Columbia PhD in Ancient History destroys Christianity and Jesus

page: 2
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
The Gospels are beautifully constructed myth.

They still have value as literature.

I didn't realize how much of the Gospels was directly lifted from Roman and Old Testament myths !
edit on 10-7-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)




posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:31 PM
link   
reply to post by schuyler
 


You make a valid point, but I think the reason most people have a problem with christianity is that most of its followers do in fact take it literally, which generally carries very negative consequences and we can see historically. The promise of a mystical land of perfection (heaven) after death causes people to do irrational things, and many people miss out on most of their life because they see this existence as only a means to an end, thus legitimizing the ecological destruction of Earth and attacks on other, non-christian humans. To me, it holds humans back severely.

That said, if someone wants to follow the philospher named jesus or yeshuahamshahash or whomever and his message, I can't really stop them. It is no different in function from following any other philosopher. What I can do however, is fight against the weakness and over-tolerance of that philospher's message, which in my mind goes against the "natural" manner in which humans should live. But, when someone starts spewing a bunch of nonsense about the end of the world and the coming of the anti-christ, that I deserve eternal torment because I don't think as they do, well, that's crossing that line and I don't tolerate it.

I would sooner believe in the Middle Earth and the Lord of the Rings, because at least we know who wrote the entire work. With the bible, sources are unknown, translations have twisted the message and now serve the purposes of the wealthy and powerful. False promises cause apathy, and many christians and other religious people seem to just wait for the end, allowing the "elite" to do what they have always done; exploit them. The poor shall be rich, the last shall be first, etc.? Sounds to me like "just keep on working your slave-wage job, wait for the end while we get rich and control your lives, die, and then everything will be great in heaven."

Its a dangerous world view to take, and I think that is what most people have a problem with.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:34 PM
link   
reply to post by adjensen
 


Along the same lines of your response- it strikes me funny that people argue that the authors were dumb sheep herders and tent dwellers and then in the same breath try to portray them as intelligent enough to structure and concoct a history so intricate in details (including just the right name meanings) to fool everyone for two millennia.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by OrchusGhule
 


Flavius Josephus and Cornelius Tacitus are external historical sources that confirm the existence of several NT characters including Jesus, Pilate, John the baptist, James and others.

There you go- do your research


Excuse me, but the Josephus writings referring to jesus have been known as a forgery for decades. Tacitus wrote about the existence of a sect called Christians, not about the supposed christ himself. I asked for you to provide 1 event in the gospels that has been proven to have occurred. You have failed to do this.

Try again.
edit on 10-7-2012 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 


If your third sentence is true, how can you possibly make your first statement conclusively?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
I didn't realize how much of the Gospels was directly lifted from the Old Testament!


You obviously didn't bother listening to the William Lane Craig side of the debate. Not surprising, I suppose, but your statement there is nonsense.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:43 PM
link   
reply to post by OrchusGhule
 


Known by whom? There are by far more scholars who validate Josephus than those who discount it. Try again.
Tacitus wrote The Annals of Imperial Rome and contained within is the fact that Jesus lived at the same time as Pilate.

Have you ever read this work? Or Antiquities? Or do you just parrot the rhetoric gained from the internet these days?

I did not fail!



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by schuyler

No, that he was a real person. I thank you for the link. As I listen to it I'm struck that this young man can't see the forest for the trees. If I may recommend a book to you, check out The Five Gospels which does not contradict this poor fellow, but adds a bit of depth to the issues involved.

Cheers.



You trot out that old book?

All the Jesus Seminar tried to do was to reconstruct a root gospel.

That in itself doesn't mean that that the root text is real history.
edit on 10-7-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)


Yeah, an old book, but not quite as old as the gospels themselves. Plus they used Thomas. You know Thomas, right? That's where the other apostles were pissed at Jesus for kissing Mary Magdalene on the mouth. It should be obvious, at least I would hope, that I mentioned teh Five Gospels (first printed in 1997, a mere 15 years ago. Most people would not call it "old") in the context of our debater contrasting the gospels against each other when very likely (as trotting out my "old" book should show) they came from a common source.

Of course that doesn't prove the gospels were "real history." It wasn't meant to prove that at all. To point out mythological origins of the gospels (parallel stories to Greek legends such as Dionysius, for example) points out that the history of the gospels is much more complex than taking it literally, as the debater does.

