Is there any evidence for christianity ?

[ggazoo]

The problem is this... early historians had mistaken UFO's and Aliens for Gods and they merged these concepts into the biblical accounts we see today. Jesus was likely a human-alien hybrid that possessed unusual abiliites... a man born in a virgin? You can't make something from nothing, not even an all powerful god!

Well, even as a Christian, I find the virgin birth hard to conceive (no pun intended). But, it's not a scientific impossibility. This has been known to happen in nature, although it is rare. When it does happen, all offspring are female, since the female has two X chromosomes, so that the offspring inherit, also, two X chromosomes. However, it could be possible in humans for a woman to give birth to a male. The way that it could happen is if the woman had both an X and Y chromosome, which occurs in 1 in 5 million women. So, this possibility cannot be completely ruled out as impossible.

Of course, the Bible describes the virgin birth as a miracle.

Regardless of the method by which Jesus was conceived, it would have been very risky to document and claim that He was born of a virgin. In the Middle East there were "honor killings" for women who conceived out of wedlock, so to speak of a virgin birth was extremely dishonorable. In fact, the Bible alludes to some disparaging remarks made by the opponents of Jesus. In addition, if you look at the anti-Christian literature at the time, much of it focused on this aspect of Christianity. This makes one wonder why, if Christians were just making up a religion, they say something that would offend virtually everybody in the Middle East. It makes no sense to make up something offensive, unless it were true.

I think one of the big problems with religion in general is that we're forcing 21st century people into 1st century thinking... but that still doesn't mean that there's no God.

 

[SkinWalker]

Well, even as a Christian, I find the virgin birth hard to conceive (no pun intended). But, it's not a scientific impossibility. This has been known to happen in nature, although it is rare...

Among mammals, it's so rare as to be non-existant. Where do you suppose the other 23 chromosomes came from? If "Mary" provided all 46, then Jesus would be a direct clone of Mary. Wouldn't that make him a Queen of kings?

 

[Silas]

Well, even as a Christian, I find the virgin birth hard to conceive (no pun intended). But, it's not a scientific impossibility.

If it isn't a scientific impossibility, it isn't a divine miracle, now, is it?

Regardless of the method by which Jesus was conceived, it would have been very risky to document and claim that He was born of a virgin. In the Middle East there were "honor killings" for women who conceived out of wedlock, so to speak of a virgin birth was extremely dishonorable. In fact, the Bible alludes to some disparaging remarks made by the opponents of Jesus. In addition, if you look at the anti-Christian literature at the time, much of it focused on this aspect of Christianity. This makes one wonder why, if Christians were just making up a religion, they say something that would offend virtually everybody in the Middle East. It makes no sense to make up something offensive, unless it were true.

But the Virgin Birth claims actually postdate Jesus's life by several decades at the earliest (no reference to it in the oldest Gospel, Mark). Jesus was being worshipped as at least semi-divine by that stage, so there's clearly no bad connotation to the Christians to making his birth the result of a miracle. They didn't say, "Ooh, we'd better not say it was a virgin birth, because our enemies will call his mother a whore!" People don't think that way, if you want to worship someone, you're going to give him divine characteristics no matter how much ammunition you give to the opposition.

 

[Silas]

I could be repeating some earlier discussions in this forum. please bear with me for that.

Is there really any evidence for jesus' resurrection ?

Generally christians point to bible for the evidence of jesus and christianity.

Informed Christians don't point to some big entity called "The Bible" as it is presented today, but to the individual texts, Greek manuscripts of which are known right back to the 2nd Century, which, historical document-wise, is pretty bloody good.

They say that the four gospels point to eye witness testomony of jesus' resurrection. But how true is this claim ?

It's too easy, in my view, to spout off against the ignorant Christians, the uninformed Christians, and most specifically the "inerrant Bible" Christians. As zeeebra pointed out, there are plenty of intelligent and well informed people who know perfectly well that the New Testament was at no point written by eyewitnesses, but who find no contradiction with being Christians and holding their beliefs. What are your arguments against them?

There is absolutely no evidence to presume, what any of the four gospels or any other part of bible testifies, as eyewitness accounts. Still christians call this bible as the historical evidence.

Very very little fully accepted ancient history is based on "eyewitness accounts". How are the Gospel accounts less acceptable than other documents such as the histories of Tacitus and Suetonius and Dio Cassius?

Christians conveniently brush aside the contradicting accounts of the four gospels, even the contradicting accounts of ressurection part. When pointed out they say it is merely due to different ways those witnessing the events saw them.

And this could actually be taken as an indication of veracity. Different people do see different things in different ways.

In any case, you are raising specifics and you need to point to specific evidence. What do you mean by "The Resurrection"? Do you mean the post-Easter discovery of the empty tomb? Or the appearances of Jesus to various apostles?

What christians do not understand that the autheticity of bible itself can be questioned based on these contradictions.[/quote]This is just arrogance, the kind that I find very annoying coming from my fellow atheists. There are plenty of Christians not only intelligent enough to understand that the Bible can be questioned by reference to its contradictions, but they are intelligent enough to defend the Bible based on those same contradictions. Some of them post right here. I don't agree with their positions, their conclusions, their faith or their presuppositions, but I wouldn't dismiss them as so stupid as to "not understand" that the Bible can be questioned. The Bible has been questioned for two millennia - most Christians are more than well aware of this fact.

Since there are contradictions found in the very core part of bible, it can also be concluded that bible was written by several believing people over decades(if not centuries) through hearsay and oral traditions(and then passed on as real events) and hence such contradictions. Hence bible statements cannot be taken as reliable proof of ressurection or any such possibly bogus claims. Infact science dates the earliest gospel decades after the death of jesus.

You've not here demonstrated how those oral traditions are specifically based on no realistic basis at all. And the Christians, even the least informed, are well aware of the distance from the death of Jesus to the Gospel accounts.

Besides one has to consider the pre-existence of similar ressurection stories much before jesus was born. Osiris, Mithra etc. are all supposed to have ressurected as per the believers of those religions as well.

Hence there is every possibility for bible faking ressurection from these fairy tales.

Conclusion:
There is no evidence for ressurection and hence christianity is another fairy tale.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from what you've written, since what you wrote was more a diatribe against Christians than a reasoned argument from a close consideration of source materials.

The Resurrection, as depicted in the Gospels, as a miracle, as one man coming back to life after having died .... does not require close reading of texts in order to be dismissed as an accurate depiction of events. The very fact that a miracle is stated to have occurred is quite reason enough for most people, including many critical scholars, to rule out the events as portrayed. But this is not where you dismiss the whole tale out of hand, this is where you admit there is a genuine mystery. If Jesus died, what the hell did the apostles see and report as his resurrection? There are simply too many accounts.

