The Old Testament

sigh.......

So the whole point of this and your other threads was to enlighten us all with your revelations and now that nobody agrees with you, you want to just pick up your marbles and go home?

Did you ever consider that you may be wrong?

 

I would like to continue, although I may get a little slow in replying at times, I'm swamped with work here right now.

I was thinking, if you agreed, to work on one thing at a time, so that we don't get too much going on. Maybe start with something like "Do we agree the Hebrews wrote their bible" sort of thing, and if we can reach an agreement then move on to the next thing, like, "Did the early christians actually plagiarize that bible" or something that we can agree on that is in keeping with the thread topic, or close to it. Something like that.

I did want to comment on something you said a few posts ago about my not answering your questions, I thought I was, actually.

So, if we continue, you should know that I will keep on in the same manner, as in having to define terms if need be so that I know we are talking about the same thing. I am pretty particular in trying to root out facts, so we will have to work with that somehow.

Anyway, I'm game to go on if you would like to.

 

Sounds good. Let's see how it goes. But I hope others will feel free to join in as well.

 

So, to start then, if you don't mind.
Realizing that there may be evidence that they used parts of other earlier stories in it, would you agree that the Jews wrote their bible, the Tanach, and believe that it is the word and law of their god? I say “their god” only because at the time they wrote it, they believed it to be the only true god.


I thought it prudent to start at the beginning regarding the Old Testament, since christianity had not evolved yet, so this is from the perspective of the early Hebrew people.


If you don't agree, please say why.

 

I basically agree, but with some major qualifications. First of all, who are "the Jews"? I'd agree that Jews wrote their Bible, but not all of them--just some. I tend to accept the "documentary hypothesis" that the Torah was written by E, J, D, P and some redactors. Others on this forum might say God wrote it, and Jews took dictation. Also, there were some twenty factions of Jews by the time of Jesus, notably Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes, and Zealots. The Pharisees, themselves, were divided into Hillel and Shammai factions. While all of these accepted Yahweh and the Torah, there were important differences concerning the Law and belief in an afterlife. Second, I think there were influences from the Sumerians, the Canaanites, the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and the Persians at various stages along the way, which may help to account for changes from the earliest iterations to the scriptures that Jesus knew. The Canaanite High God El may be the model for El Shaddai, whom Yahweh says was the name He was using when he visited Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. The E source refers to God as "El" and/or Elohim. It was El who put the el in Israel. So who is plagiarizing? But this may be quibbling. I think Yehezkel Kaufman is essentially correct that Yahweh was "an original creation of the people of Israel" and "absolutely different from anything the pagan world has ever known." Third, I'm not sure that at some of the times they wrote it, all of the writers believed Yahweh to be the "only true god". In Genesis, Yaweh says: "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good and evil." Who is "us? When humans start building the tower of Babel, He says: "Come, let us go down there and confuse their language..." Again, who is "us". Angels, maybe? Psalm 82 says: "God has taken His place in the divine council; in the midst of the gods, He holds judgment." After suffering military setback from the Ammonites, the Israelite commander asks the Ammonite king: "Should you not possess what your god Chemosh gives you to possess? And should we not possess everything that our god Yahweh has conquered for our benefit?" Maybe he was just being polite in acknowledging the non-existent Ammonite God. Still, I'm not sure that monotheism was well established until Josiah's reforms, or possibly even after the Babylonian captivity. So with those reservations, on to Stage Two.

 

I don't have any real arguments here. So we agree then, that what is known as the Tanach, or Hebrew bible, is accepted by the Jewish community as the word of it's god, and was accepted in history as we know it as the word of their god.

You won't get any arguments from me regarding whether or not the Tanach contained elements in it that could be attributed to older religions and cultures, I would have to agree that it does contain those elements, even without much research on the matter, as a matter of opinion.

The next matter concerns the controversy over whether or not the Jesus of christianity existed. Do you believe that he did, and do you have any supporting evidence (cites please) to support that view?

Just asking since the christian religion is supposed to be based on what he said, and did. So far, I cannot say with any certainty that he even existed, based on what I have read.

