Religion can make you a better person?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


So what makes you think he had any authority to dictate Jesus' message? He never met him yet you take his teachings about Jesus as the word of god. Why?

reply to post by wildtimes


How did I guess you'd reference Bart Ehrman? Someone who makes a pile of cash challenging the historical traditions and history of the Christian faith? Controversy sells books dear.

What about Dr. Bruce M. Metzger? Considered the greatest textual critic who ever lived, why not see what he had to say???

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

So what makes you think he had any authority to dictate Jesus' message? He never met him yet you take his teachings about Jesus as the word of god. Why?

What does the first chapter of Luke say? Read it.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What about the Nag Hammadi library? They don't agree with canon, but I guess since they weren't included in the bible they don't count, right?

For someone who claims to hate religion, you sure do hold on to its doctrine pretty firmly.

edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

What does that have to do with the price of rice in Cambodia? Religions are all man's attempts to justify themselves to a god. Christianity is about Redemption, not Religion. It's about what God did for us on our behalf.

Jesus was most likely the most anti-religious person who ever lived. He mocked the religious people constantly of His day, the Pharisees.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

What about the Nag Hammadi library? They don't agree with canon, but I guess since they weren't included in the bible they don't count, right?

For someone who claims to hate religion, you sure do hold on to its doctrine pretty firmly.

edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

What does that have to do with the price of rice in Cambodia? Religions are all man's attempts to justify themselves to a god. Christianity is about Redemption, not Religion. It's about what God did for us on our behalf.

Jesus was most likely the most anti-religious person who ever lived. He mocked the religious people constantly of His day, the Pharisees.

wouldn't that make him anti Jewish then?

Considering the Pharisees were a jewish sect?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Yet Dionysus was a god who resurrected, just like Jesus. The myth itself attests to him resurrecting and having a mortal mother.

Bacchanalia's were festivals held to honor Bacchus/Dionysus. These festivals included heavy drinking and theater plays. A Greek theater was even named for Dionysus.

Theater is considered make-believe and since Bacchus was the god of theater and poetry, that would mean (in my opinion) that Bacchus is the god of the bible, a book of poetry that added in works of theater (make-believe) to get its followers "drunk".

Revelation 18
3 For all the nations have drunk the maddening wine of her adulteries. The kings of the earth committed adultery with her, and the merchants of the earth grew rich from her excessive luxuries."

So the whore of Babylon made the nations drunk off of the "wine" of her adulteries? Interesting.

Since Bacchus was the god of wine and caused a "maddening" frenzy called bakkheia and since he had a mortal mother and resurrected like Jesus, that leads me to believe that Jesus is the real-world Bacchus. The god who induced bakkheia on all the nations and caused them to get "drunk", so to say.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


I was speaking of Paul not Luke, though I can see why you got mixed up. I mean neither one met Jesus after all.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


It has everything to do with it! Jesus dying and resurrecting for our sins is a religious-made construct. As I said, for someone to hate religion so much, you sure do hold onto the doctrine that they invented.

So the "religion" of Christianity has nothing to do with religion? How does that work?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


That's what you say. Here:

In comparative mythology, the related motifs of a dying god and of a dying-and-rising god have appeared in diverse cultures.[1][2]

A dying god may just go away and not return, but a dying-and-rising god (also known as a death-rebirth, or resurrection deity) returns, is resurrected or is reborn, in either a literal or symbolic sense.[2][3][4][5][6]

Beginning in the 19th century, a number of gods who would fit these motifs were proposed.[3] Male examples included the ancient Near Eastern, Greek, and Norse deities Baal,[7] Melqart,[8] Adonis,[9] Eshmun,[10] Tammuz,[11] Ra the Sun god with its fusion with Osiris/Orion,[12] Jesus, and Dionysus.[13] Female examples include Inanna/Ishtar, Persephone,[14] and Bari.

The methods of death can be diverse, the Norse Baldr mistakenly dies by the arrow of his blind brother, the Aztec Quetzalcoatl sets himself on fire after over-drinking, and the Japanese Izanami dies of a fever.[2][15]

Dying and rising god

and:

Q8. Isn't it historically true that the resurrection happened - surely the existence of the empty tomb attests to that?

While most skeptics do not doubt that Jesus' earliest disciples had some kind of "resurrection experience", they do doubt that the stories, as told in the Gospels and Acts are historical. The stories about the burial, the discovery of the empty tomb and the various resurrection appearances are not historical.

For instance there are difficulties and contradictions with the burial accounts given in the gospels. Matthew's unique story about the guards placed at the tomb, also completely contradicts the details given in the other gospels. The whole idea of Jesus' body being placed in a new tomb is historically unreliable.

Furthermore, there are contradictions among the gospel accounts in almost every detail in the story discovery of the empty tomb. The balance of evidence seems to show that there was no empty tomb; that the empty tomb itself was a later development or addition in the legend of Jesus' resurrection.

try this site on for size

reply to post by NOTurTypical

Controversy sells books dear.