My point is first that this is not surprising, second that a lot of people (including the Jesus seminar and Albert Schweitzer, and many seminaries) have been there, done that. and third, this debater is being both literal, superficial, and misses the entire point. In short, his supercillious approach does not "destroy Chriostianity and Jesus." It just puts his ignorance on display.

I'd like to talk to him when he is about 75 or so. Should be an interesting conversation.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by schuyler
Yeah, an old book, but not quite as old as the gospels themselves. Plus they used Thomas. You know Thomas, right? That's where the other apostles were pissed at Jesus for kissing Mary Magdalene on the mouth. It should be obvious, at least I would hope, that I mentioned teh Five Gospels (first printed in 1997, a mere 15 years ago. Most people would not call it "old") in the context of our debater contrasting the gospels against each other when very likely (as trotting out my "old" book should show) they came from a common source.

Of course that doesn't prove the gospels were "real history." It wasn't meant to prove that at all. To point out mythological origins of the gospels (parallel stories to Greek legends such as Dionysius, for example) points out that the history of the gospels is much more complex than taking it literally, as the debater does.

My point is first that this is not surprising, second that a lot of people (including the Jesus seminar and Albert Schweitzer, and many seminaries) have been there, done that. and third, this debater is being both literal, superficial, and misses the entire point. In short, his supercillious approach does not "destroy Chriostianity and Jesus." It just puts his ignorance on display.

I'd like to talk to him when he is about 75 or so. Should be an interesting conversation.



You are just digging yourself into a hole.

One of the findings of the Jesus Seminar was the "original" gospel was merely a list of sayings, similar to the Gospel of Thomas.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by OrchusGhule
 


Known by whom? There are by far more scholars who validate Josephus than those who discount it. Try again.
Tacitus wrote The Annals of Imperial Rome and contained within is the fact that Jesus lived at the same time as Pilate.

Have you ever read this work? Or Antiquities? Or do you just parrot the rhetoric gained from the internet these days?

I did not fail!


Yes I have read them. The only validations of Josephus come from theologians, and generally not anyone outside of that sphere of study. Among scholars there is a general consensus that the works of Josephus dealing with the person jesus contain a large number of christian interpolations so as to change the status of the figure Jesus from a simple philosopher to that of a divine figure. I should also add, that depending on which translation you read, these interpolations are often different from each other translation, which is what caused the works of Josephus to be questioned to begin with. When reading them, this is actually quite obvious, even to the layman.

Regarding Tacitus, I believe you are confused as to the context in which he was writing about jesus. His reference to the crucifixion of Jesus is applied directly to the beliefs for which the christians were being persecuted by Nero, not to any direct knowledge of his actual existence, nor does he confirm the divinity of the figure called Jesus. Tacitus merely confirms that christians existed and that they followed "the christus" whom they believed to have been crucified by Pilate. He also describes the spread of christianity as "sinister superstition" or any number of variations of that phrase depending on which translation you read.

This also makes me ponder the nature of the supposed savior; why does only a small portion of humans believe in Jesus as the christ? If Jesus were genuinely divine, and the entire story were true, would not the truth of that story and its powerful message be evident for all to see, if it was meant to save humans from their perceived original sin? How could one possibly ignore such a shining "truth" and instead worship Shiva, or follow the Buddha? Why would such an important message be burried and muddled with such debate and uncertainty? Would it not be so clear and obvious as to be undeniable? I think it would, and the fact that it is not causes me to believe it is just a myth, like the works of Homer or Snorri Sturluson are myths. I also believe the evidence supports this conclusion.
edit on 10-7-2012 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
One of the findings of the Jesus Seminar was the "original" gospel was merely a list of sayings, similar to the Gospel of Thomas.


The Jesus Seminar started with a presupposition, that there were no miracles, and so validated the texts in a manner to support their preconceived notion of it. They are the modern day counterpart to the Historical Jesus movement that failed to support Liberal Theology in 19th Century Germany, and they're no better at it today.

If you don't want to believe the Bible, don't believe it. But don't think trotting out biased and demonstrably false "experts" is going to convince anyone but yourself.

Back on topic -- unlike you, I've listened to the remainder of the posted debate, because I wanted to see if it was a typical William Lane Craig debate with an atheist, and it is. There's something about Craig that bugs me, I'm not sure what it is, but the guy really has it on the ball in a debate -- every opponent of his that I've seen does what Carrier does here -- tries to change the subject to something that's not under debate, and makes little or no attempt to refute Craig's salient points.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:08 PM
link   
reply to post by OrchusGhule
 


I did not give a critique of either of the writings that I referenced. I simply stated that there are two external sources that claim that a person that we call Jesus existed within the given time frame.