 

I think He did exist. You'll find no certainty on this subject, or even courtroom proof. But I think the available evidence points to the likelihood that there was a real Jesus of Nazareth. The evidence is thoroughly discussed and analyzed by Bart Ehrman in his book Did Jesus Exist? I find it persuasive. There is good evidence that James, Jesus' brother, and Peter existed. Paul was in contact with them, and they didn't exactly get along. Using the standard criteria of multiple attestations, dissimilarity or distinctiveness, embarrassment, and historical plausibility, I think that it's as reasonable to believe in His existence as it is the existence of Socrates or the Buddha. In fact, I'd even go farther, using the same criteria. I believe He came from Galilee, was baptized by John the Baptizer, gathered followers, preached the coming of the Kingdom of God, performed healings, disputed religious matters with the Jewish establishment, caused a disruption in the Temple, and was crucified under Pontius Pilate. Even the skeptics at the Jesus Seminar believe these things, and that he said and did at least 16% of the things attributed to Him.

 

So far, what I have read tells me he did not exist:


“No historians of the time mention Jesus. Suetonius (65-135) does not. Pliny the Younger only mentions Christians (Paulists) with no comment of Jesus himself. Tacitus mentions a Jesus, but it is likely that after a century of Christian preaching Tacitus was just reacting to these rumours, or probably talking about one of the many other Messiah's of the time. Josephus, a methodical, accurate and dedicated historian of the time mentions John the Baptist, Herod, Pilate and many aspects of Jewish life but does not mention Jesus. (The Testimonium Flavianum has been shown to be a third century Christian fraud). He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James. Jesus was not an unusual name, either. Justus, another Jewish historian who lived in Tiberias (near Kapernaum, a place Jesus frequented) did not mention Jesus nor any of his miracles. It is only in the evidence of later writers, writing about earlier times, that we find a Jesus. What is more surprising (Jesus could simply have been unknown to local historians) is that academics note that the gospels themselves do not allude to first-hand historical sources, either!
The four Gospels that eventually made it into the New Testament, for example, are all anonymous, written in the third person about Jesus and his companions. None of them contains a first-person narrative ("One day, when Jesus and I went into Capernaum..."), or claims to be written by an eyewitness or companion of an eyewitness. Why then do we call them Matthew, Mark, Luke and John? Because sometime in the second century, when proto-orthodox Christians recognized the need for apostolic authorities, they attributed these books to apostles (Matthew and John) and close companions of apostles (Mark, the secretary of Peter; and Luke, the travelling companion of Paul). Most scholars today have abandoned these identifications, and recognize that the books were written by otherwise unknown but relatively well-educated Greek-speaking (and writing) Christians during the second half of the first century.”
"http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0195182499/65536-21"]Lost Christianities" by Bart Ehrman (2003)



“Mostly derived from pagan myths, Jesus' birth stories are very dubious, and it very likely that all such beliefs were written retrospectively by the Roman gospel writers, or were assumed from the outset. There is no evidence or reason to believe that they actually occurred. Events such as King Herod's killing of every male child simply could not have gone unnoticed, these pagan myths were however assumed of all god-man saviours. Modern Christmas is a combination of pagan and ancient practices. Its eclectic nature makes it a multicultural event suitable for appropriation by nearly anyone, including staunch secularists. Jesus' existence remains a mystery, we cannot validate even the simplest facts about his birth, and this fact has led some scholars to cast doubt on Jesus' entire existence. “


"The Birth of Jesus and the Christmas Story: Pagan and Unhistorical: 8. Conclusions" by Vexen Crabtree (2000).

• There is a complete absence of evidence for the events described - no authors mention the phenomenal events that supposedly occurred at the time of Jesus' resurrection, and, there are no records of Jesus being crucified in the first place. This is despite there being multiple historians of the time who kept extensive records of events in that era, especially of unusual events and the misdeeds of rulers. The only records we have are those written by Christians themselves, the Gospels. And within each of those gospels nearly all details of the crucifixion and resurrection are different. Very important details, such as Jesus' last words, are so different that it appears they are simply being made up by the authors. The earliest Christians did not know simple details such as where Jesus was buried.
• Most the details of Jesus' death and rebirth are similar to the existing myths surrounding god-men in that era. The similarities to the Christs of other pagan religions are shockingly detailed, so much so that early Church fathers had to defend themselves against pagan critics who said that the stories of Jesus were simply pagan stories with new names.

"The Crucifixion Facade: 6. Conclusions" by Vexen Crabtree (2002).


