The Jesus Myth

[Socrates]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1255336' date='Apr 24 2007, 02:39 PM']And these standards rely on what? The educated interpretations of scholars? Their job is done, the already translated the book. There are over 10,000 Christian sects alone and each of these branches are claiming authority and each have their own unique interpretations of the scriptures. No one is controlling or implementing methods to correct this problem.[/quote]
The Catholic Church alone can be traced back 2000 years in unbroken succession to Christ. That is what makes it different from the 10,000 Christian sects out there, which can all be traced back to some much later point.

I f you want teaching authority, go to the original Church.

[mortify]

[quote]well what does recorded history mean. i know there was eusebius and irenaeous who were historians a few hundred years AD. but, if this is what we are relying on, what is their basis? "well, it'd make sense that he'd the the sucessor" etc etc. [/quote]What is the basis for any history?

[quote]I do realize and you have affirmed that i will have to look at the actual wordings of all this. for example, i looked at the writing of polycarp, and i do not see a reference to john, other than from the biblical letters of john. looking at what irenaus says" "From "Adv. Haer.", V, xxxiii, we learn that Papias was "a hearer of John, and a companion of Polycarp".
but, i guess it does say that polycarp "had intercourse with john and the rest who had seen the lord"
i could continue speculating, but for now this is pretty good.[/quote]

I don't recall St Polycarp mentioning in that letter that he is a student of St John, why would he? There is no doubt that St Polycarp learned from St John, this is mentioned by early Christians who lived in the time of St Polycarp and who learned from him.

I suggested reading those letters not for you to find out who these people were but to discover what the early Christians believed. If you want to learn about the individual, just click the name of the Church Father (i.e. [url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm"]Polycarp[/url]) to read a brief biography about them.


God bless

[carrdero]

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: 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?[/color]

Who says you can’t encourage both of them? The freedom of belief allows you to hold them both in equal regard (and respect) until enough evidence comes along to refute one or the other. There is nothing inherently incorrect about this because as it stands (as of right now) that both beliefs are valid.

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: 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?[/color]

No, in order for someone to reject an idea there has to be some evidence to support or weaken that belief. A historical point of view in determining the first, best, most accurate or inspired prophets can not be calculated in this instance. Take the example of Joseph Smith. Many Mormans believe that since he is the most recent of God’s prophets that he is the most eligible, reliable example necessary in restoring what they deem are “lost, corrupted” teachings of the Church. Since the Mormans offer no other evidence other than the claim that Prophet Joseph Smith was inspired by an angel of God, this really is not a valid measure or comparable quality to authority.


[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: It's perfectly reasonable to judge the authenticity of something by looking at the sources.[/color]

The only things I found reasonable to judge in this existence (so far) are motion pictures and our self. With our self, no one should know the source better than the indivdual. It is each our own responsiblitiy to become our own experts.

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: I think an apostle or his disciple would offer more reliable information than a gnostic.[/color]

If this is a belief that you find interesting and if reliability is important to you then follow through with this belief.

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: The gnostic had no apostolic link; they mixed certain Christian beliefs with their already existing pagan ones. [/color]

Beliefs aren’t original, and they can be utilized in almost any way. There are a lot of religions and organizations that share and encourage the same beliefs. You seem to be getting hung up on the sources before examining and concluding the beliefs. The sources are dead.

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: That is why we accept one and reject the other.[/color]

On the subject of acceptance a wise individual once explained to me:

“BELIEVE EVERYTHING, I say! BUT…ACCEPT NOTHING! UNTIL – I repeat – UNTIL YOU HAVE PROVEN THIS BELIEF TO BE A TRUTH OR AN UNTRUTH. This method works for everything.”

On the subject of rejection I would never reject a belief until I was informed with as much knowledge on the subject to reasonably replace it with an enhanced understanding. This involves an incredible amount of researching and identifying the source material if we are to be fair and free with our beliefs. There are some people who quickly discard beliefs like Hallmarks without a satisfying conclusion or a thorough understanding.

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: We also don't know whether there were writings before, reason suggests there were private writings of what the Lord did and said.[/color]

Well then openly admit that you don’t know. One of the most honest and considerate responses that you can give to another human being, aside from “I Love You” is, “I don’t know.” I would gladly accept an honest answer over a faithful one.