You asked for anything in the Gospels that could be proven. We all know that the first step towards proof is citing multiple sources. I simply supplied two external sources. Did they have an agenda or bias? That is a whole different debate. I always try to work from simple to complex. The simple answer is that two people wrote about Jesus that are not included in the Bible. If he didn't exist, why would this be so?



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen
If you don't want to believe the Bible, don't believe it. But don't think trotting out biased and demonstrably false "experts" is going to convince anyone but yourself.



No offense, but you are incredibly ___________.

Someone ELSE trotted out the Jesus Seminar in support of Jesus.

I didn't bring up the Jesus Seminar crap.

Nothing you have said in this thread makes any sense. Please seek some help.
edit on 10-7-2012 by NotReallyASecret because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:17 PM
link   
This gentleman started out with a reasonable argument. But when he decided to assign hallucinations and schizotypal personalities to everyone, he lost me completely.

I could have at least considered his argument if he said they let their imagination get the best of them, and made it all up. But he basically relegated all of them to the asylum. He built a straw man and proceeded to tear it down.

The guy should have stayed on the path he started with. It at least had some substance to it.
edit on 7/10/2012 by Klassified because: corrected



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by Klassified
This young man started out with a reasonable argument. But when he decided to assign hallucinations and schizotypal personalities to everyone, he lost me completely.

I could have at least considered his argument if he said they let their imagination get the best of them, and made it all up. But he basically relegated all of them to the asylum. He built a straw man and proceeded to tear it down.

The kid should have stayed on the path he started with. It at least had some substance to it.



What kid are you talking about? How is someone in their forties a "kid"?

Forties is middle aged.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by micmerci
reply to post by OrchusGhule
 


I did not give a critique of either of the writings that I referenced. I simply stated that there are two external sources that claim that a person that we call Jesus existed within the given time frame.

You asked for anything in the Gospels that could be proven. We all know that the first step towards proof is citing multiple sources. I simply supplied two external sources. Did they have an agenda or bias? That is a whole different debate. I always try to work from simple to complex. The simple answer is that two people wrote about Jesus that are not included in the Bible. If he didn't exist, why would this be so?


I did not ask for anything in the gospels that could be proven. I asked for one EVENT in the gospels that can be proven through archiological evidence, as other events during that time have been proven, such as battles, gatherings, celebrations, and so on.

And as I demostrated, the works of those two individuals you named are not adequate proof for the existence of Jesus who claimed himself to be god. The works of one have been so badly distorted in the same manner as the bible itself, and the work of the other provides a single line referring to the beliefs of others, not his actual knowledge of the existence of Jesus, but only that he knows the christians followed a man named Jesus. As such, those sources are not reliable and an analysis of each of the works in question demonstrate this adequately.

By the way I should make it clear that I don't really care at all about the existence of Jesus. To me he was just a philosopher if he in fact was a real person, much like the Buddha. You should also consider that we are discussing the gospel in which Jesus was said to have been divine. We are not merely discussing the existence of Jesus. If your 2 sources do not confirm the divinity of Jesus, then nothing in the gospel has been proven considering that events involving Jesus in the gospel are supernatural in nature. It is these events that I am asking you to give proof for, and not merely the existence of Jesus as a non-divine human.
edit on 10-7-2012 by OrchusGhule because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Nothing you have said in this thread makes any sense. Please seek some help.


Nice ad hominem, lol.

Nothing? Well, I called you out on posting a video without useful comment, as well as you clearly not having watched the whole thing. Carrier failed in that debate, fell flat on his face, but you think it "destroyed Christianity and Jesus". Wow, talk about pre-suppositionalist.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Nothing you have said in this thread makes any sense. Please seek some help.


Nice ad hominem, lol.

Nothing? Well, I called you out on posting a video without useful comment, as well as you clearly not having watched the whole thing. Carrier failed in that debate, fell flat on his face, but you think it "destroyed Christianity and Jesus". Wow, talk about pre-suppositionalist.



Believe what you want. You are clearly delusional.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret
Believe what you want. You are clearly delusional.


... and you clearly don't understand what a debate is.



posted on Jul, 10 2012 @ 09:31 PM
link   
reply to post by NotReallyASecret
 

Thanks. Guess I should have worn my glasses while watching it. He looked young to my eyes.
Corrected.
edit on 7/10/2012 by Klassified because: (no reason given)





top topics
 
4
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join