“A very common belief, accepted (in part if not in full) by Christian liberals is that someone who claimed to be a prophet and messiah (there were many such people appearing amongst the Jews) is the historical Jesus. His life story has been intermingled with older pagan myths, and it is very hard for us to see his true life or message to the extent that we have little or no information about him, he is effectively without historical basis because the real figure is obscured by the mythical one.
God-Man myths were very popular and pre-dated the God-Man of Jesus by thousands of years. They all shared a common format which (or "vegetation myths") is that the Son of God has 12 disciples, and is betrayed and killed by a traitor. Popular myths such as the virgin birth, miracles, curing the blind and ill are also familiar and common aspects of these myths. As such, such events were assumed to be true of the historical Jesus. These myths became interwoven amongst the stories of someone who might have been real. Many Jewish sayings became attributed to this character, and sayings of John the Baptist too. Stories about the disciples were assumed to be true and not simply symbolic stories as the original gnostic Christians believed. Once people wrote pseudipigraphically under the names of the disciples people accepted them as true too. The rest is history, but initially is based on mistaken pseudo-historical accounts.”
Comment by By Vexen Crabtree 2007 Nov 10 http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/christianity_nojesus.html


“Perhaps the most historically correct of all the theories is that Christianity started out as much more Gnostic than it became from the 2nd century onwards, and the stories of Jesus and the disciples match those of other Mystery religions and Pagan religions precisely because Christianity was another Mystery Religion. Literalist Christianity as we know it was the Outer Mysteries of this spiritual religion. It explains why the historical centres of Christianity were all gnostic when literalist Christians went back to research the past, and why so many Pagan god-man elements are part of Christianity. It also explains why none of the scholars of the time mention Jesus or the miracles around his life, because even the Christians themselves knew that they were symbolic stories, not actual events. Later Christians had to defend their 'new' religion against critics who knew it was yet-another copy of the typical son-of-god saviour religions of the time.”
"http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0722536771/65536-21"]The Jesus Mysteries" by Timothy Freke & Peter Gandy (1999)




“The Jesus story sure looks like you would expect it to look if it were patterned after other god-men. Early Christian Church fathers such as Justin Martyr (d. 165), Tertullian (d. 225), and Irenaeus (d. 202) felt compelled to answer the pagan critics of the time who claimed the Jesus story was based on earlier traditions. The fathers claimed that the similarities were the work of the devil, who copied the Jesus story ahead of time to mislead the gullible.”
"http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1591024811/65536-21"]God, the Failed Hypothesis: How Science Shows That God Does Not Exist" by Prof. Victor J. Stenger (2007)


“ Elements common to all types of the Christian religion that were common in previous Pagan mystery religions include much of the religious content of Christianity. All elements of Jesus' life such as the events around his birth, death and ministry were already parts of the myths surrounding other god-men of the time. Peripheral elements such as there being twelve disciples were similarly present in other more ancient religions and sometimes with an astonishing amount of duplication. First century critics of Christianity voiced accusations that Christianity was nothing but another copy of common religions.
All the actual sayings and teachings of Jesus were also not new, and much of the time speeches attributed to Jesus are more like collections of Jewish and Pagan sayings. Even distinctive texts like the Sermon on the Mount are not unique. If we remove all the content that Jesus could not have heard and repeated himself, there is nothing else left. If we remove the supernatural elements of Christianity that are copies of already existing thought and religion, there is nothing left which is unique! Even many of the sayings of subsequent Christians are not unique; Jesus appears to not have taught anyone anything that was not already present in the common culture of the time. This shows us that not only did Christianity follow on, as expected, from previous thought in history but that we do not even need to believe in God or supernatural events in order to account for the history of Christianity.”
"Types of Christianity in History: Who Were the First Christians?: 3.2. The Progression From Paganism to Christianity" by Vexen Crabtree (2003).


Stephen Hodge lists many of the similarities found in the Dead Sea Scrolls to the teachings and organization of Jewish Christianity. He also concludes that these Jewish documents make the teachings and appearance of Jewish Christianity less revolutionary:

“The [Dead Sea Scrolls] collection is really an invaluable cross-section of religious material that reveals for the first time just how rich and varied Jewish spiritual life was at that time. The scrolls offer an intellectual and devotional landscape into which Jesus and his movement can be placed. No longer does Jewish Christianity seem an inexplicable, isolated occurrence. [...] In other words, the true value of the Dead Sea Scrolls is that they help provide a genuine context for what was to become Christianity. For example, they tell us just how widespread was the expectation and longing for a saving Messiah among Jews at that time, and that there were a number of competing theories about the expected role of this Messiah in the world of Judaism. The scrolls also reveal that the expectation found in the Gospels that the end of the world was imminent was a dominant belief in many quarters in Judaea.​