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: Again, the principle mode of transmitting knowledge may not have been writing but a rigid oral tradition which required memorizing narrations verbatim.[/color]

This is called the parrot game or as some of you baby boomers understand it “The Telephone Line”. This involves a line of people where someone says a bunch of words and passes it down to the next person until you end up with the last person who calls out the phrase and in most instances it doesn’t even resemble the original person's quote. Now try this out with thousands of people living in a primitive society for over many years where there wasn’t any secure or efficient ways of storing, reproducing or even producing written documents and one can only wonder what embellishments were needed and applied.

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: 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.[/color]

I would settle for comparable gospels before I could conclude them as reliable. As many already know, there were many scriptures that were not accepted in the final collection of The Bible. The opinions of this group of men found these writings to be unsuitable or unfavorable to whatever agenda that they were proposing.

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: Each gospel is an independent source that is reliable, either the Apostle or some pupil of an Apostle was responsible for writing them. [/color]

Though there are some passages that are indeed wise there are many people who would disagree with you.

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: In them we see a consistent belief surrounding the Person of Christ. [/color]

In them I only see one reference, I see just one point of view.

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: 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.[/color]

Well this certainly is an impressive list but there have been many, many other thought provoking writers, many great thinkers of our world who I think have a very interesting perspective regarding the life and history of Christ (some of them even in my generation). Can we believe every one of them? Why not? What is the harm of stretching our minds and comparing and reasoning all the different views and references of Jesus the Christ and giving more credibility and strength to our beliefs?

[color="#000080"]Mortify writes: 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.[/color]

The same wise individual as quoted above once said:
“The Bible is a good book because it is filled with tidbits of wisdom and advice, and anyone who reads it can learn something from it. But you should never think that it is “finished.”

Edited April 25, 2007 by carrdero

[mortify]

[quote]In his famous passage on the Roman Church

We now come to the passage in St. Irenæus (Adv. Haer., III,3) which brings out in fullest relief St. Polycarp's position as a link with the past. Just as St. John's long life lengthened out the Apostolic Age, so did the four score and six years of Polycarp extend the sub-Apostolic Age, during which it was possible to [b]learn by word of mouth[/b] what the Apostles taught from those who had been their hearers. In Rome the Apostolic Age ended about A.D. 67 with the martyrdom of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the sub-Apostolic Age about a quarter of a century later when St. Clement, "who had seen the blessed Apostles", died. In Asia the Apostolic Age lingered on till St. John died about A.D. 100; and the sub-Apostolic Age till 155, when St. Polycarp was martyred. In the third book of his treatise "Against Heresies", St. Irenæus makes his celebrated appeal to the "successions" of the bishops in all the Churches. He is arguing against heretics who professed to have a kind of esoteric tradition derived from the Apostles. To whom, demands St. Irenæus, would the Apostles be more likely to commit hidden mysteries than to the bishops to whom they entrusted their churches? In order then to know what the Apostles taught, we must have recourse to the "successions" of bishops throughout the world. But as time and space would fail if we tried to enumerate them all one by one, let the Roman Church speak for the rest. Their agreement with her is a manifest fact by reason of the position which she holds among them ("for with this Church on account of its potior principalitas the whole Church, that is, the faithful from every quarter, must needs agree", etc.).

Then follows the list of the Roman bishops down to Eleutherius, the twelfth from the Apostles, the ninth from Clement, "who had both seen and conversed with the blessed Apostles". From the Roman Church, representing all the churches, the writer then passes on to two Churches, that of Smyrna, in which, in the person of Polycarp, the sub-Apostolic Age had been carried down to a time still within living memory, and the Church of Ephesus, where, in the person of St. John, the Apostolic Age had been prolonged till "the time of Trajan". Of Polycarp he says, [b]"he was not only taught by the Apostles, and lived in familiar intercourse with many that had seen Christ, but also received his appointment in Asia from the Apostles as Bishop in the Church of Smyrna"[/b]. He then goes on to speak of his own personal acquaintance with Polycarp, his martyrdom, and his visit to Rome, where he converted many heretics. He then continues, "there are those who heard him tell how John, the disciple of the Lord, when he went to take a bath in Ephesus, and saw Cerinthus within, rushed away from the room without bathing, with the words 'Let us flee lest the room should fall in, for Cerinthus, the enemy of the truth, is within'. Yea, and Polycarp himself, also, when on one occasion Marcion confronted him and said 'Recognise us',[/quote]

From:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm"]http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12219b.htm[/url]

[mortify]

Carrdero said,
[quote]Who says you can’t encourage both of them? The freedom of belief allows you to hold them both in equal regard (and respect) until enough evidence comes along to refute one or the other. There is nothing inherently incorrect about this because as it stands (as of right now) that both beliefs are valid. [/quote]If you can't see why one should be the rejected and the other given more weight there's nothing I can do.