Earl Doherty believes that the whole Jesus story was made up out of whole cloth - that there never was such a person, and that the earliest person to write about him, the apostle Paul (who never claims to have met him, incidentally) was not writing about a literal life story, but of events which took place in some kind of mystical Heaven (not the Heaven, but just a heaven, apparently).

A.N. Wilson believes that the Gospel accounts of Jesus being seen by various different apostles and groups of apostles after his death, can possibly be accounted for by James the brother of Jesus, who presumably resembled him in some way, plus a lot of wishful thinking and mass hysteria on the part of the apostles.

My view has always been that the "death" of Jesus was always suspiciously quick, and that consequently it is possible that the events as described really did take place, or something very like them - but that Jesus had not been dead in the first place. I myself am not amongst those who believe that Jesus either travelled to Gaul with Magdalene, nor that he joined the Essenes at Qumran.

That the Resurrection was not a literal divine manifestation is a perfectly reasonable position to take. But there is a great deal more to be read from the texts, and any number of theories as to what it signifies, in an historical sense, than simpleminded "it's a fairy tale! it's a fairy tale!" dismissal.

 

[charles cure]

Regardless of the method by which Jesus was conceived, it would have been very risky to document and claim that He was born of a virgin.

no it wouldn't have been. around that same period and before there were dozens of religions that made similar claims about their gods. the best example is the isis/osiris cult in which isis magically gives birth to her child Horus. the archetype of a dying/rising man god is also echoed in that religious tradition as isis raises her husband osiris from the dead after he has been placed in a tomb. much like the crucifixion and resurrection of christ. this was a common theme in pagan religions around the middle east and africa at the time jesus is supposed to have live. the ishtar/adonis cult shared these themes as well. it wasn't risky to claim this, shit it was almost what people would have expected from a new religion at the time. this story about the crucifixion and resurrection was probably fabricated in part to echo the themes of these other religions and make the new philosophy of jesus easier to accept among would-be followers.

 

[ggazoo]

no it wouldn't have been. around that same period and before there were dozens of religions that made similar claims about their gods. the best example is the isis/osiris cult in which isis magically gives birth to her child Horus. the archetype of a dying/rising man god is also echoed in that religious tradition as isis raises her husband osiris from the dead after he has been placed in a tomb. much like the crucifixion and resurrection of christ. this was a common theme in pagan religions around the middle east and africa at the time jesus is supposed to have live. the ishtar/adonis cult shared these themes as well. it wasn't risky to claim this, shit it was almost what people would have expected from a new religion at the time. this story about the crucifixion and resurrection was probably fabricated in part to echo the themes of these other religions and make the new philosophy of jesus easier to accept among would-be followers.

This is extremley debateable. The Old Testament predicted how Jesus would arrive on earth. And the OT is old than the Horus story (albeit not by much).

 

[charles cure]

This is extremley debateable. The Old Testament predicted how Jesus would arrive on earth. And the OT is old than the Horus story (albeit not by much).

you have missed the point. whether or not the motif of miraculous or virgin birth started in the egyptian religion or not is irrelevant. the fact is that it was a common theme in religious cults in that area for centuries. of course jesus arrives on earth in the way that the OT says he will. jesus was a religious teacher, he knew how the messiah was supposed to arrive and his backstory was made to coincide with prophecy because it would lend credibility to his ministry. there were probably no less than 100 other figures who did the same thing before and after jesus.

and as for most of it, its not debateable. it is a fact that the miraculous birth and a dying/rising man god were religious themes in the area for centuries and that the thread can be followed all the way up to christianity.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: This has been hashed and rehashed many a time on this forum. The word "virgin" has nothing to do with "chastity." It has everything to do with being a "young woman" or "alma." Putting a 21st century definition with a 1st century word makes it all a big lie.

 

[charles cure]

*************
M*W: This has been hashed and rehashed many a time on this forum. The word "virgin" has nothing to do with "chastity." It has everything to do with being a "young woman" or "alma." Putting a 21st century definition with a 1st century word makes it all a big lie.

the word was obviously interpreted to mean virgin long before the 21st century, as the immaculate conception has been around for a while as a christian concept.

however, i agree that it is probably a mistranslation. and even if it isn't, the idea itself still would not have been shocking, as it did not originate with christianity or judaism, and was central to many religions for a long period of time.

 

[r0kan]

Informed Christians don't point to some big entity called "The Bible" as it is presented today, but to the individual texts, Greek manuscripts of which are known right back to the 2nd Century, which, historical document-wise, is pretty bloody good.

I am perfectly aware of what the evidence is and how does this Greek document prove anything except that it contains some bible fables ?

It's too easy, in my view, to spout off against the ignorant Christians, the uninformed Christians, and most specifically the "inerrant Bible" Christians. As zeeebra pointed out, there are plenty of intelligent and well informed people who know perfectly well that the New Testament was at no point written by eyewitnesses, but who find no contradiction with being Christians and holding their beliefs. What are your arguments against them?

that belief is blind...

Very very little fully accepted ancient history is based on "eyewitness accounts". How are the Gospel accounts less acceptable than other documents such as the histories of Tacitus and Suetonius and Dio Cassius?

That depends on what Tacitus or Suetonius wrote which is not the issue ?

The issue is that of bible which contains stories and myths well known in the pre-christian world. Hence it cannot be trusted as a historical document describing real events, except the reality that christians believed in weird stories and mythologies.

And this could actually be taken as an indication of veracity. Different people do see different things in different ways.

Contradictions do not and cannot point veracity of a text, but can only point that the information is second hand and not so trustworthy. Besides one has to consider the earliest mauscripts were several decades apart from each other. Hence one can conclude that these are merely passed through several oral traditions(myths).

In any case, you are raising specifics and you need to point to specific evidence.

What specifics ?

What do you mean by "The Resurrection"? Do you mean the post-Easter discovery of the empty tomb? Or the appearances of Jesus to various apostles?

Does it really matter ? Consider either of them or both.

What christians do not understand that the autheticity of bible itself can be questioned based on these contradictions.

What do you mean by "autheticity of bible" ? How can bunch of mythical tales be authentic ?

This is just arrogance, the kind that I find very annoying coming from my fellow atheists. There are plenty of Christians not only intelligent enough to understand that the Bible can be questioned by reference to its contradictions, but they are intelligent enough to defend the Bible based on those same contradictions. Some of them post right here. I don't agree with their positions, their conclusions, their faith or their presuppositions, but I wouldn't dismiss them as so stupid as to "not understand" that the Bible can be questioned. The Bible has been questioned for two millennia - most Christians are more than well aware of this fact.