All biblical scholars agree that, apart from their intrinsic value, the sectarian scrolls are of tremendous importance as background information to the social and religious conditions in Judaea that led to the rise of Christianity. [... There are] subtle implications that can be derived from the Qumran texts, for they not only provide interesting parallels to Christian concepts and practice but tend to reduce the uniqueness of the Yeshua movement.”​

"http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0749922605/65536-21"]Dead Sea Scrolls" by Stephen Hodge (2001)



“The only pre-Christian man to be buried and resurrected and deified in his own lifetime, that I know of, is the Thracian god Zalmoxis (also called Salmoxis or Gebele'izis), who is described in the mid-5th-century B.C.E. by Herodotus (4.94-96), and also mentioned in Plato's Charmides (156d-158b) in the early-4th-century B.C.E. According to the hostile account of Greek informants, Zalmoxis buried himself alive, telling his followers he would be resurrected in three years, but he merely resided in a hidden dwelling all that time. His inevitable "resurrection" led to his deification, and a religion surrounding him, which preached heavenly immortality for believers, persisted for centuries.
The only case, that I know, of a pre-Christian god actually being crucified and then resurrected is Inanna (also known as Ishtar), a Sumerian goddess whose crucifixion, resurrection and escape from the underworld is told in cuneiform tablets inscribed c. 1500 B.C.E., attesting to a very old tradition.”
Richard Carrier on infidels.org

“The reason why all these narratives are so similar, with a godman who is crucified and resurrected, who does miracles and has 12 disciples, is that these stories were based on the movements of the sun through the heavens, an astrotheological development that can be found throughout the planet because the sun and the 12 zodiac signs can be observed around the globe. In other words, Jesus Christ and all the others upon whom this character is predicated are personifications of the sun, and the Gospel fable is merely a rehash of a mythological formula (the "Mythos," as mentioned above) revolving around the movements of the sun through the heavens.
For instance, many of the world's crucified godmen have their traditional birthday on December 25th. This is because the ancients recognized that (from an earthcentric perspective) the sun makes an annual descent southward until December 21st or 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops moving southerly for three days and then starts to move northward again. During this time, the ancients declared that "God's sun" had "died" for three days and was "born again" on December 25th. The ancients realized quite abundantly that they needed the sun to return every day and that they would be in big trouble if the sun continued to move southward and did not stop and reverse its direction. Thus, these many different cultures celebrated the "sun of God's" birthday on December 25th. The following are the characteristics of the "sun of God":

• The sun "dies" for three days on December 22nd, the winter solstice, when it stops in its movement south, to be born again or resurrected on December 25th, when it resumes its movement north.
• In some areas, the calendar originally began in the constellation of Virgo, and the sun would therefore be "born of a Virgin."
• The sun is the "Light of the World."
• The sun "cometh on clouds, and every eye shall see him."
• The sun rising in the morning is the "Savior of mankind."
• The sun wears a corona, "crown of thorns" or halo.
• The sun "walks on water."
• The sun's "followers," "helpers" or "disciples" are the 12 months and the 12 signs of the zodiac or constellations, through which the sun must pass.
• The sun at 12 noon is in the house or temple of the "Most High"; thus, "he" begins "his Father's work" at "age" 12.
• The sun enters into each sign of the zodiac at 30°; hence, the "Sun of God" begins his ministry at "age" 30.
• The sun is hung on a cross or "crucified," which represents its passing through the equinoxes, the vernal equinox being Easter, at which time it is then resurrected.”

"Origins of Christianity" by Acharya S



I find it interesting that no actual records can be found beyond what is stated in christian texts. If he existed, and was involved in history as he has been portrayed, then in my opinion, there should be some records from other sources which say so. There are records found from that time, recording many things, but none of him. I agree that there is no certainty on the matter, and, while I have not yet read anything that leads me to believe otherwise, I cannot truthfully say that such evidence does not exist.
So, I see it this way:
We disagree as to whether or not he existed, but we both believe the evidence we have read supports our conclusions.
Should we, then, proceed with the assumption that christianity came into being based on the life of a person called Jesus, whether we agree he existed or not?