[quote]This is called the parrot game or as some of you baby boomers understand it “The Telephone Line”.[/quote]

It's called oral tradition and involves memorization, recitation, and correction from an authority who already learned what is taught. Very unlike a game of telephone, and it does not rule out the existence of written material, even though it may not have survived up to our time.

[SJP]

carrdero said:
“BELIEVE EVERYTHING, I say! BUT…ACCEPT NOTHING! UNTIL – I repeat – UNTIL YOU HAVE PROVEN THIS BELIEF TO BE A TRUTH OR AN UNTRUTH. This method works for everything.”


Please tell me what your standard is for "proving" a belief?

[dairygirl4u2c]

yeah okay i'm convinced.

[jckinsman]

I think ears are being tickled here!

[carrdero]

[quote]Staretz writes:1. Non sequitur again. CA has already gone into considerable detail about what the standards rely on and what those standards are, at least on the scholarly front. There is also the magisterium as a control and a catalyst.[/quote]1. Have these magistrates conclusively positively, truthfully put to rest all the rumours and beliefs that there were not other messiahs, that Jesus died on the cross and not on a pole or swapped places with another man and was not married or had children or went over to America to start another religion? How or they controlling these beliefs? What standards and methods are they utilizing to critique, research and control this information? What does this sub-committee tell the congregation about the results of their investigations and what methods do they promote to appeal to the parishoners who are still curious and skeptical of these results?

[quote]Staretz writes: 2. Non sequitur again. Seeking new or additional understanding is one thing. Uncritically accepting the word of Some Guy With A Book Or A Television Show is quite another. That, IMO, is what CA has been trying to say to you.[/quote]
2. Never did I say that I uncritiacally accepted the findings of the works of Penn & Teller and William Bramly. The only thing I offered Catholoic Anonymous was another interesting and informed perspective into the life of Jesus Christ and the Bible. Catholic Anonymous’s approach to this subject matter: KILL The messenger, without examining the message. Discredit, debase and degrade the source without examining what they were proposing or where and how they researched their findings. Catholic Anonymous only realized and recognized that this knowledge did not originate or agree or compare with the sources that he was accustomed and familiar with and immediately concluded that my contributions and beliefs were bunk. In fact the only thing he could contribute contrary to the conversation was an error that Penn & Teller made during a smoking episode in the total four and a half seasons of their career. Does this sound like an uncritical way to reason and conclude beliefs and ideas? Catholic Anonymous assumed that the show was all about Penn & Teller, Penn and & Teller are the hosts, they have a full production team, writers, they interview a wide variety of researchers and experts (religious and non-religious) on the show, so attacking these two people is not only unfair but irresponsible. If he took me up on this issue he would have discovered this himself and maybe, just maybe he might have learned something about himself and the Bible.

Edited April 25, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote name='SJP' post='1255664' date='Apr 24 2007, 09:51 PM']Please tell me what your standard is for "proving" a belief?[/quote]

1. By getting out from under faith and doubt. These are belief abuses and do absolutely nothing towards concluding or proving beliefs to Truths or Untruth. This entails keeping the belief simple and identifiable without any decoration or unnecessary additives.
2. By accumulating and continually pursuing knowledge and understanding, by reasonably, logically comparing these beliefs to the understandings of the past, present and what these beliefs mean to my future and purpose.
3. By understanding that I have to exercise patience with beliefs. It is also important in keeping an open mind, by not being afraid of sharing beliefs or asking for assistance about unfamiliar understandings and not judging or having prejudices or biases against others and their beliefs.

4. By not becoming attached to outdated beliefs because they are traditional or because I have encouraged them for so long or not have examined them in awhile. Beliefs are best concluded when they are constantly in motion, moving towards some kind of resoulton.

There are many beliefs that may not be resolved in my lifetime. That is because knowledge and understanding is always changing and evolving. Truth’s are like that too. Beliefs are something that we rely on temporarily until the proof manifests into truth.

Edited April 25, 2007 by carrdero

[carrdero]

[quote name='mortify' post='1255600' date='Apr 24 2007, 08:52 PM']Carrdero said,
If you can't see why one should be the rejected and the other given more weight there's nothing I can do.