In what way contradictions, say in the ressurection part of gospels prove bible as authentic ? What do you mean by authenticity here anyway ? Not that all those mythological fables are true in anyway. The point is existence of similar tales in other pre-christian religions in that area.

You've not here demonstrated how those oral traditions are specifically based on no realistic basis at all. And the Christians, even the least informed, are well aware of the distance from the death of Jesus to the Gospel accounts.

Why should the bible fables be thought to be based on realistic events ? Absolutely no reason.

On the other side there is existence of similar tales in other pre-christian religions in that area. Most probably christian oral traditions are also based on fables like those and there is no reason to assume them as true just as we assume stories about Mithra etc. to be false.

Hence the conclusion based on the absence of any contemporary evidence.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from what you've written, since what you wrote was more a diatribe against Christians than a reasoned argument from a close consideration of source materials.

What source material ? bible and/or Greek docs ???

Which part of my argument is diatribe ? Perhaps you do not understand my arguments at all.

The Resurrection, as depicted in the Gospels, as a miracle, as one man coming back to life after having died .... does not require close reading of texts in order to be dismissed as an accurate depiction of events. The very fact that a miracle is stated to have occurred is quite reason enough for most people, including many critical scholars, to rule out the events as portrayed.

My arguments are directed towards christians who believe resurrection to be true(not the people who reject it) and that bible stories are actual events witnessed by apostles. Now read my arguments.

But this is not where you dismiss the whole tale out of hand, this is where you admit there is a genuine mystery.

This is your assumption.

If Jesus died, what the hell did the apostles see and report as his resurrection? There are simply too many accounts.

Exactly this is the arguments christians give and which is what my entire post demolishes. The so called accounts are all entirely based on oral traditions and fables. There are no real documents ascribed to any eye witness testimonies. The earliest document is dated several decades after the death of jesus etc. That there is no reason to assume those oral traditions were based on reality for similar mythological stories existed in other traditions or religions of that area etc.

Earl Doherty believes that the whole Jesus story was made up out of whole cloth - that there never was such a person, and that the earliest person to write about him, the apostle Paul (who never claims to have met him, incidentally) was not writing about a literal life story, but of events which took place in some kind of mystical Heaven (not the Heaven, but just a heaven, apparently).

Doherty can believe what he wants. Paul can believe he saw jesus etc. None of these may be reality.

A.N. Wilson believes that the Gospel accounts of Jesus being seen by various different apostles and groups of apostles after his death, can possibly be accounted for by James the brother of Jesus, who presumably resembled him in some way, plus a lot of wishful thinking and mass hysteria on the part of the apostles.

Possibilities....

My view has always been that the "death" of Jesus was always suspiciously quick, and that consequently it is possible that the events as described really did take place, or something very like them - but that Jesus had not been dead in the first place. I myself am not amongst those who believe that Jesus either travelled to Gaul with Magdalene, nor that he joined the Essenes at Qumran.

That the Resurrection was not a literal divine manifestation is a perfectly reasonable position to take. But there is a great deal more to be read from the texts, and any number of theories as to what it signifies, in an historical sense, than simpleminded "it's a fairy tale! it's a fairy tale!" dismissal.

The entire argument stems from putting too much faith(belief) into bible. There is no reason to presume bible to describe real time events.

Also since none of the Greek documents belong to jsus' contemporary time, it can be assumed to be based on oral traditions. The contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible clearly point to different authors writing different stories over several decades and probably mixing pagan mythologies(like that of Mithra etc.) with bible fables. It is logical that such contradictions stem from oral traditions. What is so difficult about repeating about one central point, namely ressurection. That is what all christian believers were taught to believe from the 2nd century perhaps.

 

[Iasion]

the word was obviously interpreted to mean virgin long before the 21st century, as the immaculate conception has been around for a while as a christian concept.

Hmmm.

The Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception are NOT the same - this is a very common confusion.

The Immaculate Conception refers to the (untainted by original sin) conception of Mary by her mother Anne. This doctrine was created in 1854.

Iasion

 

[Silas]

Informed Christians don't point to some big entity called "The Bible" as it is presented today, but to the individual texts, Greek manuscripts of which are known right back to the 2nd Century, which, historical document-wise, is pretty bloody good.

I am perfectly aware of what the evidence is and how does this Greek document prove anything except that it contains some bible fables?

Your original statement - that Christians refer to their Bible for historical backup, was just you being flip, then? I notice in this response you have considerably tidied up your style.

This is a science forum, on which we happen to be on a religious discussion page. We like scientific thoroughness in our contributors (though obviously we don't get it from those who are incapable. I don't judge you to be incapable of rigour). If you are going to make an argument, that argument has to be coherent, based on accurate representations and backed up with evidence. Arguments based on one-dimensional representations of "Christians" as ignorant fairy-tale believers should be no more acceptable than preachy Christians coming here and answering everything with reference to Scripture.

It's too easy, in my view, to spout off against the ignorant Christians, the uninformed Christians, and most specifically the "inerrant Bible" Christians. As zeeebra pointed out, there are plenty of intelligent and well informed people who know perfectly well that the New Testament was at no point written by eyewitnesses, but who find no contradiction with being Christians and holding their beliefs. What are your arguments against them?

that belief is blind...

Whoopee do. I'm not a Christian or a believer in God, and I'm aware of how blind belief is. Your OP is not a substantial enough argument.

Very very little fully accepted ancient history is based on "eyewitness accounts". How are the Gospel accounts less acceptable than other documents such as the histories of Tacitus and Suetonius and Dio Cassius?

That depends on what Tacitus or Suetonius wrote which is not the issue ?

It is exactly the issue when it comes to determining the value of the NT documents as a description of some kind of history.

The issue is that of bible which contains stories and myths well known in the pre-christian world. Hence it cannot be trusted as a historical document describing real events, except the reality that christians believed in weird stories and mythologies.

Again, this is too sweeping a statement. The Resurrection stories involve people seeing a living Jesus again. Since he was supposed to have died, this constituted a definite miracle. Of course there have been similar previous myths, and the specifics of how the Resurrection story is told may well reflect older traditions. But this is true of a great deal of written history. Miracles have been attributed to various Caesars, and a lot of those were specifically tied in to particular deities and their mythologies. It's the way people wrote historical tales in those days. But

And this could actually be taken as an indication of veracity. Different people do see different things in different ways.

Contradictions do not and cannot point veracity of a text, but can only point that the information is second hand and not so trustworthy. Besides one has to consider the earliest mauscripts were several decades apart from each other. Hence one can conclude that these are merely passed through several oral traditions(myths).

