The Jesus Myth

[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

[carrdero]

[quote name='Staretz' post='1254925' date='Apr 24 2007, 08:52 AM']Non sequitur.
Yes there are "quality control standards".[/quote]
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]Staretz' writes: 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.[/quote]Well what kind of standards for correction are you proposing?
[quote]Staretz' writes: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.[/quote]There will always be catalysts for our beliefs and opinions to change and evolve. That doesn’t make us a foolish for believing in a previous way. I would rather have an additional understanding of something than to have no understanding at all.

Edited April 24, 2007 by carrdero

[Starets]

[quote name='carrdero' post='1255336' date='Apr 24 2007, 04:39 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.
Well what kind of standards for correction are you proposing?
There will always be catalysts for our beliefs and opinions to change and evolve. That doesn’t make us a foolish for believing in a previous way. I would rather have an additional understanding of something than to have no understanding at all.[/quote]

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.

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.

[dairygirl4u2c]

my only point is asking how we know a given person is a successor, and what successor actually means. like, we're not even sure completely who was pope after peter. ignatius knew of john, it is said, but does that mean he was his sucessor or student or?

[mortify]

"my only point is asking how we know a given person is a successor, and what successor actually means. like, we're not even sure completely who was pope after peter. ignatius knew of john, it is said, but does that mean he was his sucessor or student or?"

It's recorded in history. St Polycarp was appointed Bishop of Smyrna by St John, whom he learned from, St Ireneus was a pupil of St Polycarp and appointed Bishop of Lyons. St Ignatius was the third Bishop after St Peter in Antioch. St Clement was the fourth Pope after St Peter in Rome and is often identified with the Clement mentioned in Philippians 4:3. All these Saints received the teachings of Christ either through an Apostle or a disciple(s) of an Apostle. Some of their authentic writing has survived up to our time, and since you're interested I recommend checking out New Advent.com and reading the texts online for free

Here's the link:
[url="http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/"]http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/[/url]

[dairygirl4u2c]

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.

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.

i think the biblical letters are also proof though, much like st. paul, that help verify the gosple.

Edited April 24, 2007 by dairygirl4u2c