? What do you have against television anyway?

[quote] Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Prayer is not taught in a classroom, and wisdom is not the same thing as education.[/quote]

You’re right, wisdom is cheaper.

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: One of the wisest people I know also meets the criteria for mental retardation. [/quote]But if he had a little interest and knowledge about the Thomist Philosophy you probably wouldn’t give him the time of day, right?

[quote]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: If you are puffed up with a sense of your own importance Jesus will always remain 'just a carpenter'.[/quote]

And if you are puffed up with a sense of self importance, Penn & Teller would remain “just” two magicians and William Bramly “just” a lawyer.

[color="#000080"]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: People who have got beyond their pride even a litte way see Someone different.[/color]

I am having a hard time believing that you have the audacity to close your argument with this statement.

[color="#000080"]Cathoholic Anonymous' writes: Again, it is not something that is taught in a classroom...but theology and the resulting philosophical approaches are. And it is theology and philosophy that Bramley and Co. are trying to talk about, so they do need a good formal education in those topics.[/color]

So then where do you think that Penn & Teller and William Bramley received their information from? Where did the sources that they research on the different historical, philosiphocal and theologies come from? If it can be taught, where do you think they got the information and resources to write a historical book or to produce a show about this topic? Did they just make it up?

Edited April 24, 2007 by carrdero