I don't disagree, except that you jump to a conclusion. Just because the Resurrection is a "miracle tale" and cannot possibly represent a reality as it is depicted does not mean that you can simply dismiss the writings that exist, without examining them closely to deduce clues as to what might actually have happened.

In any case, you are raising specifics and you need to point to specific evidence.

What specifics ?

Well, some actual Gospel quotations would be useful, plus references to the Mithra and Osiris myths you referred to, ie what actually happened in those myths?

What do you mean by "The Resurrection"? Do you mean the post-Easter discovery of the empty tomb? Or the appearances of Jesus to various apostles?

Does it really matter ? Consider either of them or both.

Just, "there's some unbelievable story about a guy who walked out of his tomb.", eh? I'm asking you to consider the tales and to come back with a bit more substance.

What christians do not understand that the autheticity of bible itself can be questioned based on these contradictions.

What do you mean by "autheticity of bible" ? How can bunch of mythical tales be authentic ?

Apologies for my original mistype, it was you who said "What christians do not understand..." etc, and the next part is my response to that.

This is just arrogance, the kind that I find very annoying coming from my fellow atheists. There are plenty of Christians not only intelligent enough to understand that the Bible can be questioned by reference to its contradictions, but they are intelligent enough to defend the Bible based on those same contradictions. Some of them post right here. I don't agree with their positions, their conclusions, their faith or their presuppositions, but I wouldn't dismiss them as so stupid as to "not understand" that the Bible can be questioned. The Bible has been questioned for two millennia - most Christians are more than well aware of this fact.

In what way contradictions, say in the ressurection part of gospels prove bible as authentic ? What do you mean by authenticity here anyway ? Not that all those mythological fables are true in anyway. The point is existence of similar tales in other pre-christian religions in that area.

To reiterate the point, I was not arguing the authenticity of the gospels. I was arguing about your statement "Christians don't understand that the authenticity of their bible can be questioned." Christians do understand that. Many of them understand that better than you do.

You've not here demonstrated how those oral traditions are specifically based on no realistic basis at all. And the Christians, even the least informed, are well aware of the distance from the death of Jesus to the Gospel accounts.

Why should the bible fables be thought to be based on realistic events ? Absolutely no reason.

Only for people who want to throw away all writing as being worthless if it's in anyway demonstrably fictional. I myself don't believe in Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson, but by god I've learned a great deal about Victorian society from reading the stories about them. Your approach throws out the baby with the bathwater.

On the other side there is existence of similar tales in other pre-christian religions in that area. Most probably christian oral traditions are also based on fables like those and there is no reason to assume them as true just as we assume stories about Mithra etc. to be false.

You see, this is the arguable point. I don't know the stories about Mithra, but it's an error to assume they are false, or not based on some kind of reality - the reality of the original tale writer. The Gospel tales deal with outright magical and miraculous events, but those events are placed in a valid contemporary context that certainly contains sufficient veracity for me not to dismiss everything in them out of hand.

Hence the conclusion based on the absence of any contemporary evidence.

But you haven't demonstrated your knowledge of that evidence or lack of it. You haven't shown what it is you know other than that you have stated there are parallels between the Jesus story and previous mythology. You haven't even said what those parallels are other than "Resurrection tales", which is not sufficient.

My principle gripe with your OP is that you keep reaching "conclusions" when you have barely stated a discussion point. All you have said is that the stories are fables, but you haven't really shown that you have read either the Gospel stories or the fables that they are supposed to be based on. You've begun a valid discussion, but you keep making "conclusions", when nothing is concluded except your obvious dislike of Christians and Christianity.

Your conclusion doesn't follow from what you've written, since what you wrote was more a diatribe against Christians than a reasoned argument from a close consideration of source materials. ”



What source material ? bible and/or Greek docs ???

Which part of my argument is diatribe ? Perhaps you do not understand my arguments at all.

No, r0kan, perhaps you do not understand the necessary steps that need to be taken in order to make a substantial case.

As to diatribe, I based that description of your dismissive ways with "Christians".

Christians conveniently brush aside the contradicting accounts of the four gospels
...
What christians do not understand that the autheticity of bible itself can be questioned based on these contradictions.

....
Hence there is every possibility for bible faking ressurection from these fairy tales.

Conclusion:
There is no evidence for ressurection and hence christianity is another fairy tale.

You don't seem to care that your remarks are stereotyping, dismissive and verging on inflammatory, for people who are Christians. I'm not one, but members of my family are, and friends are, and I wouldn't like them to see that kind of thing in print.

The Resurrection, as depicted in the Gospels, as a miracle, as one man coming back to life after having died .... does not require close reading of texts in order to be dismissed as an accurate depiction of events. The very fact that a miracle is stated to have occurred is quite reason enough for most people, including many critical scholars, to rule out the events as portrayed.

My arguments are directed towards christians who believe resurrection to be true(not the people who reject it) and that bible stories are actual events witnessed by apostles. Now read my arguments.

I've read your posts. I haven't seen any arguments. Some arrogance, and patronising, and insults. That the Gospels are not eyewitness events is not an argument. That there is a certain amount of mythologising is not an argument, without substantial point-to-point crossreference.

But this is not where you dismiss the whole tale out of hand, this is where you admit there is a genuine mystery.

This is your assumption.

Oh, well, obviously you've proved the entire sequence of events beyond all reasonable doubt, so no mystery after all! :bugeye:

If Jesus died, what the hell did the apostles see and report as his resurrection? There are simply too many accounts.

Exactly this is the arguments christians give and which is what my entire post demolishes.

This is the point. You demolished nothing. And I speak as an atheist.

The so called accounts are all entirely based on oral traditions and fables. There are no real documents ascribed to any eye witness testimonies. The earliest document is dated several decades after the death of jesus etc. That there is no reason to assume those oral traditions were based on reality for similar mythological stories existed in other traditions or religions of that area etc.

There is no reason to assume as you do that the stories are not based on some kind of reality.

Earl Doherty believes that the whole Jesus story was made up out of whole cloth - that there never was such a person, and that the earliest person to write about him, the apostle Paul (who never claims to have met him, incidentally) was not writing about a literal life story, but of events which took place in some kind of mystical Heaven (not the Heaven, but just a heaven, apparently).

Doherty can believe what he wants. Paul can believe he saw jesus etc. None of these may be reality.

I was highlighting Doherty as an argument you'd find agreement with. Amazingly you used the word "may" - hallelujah, you've admitted there might be some doubt about your position!

Possibilities....

My view has always been that the "death" of Jesus was always suspiciously quick, and that consequently it is possible that the events as described really did take place, or something very like them - but that Jesus had not been dead in the first place. I myself am not amongst those who believe that Jesus either travelled to Gaul with Magdalene, nor that he joined the Essenes at Qumran.