(And no, I am not selling books for amazon, it is just where the links go for sources.)

 

Interesting that the source that you quote is Bart Ehrman, who has more recently written the book that I cited earlier, providing what I regard is a persuasive argument that Jesus did exist. This illustrates a basic difference in our approaches to historical facts. You are using as authority a scholar who emphatically doesn't agree with the conclusion you've arrived at. (By the way, if you'd include the page, I could get a better idea of the context. I have Lost Christianities in my lap.)

The point about the Roman historians is true but beside the point. Jesus was a Galilean peasant preacher who was crucified as a common criminal. Roman historians wouldn't take note of such people until they or their followers attracted enough attention to make them noteworthy. Your point about the Gospels is also one which I accept. I don't think any of the writers were the people whose names were assigned to them by Irenaeus, and they relied on other sources or oral accounts. Notwithstanding all this, Ehrman argues that the multiple attestations in canonical and non-canonical sources make it unlikely that Jesus was made up. As for the Josephus' accounts, as Ehrman says: "He once mentions a Jesus, but gives no information other than that he is a brother of a James." But if Ehrman had quoted the passage, it says "the brother of Jesus, who was called Christ, whose name was James". Oh, that Jesus. Modern scholars pretty much agree that the reference in Book 20, chp.9.1 of Antiquities, is authentic. And the existence of a person's brother provides some evidence that person, himself, exists.

Neither Mark (thought to be the first Gospel) nor John (thought to be the last) contain birth narratives. Those are found in Matthew and Luke, and they differ from each other. I assume they were tacked on from stories circulating about Jesus at the time. There is no evidence, however, that they were based on pagan myths.

I agree about the pagan (and secular) influences on the celebration of Christmas, which is why the Puritans banned it.

Why would the fact that we can't validate these facts cast doubt on Jesus' existence? Mark begins his Gospel with Jesus' baptism by John the Baptist--nothing about him prior to that. Why would you or "some scholars" that your source mentions expect the birth of a Galilean peasant baby to be something that they could validate. Jesus began to make an impact near the end of His life when he began His ministry. Seems to me that "some scholars" are eager to leap to a conclusion that doesn't follow from their evidence.

It is true that miraculous birth stories were told about other great religious leaders, like the Buddha, whose mother was impregnated by a white elephant (Ouch!) But not these particular stories.

As Ehrman points out in Did Jesus Exist, the notion that the Romans kept extensive records of crucifixions in Palestine is itself a myth. There are none. Crucifixions of political dissidents were routine events, warranting no documentation. Claims to the contrary may be confusing the Romans with the Nazis.

I'm afraid the "dying-rising god" theory has been rather thoughly debunked, although it is still given currency by fringe writers like Vexen Crabtree, Satanist and student. Do you trust his judgment? Does he know what he's talking about? Tell me now, what are these "shockingly detailed" similarities and when did they appear in the pagan lore? Except for Osiris, many of these were post-Christian phenomena, so it's hard to tell who is copying from whom. Justin Martyr acknowledges pre-exisiting similarities which he tries to explain as the work of Satan trying to discredit Christianity. Not convincing. But superficial parallelisms provide no evidence that the Galilean followers of Jesus were influenced by such pagan beliefs. Wouldn't it be necessary for careful scholars to establish that connection? I think it more likely they were influenced by the apocalyptic tradition of the Old Testament prophets.

[/quote]

[/quote]Yes. I'm one of those Christian liberals. My take is that there was an historical Jesus, for reasons which I explained in my previous post, that he did and said some of the things attributed to him, and that we have the tools to make reasonable inferences concerning what those were. I could download as many sources to support this (including topnotch scholars with impeccable reputations) as you can to oppose it. I also believe that most of the deeds and sayings attributed to Jesus are legends, such as the nature miracles and the virgin birth. But the question we were debating is whether or not Jesus existed. I think he did. So do most scholars who have studied the subject. But there are always those on the fringes who think otherwise. I'm betting on Jesus.

