reply to post by sollie
This theory may not be incorrect, I really don't care, however it seems to me that your stance is not as logical as you may think. Your belief that
the modern bible is better because they took original texts, for example is extremely flawed. The further the distance from the original writing of
those documents, the less likely it is that we know what they meant by their words. They could have written those documents using colloquial
terminology, that we are understanding incorrectly, like when we say 'cool'. Your statement also assumes that, many people agreeing on a subject, or
the amount of work put into it's findings, is proof of its relevance or truth. I doubt that after thousands of years of proving ourselves to be full
of crap on just about every subject with each new discovery on a daily basis, we suddenly have it figured out. When talking about interpretations of
things people wrote thousands of years ago, I think the authority of anyone who is interested is just as valuable and likely as those given by the
In martial arts you can observe a phenomena that relates exactly: When a fighter over-trains it is obvious. They have the advantage of having more
skill generally. When their opponent, however, makes a maneuver that goes outside of their training, it completely throws them off. They have no
defense against the attack, and cannot even think to approach it. This is happening in the historical orthodoxy constantly, and I think that is what
this web site is against, unless I am mistaken. The people who have given you your 'knowledge' are over-trained, under-creative, boring old stuffy
left brained history buffs. Not the most creative of groups. If the subject requires thinking outside of the box, these will not be the people who do
it. Nor will they accept it when they hear it, even if it is far more likely than what they originally believed.
You say that the theory does not have a leg to stand on, which is incorrect. The theory stands on its own as plenty logical given the context of
the times, the distance of time between now and then, and the potential for us not to understand, and still think we do. The only argument you have
against it is that other people have gone on interpreting it differently this whole time. That is not a reasonable argument. If you think that this
theory is incorrect, and want to argue against it, you have the responsibility to pick it apart on its own merit, and not make an appeal to authority.
I will also have to disagree with you when you say that the bible is a proven historical document. It is impossible for you to have the evidence
required to KNOW that to be true. It is true that people say that, and that is why you say it as well, however, just because real events were woven
into the stories does not make the stories accurate. There is a genre of entertainment that we currently enjoy called historical fiction that proves
this point. Just because someone makes a movie about aliens invading when the twin towers fell (which they did), does not make the aliens invading
part true (because they didn't).
There are a bunch of stories about a small group of people on some pilgrimage that nobody cared about, and a bunch of people who claimed to talk to
invisible forces, who people at the time probably thought were nuts. None of that junk is worthy of greater historical note. If your great great
grandpa claimed he was told to kill his son by god, nobody would give a damn, and the VAST majority of people would not know. The main part of the
bible that makes a claim that is not corroborated by any other historical documents, that can be even be considered for the position of actual
history, is Jesus. No there is not evidence that a man named Jesus actually existed outside of the bible. If you take into account a possible name
change scenario, then maybe, but the name Jesus Christ is only mentioned historically, in reference to the bible.
You can believe what you want, but to insult a perfectly reasonable theory based on tradition, and common agreement, is absurd. Then you take it
one step further and present an air of intellectual superiority, when you are actually being quite close-minded. You should examine your belief if you
have to act so rudely to defend it.