That the Resurrection was not a literal divine manifestation is a perfectly reasonable position to take. But there is a great deal more to be read from the texts, and any number of theories as to what it signifies, in an historical sense, than simpleminded "it's a fairy tale! it's a fairy tale!" dismissal.

The entire argument stems from putting too much faith(belief) into bible. There is no reason to presume bible to describe real time events.

You still haven't justified calling the whole thing "a fairy tale". I don't "presume" the bible describes real time events, I read what it says and make a judgement. You see "Resurrection" and dismiss the whole thing as untrue.

Also since none of the Greek documents belong to jsus' contemporary time, it can be assumed to be based on oral traditions. The contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible clearly point to different authors writing different stories over several decades and probably mixing pagan mythologies(like that of Mithra etc.) with bible fables. It is logical that such contradictions stem from oral traditions. What is so difficult about repeating about one central point, namely ressurection. That is what all christian believers were taught to believe from the 2nd century perhaps.

You say, "The contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible clearly point to different authors writing different stories over several decades and probably mixing pagan mythologies with bible fables." Well, the non-contradictions and the non-inconsistencies in the bible clearly point to different authors having written stories based on some mixture of second hand accounts of memories of real events, mixed in with some dramatisation, some fictionalisation and some mythmaking. But very probably some kind of real event is at its basis, like the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Based on that kind of consistency throughout the whole Gospel tale, we come to the tales of seeing Jesus alive. For you, the whole idea is so fantastical it can be dismissed. That's fine for you, but I feel there is a genuine mystery here that needs a more substantial explanation (and not "Jesus was the son of God, duh!" that I might get from certain Christians).

In short, you didn't make a substantial argument, you didn't do more than mention other mythologies, you erroneously "came to conclusions" that weren't warranted, and you were extremely arrogant in the process! So, that's pretty much my main problem with your OP.

 

[charles cure]

Informed Christians don't point to some big entity called "The Bible" as it is presented today, but to the individual texts, Greek manuscripts of which are known right back to the 2nd Century, which, historical document-wise, is pretty bloody good.

however, the majority of lay christians and even many popular evangelical preachers do not qualify as informed christians, rather more as pathetically misinformed christians. the whole protestant tradition is based on every individual's right and ability to interpret scripture for themselves and to develop a relationship with god through that understanding. this understanding was promoted by allowing people to read either the latin vulgate or the KJV or one of those translated into some other vernacular. this is far from any interpretation of "real meaning" promulgated by any 2nd century greek texts. so who really cares what informed christians think if they manifestly fail to impart that understanding to the MAJORITY of christians.

It's too easy, in my view, to spout off against the ignorant Christians, the uninformed Christians, and most specifically the "inerrant Bible" Christians. As zeeebra pointed out, there are plenty of intelligent and well informed people who know perfectly well that the New Testament was at no point written by eyewitnesses, but who find no contradiction with being Christians and holding their beliefs. What are your arguments against them?

i think that it's far too easy for "informed christians" to dismiss ignorant chrsitians as ineffectual or unimportant as far as debates about the veracity of the bible go. informed christians may be secure in their knowledge that the bible is not the direct word of god and that that fact does not preclude belief; howver, try telling that to a seventh day adventist congregation in tennesee or to the people at one of those 30,000 strong megachurches in georgia. they will swear up and down that you are wrong. especially in america, christian congregations are not made up of ivory tower academics, but people who take the KJV as the inerrant word of god, or people who believe that the pope is gods earthly representative. these people are the ones who make decisions about how to raise their kids based on what is defined as "good" and "sinful" in the KJV, mistranslated or not. these are the people that develop biases against homosexuality and protest abortion based on bible passages being the inerrant word of god. that's what makes a difference. the fact is that the majority of bibles that people read throughout the US and europe are utter distortions of the greek originals. basic christian belief is based on those erroneuos versions rather than the more correct ones, and even though "informed christians" know this, the greek septuagint still isn't more popular than the KJV and most lay christians are unaware that the bible is riddled with flaw and error. in fact, most lay christians are ignorant of the whole history of their own belief to begin with.

Very very little fully accepted ancient history is based on "eyewitness accounts". How are the Gospel accounts less acceptable than other documents such as the histories of Tacitus and Suetonius and Dio Cassius?

arguably, the early christians had more of a motive to falsify history in order to fulfill an agenda. its also convenient that none of the gospel accounts or many of the other events in the NT (or even jesus's existence for that matter) are corroborated by contemporary histories. there is little or no evidence for the veracity or falsity of the gospels, but much disagreement among them, and also much disagreement with them on the part of other gospels written around the same time but not included in the bible. tacitus and suetonius at least can be bolstered by some historical evidence. and in addition to that, our laws and society do not reflect directives laid out by tacitus or suetonius, but they were and are influenced by directives found in the bible.

 

[charles cure]

Hmmm.

The Virgin Birth and the Immaculate Conception are NOT the same - this is a very common confusion.

The Immaculate Conception refers to the (untainted by original sin) conception of Mary by her mother Anne. This doctrine was created in 1854.

Iasion

i suppose what i meant to say rahter than immaculate conception was incarnation or the concept of jesus having been "begotten, not made" wither way....i still meant what i meant. thanks for the correction though.

 

[Silas]

however, the majority of lay christians and even many popular evangelical preachers do not qualify as informed christians, rather more as pathetically misinformed christians. the whole protestant tradition is based on every individual's right and ability to interpret scripture for themselves and to develop a relationship with god through that understanding. this understanding was promoted by allowing people to read either the latin vulgate or the KJV or one of those translated into some other vernacular. this is far from any interpretation of "real meaning" promulgated by any 2nd century greek texts. so who really cares what informed christians think if they manifestly fail to impart that understanding to the MAJORITY of christians.



i think that it's far too easy for "informed christians" to dismiss ignorant chrsitians as ineffectual or unimportant as far as debates about the veracity of the bible go. informed christians may be secure in their knowledge that the bible is not the direct word of god and that that fact does not preclude belief; howver, try telling that to a seventh day adventist congregation in tennesee or to the people at one of those 30,000 strong megachurches in georgia. they will swear up and down that you are wrong. especially in america, christian congregations are not made up of ivory tower academics, but people who take the KJV as the inerrant word of god, or people who believe that the pope is gods earthly representative. these people are the ones who make decisions about how to raise their kids based on what is defined as "good" and "sinful" in the KJV, mistranslated or not. these are the people that develop biases against homosexuality and protest abortion based on bible passages being the inerrant word of god. that's what makes a difference. the fact is that the majority of bibles that people read throughout the US and europe are utter distortions of the greek originals. basic christian belief is based on those erroneuos versions rather than the more correct ones, and even though "informed christians" know this, the greek septuagint still isn't more popular than the KJV and most lay christians are unaware that the bible is riddled with flaw and error. in fact, most lay christians are ignorant of the whole history of their own belief to begin with.