I'm not a fan of Richard Carrier. His colossal ego and infantile rages against anyone who disagrees with him are not the qualities of sound scholarship. Many of his judgments seem off base, and his notion that Bayesian analysis of history can lead to more than "garbage in, garbage out" is questionable. But the passage quoted supports the idea that resurrection and crucifixion were not the common events other atheist writers made them out to be. I'd take issue with him on Inanna. Crucifixion is a form of execution involving being nailed to a cross. Inanna was pinned to a wall. And do you think it likely that the Jewish followers of Jesus got the resurrection idea from the Thracian god Zalmoxis. I think it's more likely that they got it from the Maccabean rising against Antiochus. Many brave Jews were killed, and the survivors thought it unthinkable that they died in vein. So the idea of resurrection developed. And when Paul describes Jesus as the "first fruits" of resurrection, he isn't referring to an isolated event, but to something that all humans will experience.

Ehrman argues that Freke and Gandy are a joke, not to be take seriously as scholars. I tend to agree. The quotation above is obviously speculation based on little evidence. Christianity started out Jewish. Paul struggled with the Jerusalem Church over his efforts to extend the religion to Gentiles and relax dietary and circumcision requirements. Evidence of true Gnostic Christians before the second century is hard to find. Gnosticism is a somewhat nebulous concept referrring to a set of sects who believed that the material world is evil and that we can be emancipated from it by insight. Some scholars regard Essenes as proto-gnostic, and there are signs of Pythagorian influence among them. More generally, the Jewish "Wisdom" literature reflects Hellenistic influence that is sometimes considered "Gnostic". The Gospel of John, considered to be the last of the Gospels, reflects Platonic influence similar to the Jewish scholar Philo of Alexandria, and is thought to have been written about the same time as Philo, around the turn of the century. Most scholars no longer believe that Christianity can be dismissed as a "typical mystery religion", although I have no doubt that as Christianity spread among the Gentiles these influences crept in. According to Ehrman, early Christians worshipped as many as 365 gods, one for every day of the week. Most of the gnostic influence came from the Syrian/Egyptian school of Persian Zurvanism in the second cen
I'd argue that it was the synthesis of Judaic and Greco-Roman influences that gave Christianity its vitality. These are the intellectual influences that have shaped our civilization.

Stenger is a physicist and a rabid atheist who gets his information from any secondary source that supports his opinions. What does he know?

I agree to some extent but the Jesus movement remained quite revolutionary. Even Pope Benedict credits the Essenes as important influences on the Jerusalem Church, and they're thought to be the keepers of the Scrolls. But there are important differences, as well. The Essenes were hung up with purity and kept themselves aloof--very different from the Jesus ministry. But unlike the Essenes in particular and the Jews in general, the Christians were not exclusive.Their openness to converts set them apart from other Jewish factions. Their universalism and inclusiveness gave them the evolutionary edge in extending their religion throughout the Roman world. I call this evolution, but it was also revolutionary in enabling Christianity to eclipse its original competition and become the dominant religion in the world.

I wouldn't expect records from non-Christian sources. This was before Google, Facebook, CNN, TV, and newspapers. Who exactly would be keeping records of a Galilean peasant preacher who had a ministry lasting at best less than three years and was crucified as a common criminal? Christians were far less important then than they later became.

I'm really exhausted, and see no point in trying to reply further to massive downloads of material of varying quality from the internet. That's not my idea of a dialogue. I'm familiar with many of the arguments and authors you cite, and find them unconvincing. Relying on atheists, Satanists, and orthodox rabbis for your information about Jesus is like relying on Fox News for your information about Obama. I think there's sufficient evidence of Jesus' existence, but it's not particularly important to me whether He did or not. The life and teachings attributed to him, as documented by reputable scholarship, are good enough for me. I'm willing to continue for awhile, but may drop out, depending on where you go from here.

 

Hit the nail on the head, Okie :2thumbsup: (can't rep you again so soon )
Yup, exactly. If those are the only sources you are willing to consider, then this entire thread is pointless.

 

The point of even bringing up the existence of the supposed Jesus was only for some background information, it is only peripherally related to the topic of this thread. I really didn't want to get in deep on the subject either, like I said at the end of my last post, we disagree on the subject and probably always will. So, just a couple more questions and comments regarding your answers, which came to mind while reading them. I should have mentioned, and I apologize for not doing so, that I did not expect you to go through and refute or discuss the material, I only provided it as it was a counterpoint to your assertions that he did exist, based on your stated reasons why.