So do history and new research, "dear". Try reading some of those. One needs to keep up with new developments in a field to be considered knowledgeable about it; licensed and tenured professionals and professors are obliged to continue their educations, else lose their license or postion.
A textual expert is not an archaeologist or sociologist or anthropologist, and besides, there's always someone who will come along and "top" the "previous top."

Why are you so stubborn? What about "apologetics" made you shut down your search?

More information linking Bacchus to Jesus and the bible:

There were a couple of other things in Bacchae that seem to apply here: The main character is Dionysus, son of Zeus. Zeus is actually named in Acts, as well as Dionysius:

Acts 13:11: "And when the crowds saw what Paul had done, they lifted up their voices saying in Lycaonian, 'The gods have come down to us in the likeness of men!' Barnabas they called Zeus, and Paul, because he was the chief speaker, they called Hermes."

Acts 17:34: "But some of them joined him and became believers, including Dionysius the Areopagite and a woman named Damaris, and others with them."

First Barnabas, Paul's companion, is called Zeus. Then Dionysius becomes another of Paul's companions. Twice Acts refers the educated reader to myths about Zeus, and specifically to the story of Dionysus in Bacchae by Euripides. What can Bacchae tell us about Paul?

Bacchae's Cadmus speaks words which are of great importance:

"Even though he is no god, as you assert, still say he is; be guilty of a splendid fraud, declaring him the son of Semele, that she may be thought the mother of a god and we and all our race gain honor."

In the very early years of Christianity, there was a great debate and a great division between two opposing factions fighting for dominance. One side, represented by those later labeled Gnostics: Nazarenes, Essenes, Pythagoreans, and others, said Jesus was a spiritually evolved teacher. The other side, Paul's supporters, claimed that Jesus was a god -- the God, in fact. It's clear which faction won out and which faction the church would eventually label heretics.

Source


Pay attention to the bolded part, it applies to Paul claiming that Jesus was THE god.

So Paul is called Hermes. Who is Hermes?

Hermes (pron.: /ˈhɜrmiːz/; Greek : Ἑρμῆς) was an Olympian god in Greek religion and mythology, son of Zeus and the Pleiade Maia. He was second youngest of the Olympian gods.

Hermes was a god of transitions and boundaries. He was quick and cunning, and moved freely between the worlds of the mortal and divine, as emissary and messenger of the gods, intercessor between mortals and the divine, and conductor of souls into the afterlife. He was protector and patron of travelers, herdsmen, thieves, orators and wit, literature and poets, athletics and sports, invention and trade. In some myths he is a trickster, and outwits other gods for his own satisfaction or the sake of humankind. His attributes and symbols include the herma, the rooster and the tortoise, purse or pouch, winged sandals, winged cap, and his main symbol was the herald's staff, the Greek kerykeion or Latin caduceus which consisted of two snakes wrapped around a winged staff.

Wiki

Wasn't Paul a mediator of Jesus? Preaching god's "true" gospel? That part seems to fit pretty well.

What about being patron of thieves, literature, and poets? What about Hermes being considered a trickster? In my opinion, Paul was both a thief and a trickster. His story protected thieves who wrote the bible.

Seems to be a pretty spot on assessment of Paul if you ask me.

Here's some Metzger for ya, NuT!

The key word here is respectable scholars. There are still pockets of extreme fundamentalists who would read no English Bible except the King James Version-which contain the spurious Markan text above and some others. Basically most of these trace their heritage to John W. Burgon (1813-1888), Dean of Chichester. Burgon's book The Last Twelve Verses of the Gospel according to St. Mark Vindicated, first published in 1871, is still considered a "scholarly" work in these circles.
Burgon's arguments consist of vituperative statements (such as calling the Vaticanus, Sinaiticus and Bezae codices "scandulously corrupt", "shamefully multilated", "fabricated readings" and "intentional perversions of the truth") and his unwillingness to accept that words of scripture could be seriously corrupted by the transmission process. Furthermore, according to the reknowned textual scholar, Bruce M. Metzger:

Burgon was apparently unable to comprehend...the force of the genealogical method, by which later, conflated text is demonstrated to be secondary and corrupt. Instead of following the text of a few earlier manuscripts, Burgon preferred the readings supported by the majority of later witnesses.[12]

From The Spurious Ending of Mark on the page "for size" cited above.

Another part of the page:

There is no longer any respectable scholar that holds the opinion that these verses may be part of the original Mark.[a] The quotation by Ireneaus in 180 CE mentioned above and the fact that it presupposes a knowledge of the other gospels suggest a second century origin for these verses. [8]

There is, in fact, from the fourth century onwards another spurious ending to Mark which takes the place of Mark 16:9-20. This ending can be found in some late manuscripts (after the fourth century CE). Given below is that variant ending (placed immediately after Mark 16:8 "for they were afraid"):

"But they [the three women] briefly reported to those in the company of Peter all they had been told. And after this Jesus himself appeared to them, and sent out by means of them, from the east to the west, the holy and imperishable message of eternal salvation." [9]

Needless to say, Markan authorship is also completely ruled out here as well, both on the lateness of its appearance (after the fourth century) and on linguistic grounds. [10]

reply to post by wildtimes

Why are you so stubborn? What about "apologetics" made you shut down your search?