arguably, the early christians had more of a motive to falsify history in order to fulfill an agenda. its also convenient that none of the gospel accounts or many of the other events in the NT (or even jesus's existence for that matter) are corroborated by contemporary histories. there is little or no evidence for the veracity or falsity of the gospels, but much disagreement among them, and also much disagreement with them on the part of other gospels written around the same time but not included in the bible. tacitus and suetonius at least can be bolstered by some historical evidence. and in addition to that, our laws and society do not reflect directives laid out by tacitus or suetonius, but they were and are influenced by directives found in the bible.

charles, I'd appreciate it if you didn't waste your time and mine by telling me a lot of stuff I already know. My argument was against the style and substance of the OP. "Christians don't understand this" etc. Most Christians of my acquaintance would make mincemeat of r0kan's post without even making baseless arguments from Authority!

And what the hell did you mean by this?

i think that it's far too easy for "informed christians" to dismiss ignorant chrsitians as ineffectual or unimportant as far as debates about the veracity of the bible go.

Are you under the impression that I'm a Christian, simply because I didn't toe the "party line" and say "Word, right on!" to whatever nonsense gets written in the name of Atheism?

Promulgating a bible-is-fiction position solely because the Christians run the Government, or the Christians are interfering with the Constitution - is no reason at all. I stand fast against all Christian interference with any kind of government or the destruction of proper scientific education. That does not give me the right to mindlessly insult all Christians as believers in "fairy tales". I happen to consider that there is a difference of degree between a religious origin tale, they all have them, and a fairy-tale which was concocted for manifestly different reasons.

Hey, believe it or not, I'm pretty damn happy with "our laws and society". If a common respect for all life and the belief in the equality of all humans derives ultimately from Judaeo-Christianity, then who's the worse for that? Conversely, we fortunately have democratic institutions and freedom of speech, neither of which were derived from any Abrahamic religion, but rather from the pagan Greeks.

I'm interested in scholastic truth, not the pursuit of one particular goal, true or not, just because today's society has a Christian bias. Those are not valid reasons for pursuing any kind of rational endeavour.

 

[r0kan]

Your original statement - that Christians refer to their Bible for historical backup, was just you being flip, then? I notice in this response you have considerably tidied up your style.

How is that ? Infact christians do consider bible as historical document and that by bible no one refers to the book printed in this century. It is obvious the reference is to the documents traced back to 2nd century and not the book printed in say 1999. I thought this was obvious to everyone except you, as no other person questoned.

This is a science forum, on which we happen to be on a religious discussion page. We like scientific thoroughness in our contributors (though obviously we don't get it from those who are incapable. I don't judge you to be incapable of rigour). If you are going to make an argument, that argument has to be coherent, based on accurate representations and backed up with evidence. Arguments based on one-dimensional representations of "Christians" as ignorant fairy-tale believers should be no more acceptable than preachy Christians coming here and answering everything with reference to Scripture.

Refer my arguments once again. It attacks on a very speific issue in bible, namely ressurection and that there is no evidence for this fairy tale and that all the stories stem from other mythological stories.

Whoopee do. I'm not a Christian or a believer in God, and I'm aware of how blind belief is. Your OP is not a substantial enough argument.

Who said you are ? The simple reason that all the ressurection stories popped up after several decades of jesus' supposed living(regrdless of his existence being a reality) and no presence of contemporary document proving even jesus' existence much less this ressurection stiory is proof enough there was much mythologizing of such accounts.

It is exactly the issue when it comes to determining the value of the NT documents as a description of some kind of history.

Refer to my first post. It clearly refers to ressurection stories as bible fables.

Again, this is too sweeping a statement. The Resurrection stories involve people seeing a living Jesus again. Since he was supposed to have died, this constituted a definite miracle. Of course there have been similar previous myths, and the specifics of how the Resurrection story is told may well reflect older traditions. But this is true of a great deal of written history. Miracles have been attributed to various Caesars, and a lot of those were specifically tied in to particular deities and their mythologies. It's the way people wrote historical tales in those days.

Again..These are stories about people seeing jesus again and none of these were contemporary to jesus' time. All these stories appeared after several decades of jesus' supposed death. As all these stories were based on some oral traditions and stories existing before Why would anybody assume these accounts are based on reality then ? Remember the absence of any contemporary documents establishing even jesus' existence.

I don't disagree, except that you jump to a conclusion. Just because the Resurrection is a "miracle tale" and cannot possibly represent a reality as it is depicted does not mean that you can simply dismiss the writings that exist, without examining them closely to deduce clues as to what might actually have happened.

All my arguments were directed exactly against such an argument. There is no need to assume these stories to be based on reality either. On the other hand my arguments also state why they need not be considered to be based on reality.

1. None of the Greek documents belong to cotemporary time
2. Presence of similar other mythological stories during that time

Well, some actual Gospel quotations would be useful, plus references to the Mithra and Osiris myths you referred to, ie what actually happened in those myths?

How is it relevant here, when I am referring to the "idea of ressurection" being around for a long time. It is common knowledge that Mithra, Osiris are believed to have been ressurected. The specifics are irrelevant to discussion here.

Just, "there's some unbelievable story about a guy who walked out of his tomb.", eh? I'm asking you to consider the tales and to come back with a bit more substance.

Why don't you mention how your question about disappearance from tomb or jesus alleged appearnce matters anyway ?

Apologies for my original mistype, it was you who said "What christians do not understand..." etc, and the next part is my response to that.

To reiterate the point, I was not arguing the authenticity of the gospels. I was arguing about your statement "Christians don't understand that the authenticity of their bible can be questioned." Christians do understand that. Many of them understand that better than you do.

Yo can imagine what you want to. It is their belief and emotional state that would drive them to think that ressurection may be based on reality. There is no need to assume resurrection to be any kind of reality.

Only for people who want to throw away all writing as being worthless if it's in anyway demonstrably fictional. I myself don't believe in Sherlock Holmes and Doctor Watson, but by god I've learned a great deal about Victorian society from reading the stories about them. Your approach throws out the baby with the bathwater.

Bible has no reality beyond describing the state of mind of christian society.

You see, this is the arguable point. I don't know the stories about Mithra, but it's an error to assume they are false, or not based on some kind of reality - the reality of the original tale writer. The Gospel tales deal with outright magical and miraculous events, but those events are placed in a valid contemporary context that certainly contains sufficient veracity for me not to dismiss everything in them out of hand.