I just want to point out that this could make a case regarding the validity of those documents, if they were based on “other sources or oral accounts”. Not saying it does, but that it could provide an opening for that assumption. I have read many opinions regarding hearsay evidence being used for the Gospels, not saying they are true, just that this sort of thing casts doubt on the issue so far as validity goes. The people who assert the truth of them would have to provide something to substantiate those claims, and it is up to the individual to decide if that evidence was valid or not.

Because we are only relying on the statements made by a few people who claim to have had any knowledge of him at all, and which also cannot be verified. We are saying that the few people who wrote about him are the only ones who had any knowledge of him. And the only records we have of that is what is written in the New Testament. So lack of any other evidence leads to doubt, is what I am saying.

Stories like these, as you say, have been told about other religious leaders, so the possibility exists that the same could be true for Jesus, since we are relying on what only a few people, who did not know him, have written. I would like to see something that could alleviate the doubt, beyond just the New Testament.

This touches directly on the point of the thread, and I want to come back to it soon.


“

The same sort of comment could be made about supporters of christianity, they rely on the writers of the Gospels, who, as you stated earlier “relied on other sources or oral accounts.”. I think it is important to look at both sides of the issue, if we want to find the truth of the matter.

This also relates closely to the point of this thread, and I want to touch on it again soon.

As I stated above, I think opposing views are good for any valid search for truth. If we rely solely on one view, then are we getting the whole picture? Maybe those atheists, in their need to debunk the religion they are against, can offer something that would at least make us ask “what if” this was true, or that was true.

Like I said at the end of my last post, we disagree, there is no harm in that. I do question what you call “reputable scholarship”, you really can't say that all scholars with opposing views are not reputable, just like you can't say that all scholars from your school of thought are reputable, there are good ones and bad ones on both sides of the issue.


I only ran across Vexen Crabtree while I was looking for information some time ago. You should read the link here: http://www.dpjs.co.uk/testimonies/vexen.html on why he is a Satanist. It is not because he believes in “the devil”, it is more a philosophical standpoint. As an atheist he would obviously disregard the existence of an actual Satan, as he does a god, since the two are related. And, I think he is thumbing his nose at his opponents, since Satan plays such a big part in christianity. I am not saying he is right, merely that he offers some information that is worthy of review.

As I said in my last post:
“So, I see it this way:
We disagree as to whether or not he existed, but we both believe the evidence we have read supports our conclusions.
Should we, then, proceed with the assumption that christianity came into being based on the life of a person called Jesus, whether we agree he existed or not? “


I meant this to mean that we did not need to argue over the existence of Jesus any further, I will endeavor to be clearer in what I say in the future, if you wish to continue on.

 

That statement would be hard to argue with. So let's proceed.

 

There is other information regarding the Ebionites and the early Nazarenes, as being “the first” christians and that they were Jewish and followed Hebrew laws, but believed that Jesus was the messiah as prophesied in the Hebrew Bible. There is some belief that Saul/Paul taught a different approach to what was written, and actually ended up, intentionally or not, creating an entirely different sect, which moved away from the laws as found in the Hebrew bible, now called “Pauline Christianity”. Do you agree that this is true? Would you say that virtually all modern christianity is based on Pauline christianity?

 

I mostly agree. The Nazerenes and Ebionites made up the Jerusalem Church under the general leadership of Jesus' brother James. They clashed with Paul early on over relaxing Jewish laws to accommodate the Gentiles--especially the dietary laws and circumcision. Peter tried to accommodate the two sides, by eating with the Gentile Christians, but James sent out a delegation to check up on him, and they were horrified. Peter bowed to pressure from Jerusalem, but was accused by Paul of waffling and caving in to what he called the "circumcision faction". "Peter was clearly wrong", he said. Paul's letter to the Galatians records his rage that a church which he founded was continuing to observe Jewish Law.

Actually, Paul and his followers were the first to be called "Christian". The Ebionites and Nazerenes considered themselves to be Jews following the true Messiah, Jesus. Catholics and Protestants disagree on the extent of commitment to the defining Pauline doctrine of "Justification by Faith Alone", Catholics recognizing works as well as faith as being important, most Protestants following Luther in emphasizing the pure form of Paul's teaching.

 

So, it sounds like, from re-reading some of your older posts here, and the last few posts you made, that you have the opinion that there are questions as to whether or not the Hebrew bible was entirely written by the Hebrews, that there is doubt as to whether or not a lot of it even pertains to the Hebrews specifically, even though according to the Jews it was all about them and their history.