I would say his "search" ended with Dr. Metzger and the work of Ivan panin

Just an assumption of course...

Those bible codes and hepatic structure arguments they speak of seem to end many peoples search...

reply to post by NOTurTypical

How did I guess you'd reference Bart Ehrman? Someone who makes a pile of cash challenging the historical traditions and history of the Christian faith? Controversy sells books dear.

Hmmmm. guess what? Bart Ehrman and Metzger CO-WROTE a book....
why laud one and condemn the other?

The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption & Restoration
by Bruce M. Metzger, Bart D. Ehrman

This thoroughly revised edition of Bruce M. Metzger's classic work is the most up-to-date manual available for the textual criticism of the New Testament. The Text of the New Testament, Fourth Edition, has been invigorated by the addition of Bart D. Ehrman--author of numerous best-selling books on the New Testament--as a coauthor.

This revision brings the discussion of such important matters as the early Greek manuscripts and methods of textual criticism up to date, integrating recent research findings and approaches into the body of the text (as opposed to previous revisions, which compiled new material and notes into appendices).

The authors also examine new areas of interest, including the use of computers in the collection and evaluation of manuscript evidence and the effects that social and ideological influences had upon the work of scribes. The standard text for courses in biblical studies and the history of Christianity since its first publication in 1964, The Text of the New Testament is poised to become a definitive resource for a whole new generation of students.

www.goodreads.com...

reply to post by Akragon


Why? He was Jewish.

If I'm critical of attempts to curtail the 2nd Amendment am I anti-American since a group of Americans are in favor of abolishing it? Of course not, that's the same type of argument. If you go to Mark 7 He chastises the Pharisees for supplanting their traditions to the level of the Torah.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

I was speaking of Paul not Luke, though I can see why you got mixed up. I mean neither one met Jesus after all.

And how do you prove a negative position? As shown twice in this thread it's very safe to assume Paul was present at the Sanhedrin for Christ's trial and likewise present at His crucifixion. Luke states that his letter is gathered from interviewing eye-witnesses in the first chapter, and lastly Paul doesn't write an account of the Gospel.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

It has everything to do with it! Jesus dying and resurrecting for our sins is a religious-made construct. As I said, for someone to hate religion so much, you sure do hold onto the doctrine that they invented.

So the "religion" of Christianity has nothing to do with religion? How does that work?

edit on 8-2-2013 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)

They all died for that claim as fact. No man dies for a lie, people throughout human history have died willingly for the truth. That's extremely strong evidence that these people believed Jesus had in fact resurrected.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


What makes you think Paul was at the crucifixion? If it's safe to assume that Paul was at the crucifixion without any evidence then it's safe to assume Luke was Plutarch. The evidence for Luke being Plutarch is much weightier than Paul being at the crucifixion.

There is evidence that suggests the two were the same person, there is no evidence that suggests Paul was at the crucifixion, so why throw out the evidence and keep the non-evidence?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


But if Luke was Plutarch then how can you be so certain that Paul was actually Paul and that he died the way tradition holds?

Peter and Paul have similarities as well, namely their name changes after meeting Jesus, they were both captured and escaped jail, Peter all but disappears after Paul comes into the picture, and they both founded the church together. Peter was even supposedly crucified upside-down, a sign of the antichrist.

Paul is called Hermes at one point. An attribute of Hermes is the rooster. What crowed after Peter's denial of Jesus? A rooster. Another attribute of his is the purse/pouch. Pouches are used to carry money, perhaps even 30 pieces of silver? Judas was the son of a man named Simon, which was Peter's original name.

Also, how could Peter have gone into the court and sat with Roman guards during Jesus' trial? Kinda weird that a regular citizen is so easily allowed to sit with Roman soldiers.

reply to post by wildtimes


Dr. Metzger answering a question:

"All these decades of scholarship, of study, of writing textbooks, of delving into the minutiae of New Testament text-what has all this done to your personal faith?"

Dr. Metzger: "Oh, it has increased the basis of my personal faith to see the firmness with which these materials have come down to us, with a multiplicity of copies, some of which are very, very ancient."

"So, scholarship has not diluted your faith?"

Dr. Metzger. "On the contrary, it has built it. I have asked questions all my life, I've dug into the text, I've studied this thoroughly, and today I know with confidence that my trust in Jesus has been well placed. Very well placed."


"The Case for Christ", chapter 3, The Documentary Evidence, Dr. Bruce M. Metzger, p. 75