Again for umpteenth time...The earlist document in bible is dated several decades after alleged cricifixion. Why is there no contemprary document wither religious or secular establishing directly even the existence of jesus ?

But you haven't demonstrated your knowledge of that evidence or lack of it. You haven't shown what it is you know other than that you have stated there are parallels between the Jesus story and previous mythology. You haven't even said what those parallels are other than "Resurrection tales", which is not sufficient.

My argument is entirely based on absence of documents belonging to contemporary time and also the presence of similar mythological stories as ressurection mentuoned in bible. The lack of contemporary evidence shows the stories are all fables.

My principle gripe with your OP is that you keep reaching "conclusions" when you have barely stated a discussion point. All you have said is that the stories are fables, but you haven't really shown that you have read either the Gospel stories or the fables that they are supposed to be based on. You've begun a valid discussion, but you keep making "conclusions", when nothing is concluded except your obvious dislike of Christians and Christianity.

Repeat my above argument....

No, r0kan, perhaps you do not understand the necessary steps that need to be taken in order to make a substantial case.

As to diatribe, I based that description of your dismissive ways with "Christians".

Absence of contemporary docs as evidence.

You don't seem to care that your remarks are stereotyping, dismissive and verging on inflammatory, for people who are Christians. I'm not one, but members of my family are, and friends are, and I wouldn't like them to see that kind of thing in print.

Are stating facts inflammatory ? So you are getting emotional about you are family and hence all these non-issue statements and personal attacks. Again when I stated "Christians" I wanted to be referring to the group and how else do you want me to address those believers.

I've read your posts. I haven't seen any arguments. Some arrogance, and patronising, and insults. That the Gospels are not eyewitness events is not an argument. That there is a certain amount of mythologising is not an argument, without substantial point-to-point crossreference.

I do not understand how stating facts about a group amounts to insults ? Infact christians believe bible(part or whole) as a document establishing evidence of their beliefs.

Oh, well, obviously you've proved the entire sequence of events beyond all reasonable doubt, so no mystery after all! :bugeye:

This is the point. You demolished nothing. And I speak as an atheist.

Then why do you bother even to reply, unless you are just spouting emotional rants because of your assumotion that you family members miught get hurt of their feelings.

There is no reason to assume as you do that the stories are not based on some kind of reality.

That reality is nothing more than similar belief systems(resurrection) existing in other cultures.

I was highlighting Doherty as an argument you'd find agreement with. Amazingly you used the word "may" - hallelujah, you've admitted there might be some doubt about your position!

I used "may" as I have not read what Doherty actually said. It is not a doubt about my position on resurrection.

You still haven't justified calling the whole thing "a fairy tale". I don't "presume" the bible describes real time events, I read what it says and make a judgement. You see "Resurrection" and dismiss the whole thing as untrue.

Again

1. All bible documents establishing resurrection are dated decades after supposed cricifixion.
2. Presence of similar resurrection fables around that time.
3. Contradictions and/or inconsistencies in stories

From both those points one can deduct that resuurection is based purely on fables.

You say, "The contradictions and inconsistencies in the bible clearly point to different authors writing different stories over several decades and probably mixing pagan mythologies with bible fables." Well, the non-contradictions and the non-inconsistencies in the bible clearly point to different authors having written stories based on some mixture of second hand accounts of memories of real events, mixed in with some dramatisation, some fictionalisation and some mythmaking. But very probably some kind of real event is at its basis, like the trial and crucifixion of Jesus. Based on that kind of consistency throughout the whole Gospel tale, we come to the tales of seeing Jesus alive. For you, the whole idea is so fantastical it can be dismissed. That's fine for you, but I feel there is a genuine mystery here that needs a more substantial explanation (and not "Jesus was the son of God, duh!" that I might get from certain Christians).

Non-inconsistencies, particularly on resurrection, offers no evidence to its reality. There are several other resurrection stories like that of Mithra, Osiris etc. The particulars of these stories are irrelevant here for the idea of resurrection was around for a long time.

In short, you didn't make a substantial argument, you didn't do more than mention other mythologies, you erroneously "came to conclusions" that weren't warranted, and you were extremely arrogant in the process! So, that's pretty much my main problem with your OP.

In my opinion you made no point at all to question my arguments. Just that you are hurt by my usage of word "christian" because your relatives are "christians".

Also I do not understand how coming to a conclusion amounts to being arrogant. My two or three points are enough and self consistent to demolish "christian" claims on resurrection. If christians and theor relatives cannot understand that it is not my problem.

1. All bible dicuments allegedly establishing resurrection were written decades after alleged cricifixion.
2. Inconsistencies/contradictions in bible establishing bibles' untrustworthy nature keeping aside the magical fables.
2. Presence of similar resurrection stories in other cultures or religions.

 

[charles cure]

charles, I'd appreciate it if you didn't waste your time and mine by telling me a lot of stuff I already know. My argument was against the style and substance of the OP. "Christians don't understand this" etc. Most Christians of my acquaintance would make mincemeat of r0kan's post without even making baseless arguments from Authority!

i don't think that you are right about that. most of what Rokan said seemed alright accept for maybe the part about a few people having written all the gospels. i mean maybe most chrsitians of your acquaintance could make mincemeat out of his post, but most christians in general wouldn't have a rebuttal for it at all except to claim that he is lying. there's no way your average christian parishoner knows enough about the bible to have a scriptural rebuttal to that or a justification for it. that's how i see it, because i know a lot of average people who call themselves christian and have hardly spent the time to crack the bible, let alone memorize lines of scripture. i think a lot of christians really don't understand how flawed and contradictory the bible is. they just cherry pick lines here and there to support an opinion and leave the rest of the text alone.

And what the hell did you mean by this?Are you under the impression that I'm a Christian, simply because I didn't toe the "party line" and say "Word, right on!" to whatever nonsense gets written in the name of Atheism?

silas, no offence, but what the fuck are you talking about? its a common argument that "informed christians" know about the errors in the bible and still believe. lots of christian apologists make this argument as if it suddenly negates the errors and flaws in the bible and repairs the ignorant laity's understanding of it. it does not. just because some "informed christians" see the failings of their holy book and are too stupid to put 2 and 2 together and stop believing in their sham of a religion is no line of reasoning for why it is ok to let people continue to rely on a pile of erroneous assumptions, tanslations, and editions as a basis for their beliefs. i don't believe in an atheist party line or any of that trash, nor did i think you were a christian, i was just offering my opinion on what i believe to be a fallacious argument that many christians use as a sheild against criticism of the bible.