You are also saying that Paul was teaching a more relaxed version of what the Hebrew bible taught at that time.

Do I have that right?

 

Not exactly. I have the opinion that the Hebrews who wrote the Bible were sometimes influenced by, or borrowed from, earlier material from other cultures. I agree that they had the idea "it was all about them and their history"--accurate or not--and that it constitutes the unifying myth of the Jewish people. Paul "relaxed" the dietary laws and the requirement of circumcision, especially as they applied to Gentiles. As we've already noted, even orthodox Jews believed that the Noahide laws were a more "relaxed" set of rules applicable to Gentiles. But the version taught by Paul was too relaxed for the Jerusalem Church of Nazarenes and Ebionites. The Jewish tradition was all about preserving the distinctiveness of the Jews as a people beleaguered by foreigners, while the ministry of Paul was about spreading the "good news" of Jesus to everyone, including the Gentiles. However, he thought of himself as a Jew, still in the Jewish tradition, not the founder of a new "Christian" religion--a point which is at the center of Pamela Eisenbaum's thesis in Paul Was Not a Christian. Neither was Jesus.

 

.

If this is true, then it throws all of Judaism, Islam, and Christianity into doubt, since they are all based on the writings attributed to Judasim, doesn't it? if what the Hebrews wrote wasn't what their god told them, and they borrowed from other religions of the time, then it would cast doubt onto anything that relates to it, right?

 

Doubt about what?

 

Here is one place to look for origins of ancient laws;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Code_of_Hammurabi#History

Law

Main article: Babylonian law
The Code of Hammurabi was one of several sets of laws in the ancient Near East.[7] The code of laws was arranged in orderly groups, so that everyone who read the laws would know what was required of them.[8] Earlier collections of laws include the Code of Ur-Nammu, king of Ur (ca. 2050 BC), the Laws of Eshnunna (ca. 1930 BC) and the codex of Lipit-Ishtar of Isin (ca. 1870 BC), while later ones include the Hittite laws, the Assyrian laws, and Mosaic Law.[9] These codes come from similar cultures in a relatively small geographical area, and they have passages which resemble each other.[10]

The Code of Hammurabi is the longest surviving text from the Old Babylonian period.[11] The code has been seen as an early example of a fundamental law regulating a government — i.e., a primitive form of what is now known as a constitution.[12][13] The code is also one of the earliest examples of the idea of presumption of innocence, and it also suggests that both the accused and accuser have the opportunity to provide evidence.[14] The occasional nature of many provisions suggests that the Code may be better read as a codification of supplementary judicial decisions of the king. Rather than being a modern legal code or constitution, it may have as its purpose the self-glorification of Hammurabi by memorializing his wisdom and justice. Its copying in subsequent generations indicates that it was used as a model of legal and judicial reasoning.[15]

for somebody who studied all this stuff about the Old Testament and associated religions, you sure have some HUGE holes in your knowledge.
I guess that's what happens when your main source of info is horribly biased and your not intelligent enough to notice it.

Then shit like this surprises you.

priceless.....:rofl:

 

Yes, I think so. Nothing is certain, not even that. We're having this dialogue, and you seem like an intelligent, sincere seeker of knowledge. But I don't know who you are. You could be a mental case, a Satanist (or group, thereof), or somebody else with an axe to grind. And so could I. Intuitively, I trust you. I take you at face value and consider your arguments on their own merits. Same with the Bible. I assume that the OT was written by people who sometimes had agendas--to promote the exclusive worship of Yaweh, discourage or promote alliances with the Phoenecians, Egypt, Assyria, Babylon, etc., or to promote or oppose the monarchy, the North vs. the South, etc. And to preserve the unity of the Israelites by promoting distinctive rules about diet, circumcision, etc. There appear to have been at least four writers and at least a couple of redactors for the Torah. So far, the Exodus story lacks archaeological corroboration. But it is central to the unifying myth of Israel. I'm content to leave it at that, and to interpret much of it, as it's always been interpreted, as metaphor and allegory. Marcus Borg notes the on-going tension between apologists for the Establishment and their critics--both represented in the dialogue of Scripture. The Prophets and Jesus were in the latter camp. Does doubt bother you? We have the same problem with political reality. I watch a little FOX, a little MSNBC,a little CNN, read newspapers and commentaries, check out internet sources, and try, using my best judgement to come up with a tentative picture of reality that I know is distorted. That's life.