It's called oral tradition and involves memorization, recitation, and correction from an authority who already learned what is taught. Very unlike a game of telephone, and it does not rule out the existence of written material, even though it may not have survived up to our time.[/quote]
You have yet to convince everyone that these teachings and understanding have authority. Anyone can claim authority, not everyone can back it up. The Mormons, the Jehovah Witnesses, the Jews, Islam, The Roman Catholc Church, there is even a guy in Oregon who calims to be an authority on God. All these religions do not have the same teaching and the same doctrines yet all claim they are the only authority to speak for God. How do you account for this?

[SJP]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1255986' date='Apr 25 2007, 08:32 AM']1. By getting out from under faith and doubt. These are belief abuses and do absolutely nothing towards concluding or proving beliefs to Truths or Untruth. This entails keeping the belief simple and identifiable without any decoration or unnecessary additives.
2. By accumulating and continually pursuing knowledge and understanding, by reasonably, logically comparing these beliefs to the understandings of the past, present and what these beliefs mean to my future and purpose.
3. By understanding that I have to exercise patience with beliefs. It is also important in keeping an open mind, by not being afraid of sharing beliefs or asking for assistance about unfamiliar understandings and not judging or having prejudices or biases against others and their beliefs.

4. By not becoming attached to outdated beliefs because they are traditional or because I have encouraged them for so long or not have examined them in awhile. Beliefs are best concluded when they are constantly in motion, moving towards some kind of resoulton.

There are many beliefs that may not be resolved in my lifetime. That is because knowledge and understanding is always changing and evolving. Truth’s are like that too. Beliefs are something that we rely on temporarily until the proof manifests into truth.[/quote]

I need a claification from you. I asked you what your standard was for proving your beliefs.
You replied: "1. By getting out from under faith and doubt"

Later in the same response you stated:
"There are many beliefs that may not be resolved in my lifetime. That is because knowledge and understanding is always changing and evolving. Truth’s are like that too. Beliefs are something that we rely on temporarily until the proof manifests into truth."

So which is it? You admit that there are many things that you will never know, and so you are willing to temporarily rely on beliefs. However, when I asked you what your standard of proof was, you said removing doubts and faith. I assume that by removing doubts, you mean knowing for certain that something is true.
So do you beilieve in things that you cannot prove? Or are you only willing to beleive in those things in which all doubt has been removed?

[carrdero]

[quote]SJP writes: I need a claification from you. I asked you what your standard was for proving your beliefs.
You replied: "1. By getting out from under faith and doubt"

I assume that by removing doubts, you mean knowing for certain that something is true.[/quote]
Not necessarily. When someone is so elated with faith some people tend to automatically doubt every other belief just because it doesn’t fit in with their convictions. Like I mentioned before, a little skepticism is healthy and I use it very sparingly because with the freedom of beleving, I enjoy respecting others beliefs but contiuous doubt is cynicism and this is belief abuse and I’ve noticed that it is very difficult to share, discuss, debate and reason beliefs with these type of individuals.

Edited April 25, 2007 by carrdero

[SJP]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1256177' date='Apr 25 2007, 04:30 PM']Not necessarily. When someone is so elated with faith some people tend to automatically doubt every other belief just because it doesn’t fit in with their convictions. Like I mentioned before, a little skepticism is healthy and I use it very sparingly because with the freedom of beleving, I enjoy respecting others beliefs but contiuous doubt is cynicism and this is belief abuse and I’ve noticed that it is very difficult to share, discuss, debate and reason beliefs with these type of individuals.[/quote]


Can you give me examples of some of your beliefs that you cannot prove?

[carrdero]

[quote name='SJP' post='1266706' date='May 7 2007, 09:33 AM']Can you give me examples of some of your beliefs that you cannot prove?[/quote]
[b]The Bible [/b](though I can hold it in my hand it is very difficult to discern if it was Godly inspired)
[b]All religions [/b](for example which is the True One)
[b]God’s Will [/b](what is it, why would GOD have a will and what are the consequences of not following it)
[b]The End Of This System Of Things [/b](Armageddon, Ressurrection, Rapture, the meek inheriting the earth. When it end is coming, who is bringing this end and who is being spared)
[b]The Afterlife [/b](where do we go after death, is there reincarnation, is there a judgment system or a heaven and hell)
[b]If other life exists outside of this planet [/b](due to the limitations of our science do they totally rule out all other possibilities?)
[b]The Life Of Jesus [/b](was he the Messiah, has the Messiah arrived yet, was Jesus the Messiah or just a man who knew better)

Edited May 7, 2007 by carrdero