Promulgating a bible-is-fiction position solely because the Christians run the Government, or the Christians are interfering with the Constitution - is no reason at all. I stand fast against all Christian interference with any kind of government or the destruction of proper scientific education. That does not give me the right to mindlessly insult all Christians as believers in "fairy tales". I happen to consider that there is a difference of degree between a religious origin tale, they all have them, and a fairy-tale which was concocted for manifestly different reasons.

i disagree again. i think it is perfectly alright to promulgate the bible-is-fiction position. firstly, because it is fiction. secondly, because the fact that christians are trying to alter law and governmental policy to reflect their religious values in a nation that forbids establishment of religion makes it urgent to inform people as to the actual nature of the bible so that they do not make a decision based on a belief that has no original basis in the belief system that they have accepted as their own. since their ministers and priests are not doing so, someone else should. there is about as much proof for any given aspect of christian belief as there is for most other fairy tales. it's really that simple. the bible may be historical fiction, threads of fact woven throughout it and all, but it remains a document that has no ability to claim that anyone writing the stories in it actually saw the events happen, or has any way to verify that they did indeed happen at all vis a vis third party sources. what do you call that Silas? non-fiction? due dilligence? probably not. i would speak out against it because i heartily disagree with many of the political positions bolstered by scripture, and i think that some of them have the potential to work toward the detriment of all of us.

Hey, believe it or not, I'm pretty damn happy with "our laws and society". If a common respect for all life and the belief in the equality of all humans derives ultimately from Judaeo-Christianity, then who's the worse for that? Conversely, we fortunately have democratic institutions and freedom of speech, neither of which were derived from any Abrahamic religion, but rather from the pagan Greeks.

i'm so glad to hear that you are content. i am not. common respect for life is a tenet central to almost every religion on earth to one degree or another, so i think it obvious that it doesn't derive from judeo-christianity, as it is more or less a logical and crucial keystone that allows civilization and collective society to develop. without it, there could be no society, and without a society, no organized religious beliefs. saying that that derives from a judeo-christian tradition would be to put the cart before the horse.
as for the belief in the equality of all humans being derived from that tradition, i think not. christians engaged in human slavery for hundreds of years, many times justifying their dehumanization of blacks or other ethnic groups on the basis of twisted interpretations of scripture. then years later, abolishionists used different interpretations of scripture to justify freeing slaves. contradiction abounds.

I'm interested in scholastic truth, not the pursuit of one particular goal, true or not, just because today's society has a Christian bias. Those are not valid reasons for pursuing any kind of rational endeavour.

you think what you want, but don't lash out because i disagree with how you couch the argument and agree with rokan to some extent. i didnt assume anything about you, just attempted to rebutt the argument that you were making because i thought it was incomplete. people decide what valid reasons are for themselves, you can't be the arbiter of that, and neither can i. all we do is attempt to persuade.

 

[Silas]

Let me respond to your conclusion first, Charles.

you think what you want, but don't lash out because i disagree with how you couch the argument and agree with rokan to some extent. i didnt assume anything about you, just attempted to rebutt the argument that you were making because i thought it was incomplete. people decide what valid reasons are for themselves, you can't be the arbiter of that, and neither can i. all we do is attempt to persuade.

I'll get on to why I thought you were making assumptions about me later. I'm not claiming to be any sort of arbiter. I agree that all we can do is attempt to persuade. It is my firm belief that we do not persuade people by characterising them as follows:

its a common argument that "informed christians" know about the errors in the bible and still believe. lots of christian apologists make this argument as if it suddenly negates the errors and flaws in the bible and repairs the ignorant laity's understanding of it. it does not. just because some "informed christians" see the failings of their holy book and are too stupid to put 2 and 2 together and stop believing in their sham of a religion is no line of reasoning for why it is ok to let people continue to rely on a pile of erroneous assumptions, tanslations, and editions as a basis for their beliefs.

Just because people don't have a desire to believe in something outside themselves that causes them to not necessarily look at everything in the same cold rational manner that you and I do, does not make them "too stupid", or even necessarily stupid at all. My position tries to be one of mutual respect. I had you down as one of those people who might argue from such a position, but you seem to be too willing to join the ranks of "lets just denigrate xians because, well, they're xians!" Well, I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

i disagree again. i think it is perfectly alright to promulgate the bible-is-fiction position. firstly, because it is fiction.

Of course I'm not saying that you can't advocate a position if you believe in it.

secondly, because the fact that christians are trying to alter law and governmental policy to reflect their religious values in a nation that forbids establishment of religion makes it urgent to inform people as to the actual nature of the bible so that they do not make a decision based on a belief that has no original basis in the belief system that they have accepted as their own. since their ministers and priests are not doing so, someone else should. there is about as much proof for any given aspect of christian belief as there is for most other fairy tales. it's really that simple. the bible may be historical fiction, threads of fact woven throughout it and all, but it remains a document that has no ability to claim that anyone writing the stories in it actually saw the events happen, or has any way to verify that they did indeed happen at all vis a vis third party sources. what do you call that Silas? non-fiction? due dilligence? probably not. i would speak out against it because i heartily disagree with many of the political positions bolstered by scripture, and i think that some of them have the potential to work toward the detriment of all of us.

But you see here we have our problem. What if it turned out the other way? What if every word of the Bible turned out, in some currently impossible to imagine way, to be true? Can you advocate the promotion of unacceptable policies on the basis that they are founded on sacred texts that are true? Then don't advocate the rejection of their policies on the basis that the sacred texts are false. Those policies which we both are against are contrary to human advancement, to compassion, to common decency, to any idea of human justice. Whether the book is utterly fictional or not is irrelevant, since it is utterly impossible to prove either way. You just get Christians' backs up when you say their book is untrue. You just have to get them to see that it's incompatible with common humanity. (Best way to do that is to get them to read the bloody thing!)

Advocate the bible-is-fiction position if you wish, but do it for the right reasons.

 

[Silas]

It is exactly the issue when it comes to determining the value of the NT documents as a description of some kind of history.

Refer to my first post. It clearly refers to ressurection stories as bible fables.

This is my point, r0kan. You kind of assume your conclusion. I'm trying to determine the value of NT documents as historical documents. You're just pissing all over them. I'm not interested in the NT as a devotional text. But as a text or set of texts, it's endlessly fascinating.


You state and reiterate and reiterate time and time again the non-contemporaneous nature of the documents with regard to the tale they tell. The reason I reject that as a valid argument is because it pretty much wipes out all recorded history prior to 800CE. At least we actually have NT texts that are as old as c. 300CE. Everything non-Biblical we know of the period and beforehand is based on texts which are five hundred years younger at least. As to their presumed production "decades after the events", well, over two and a half decades ago I remember hearing about the death of John Lennon. I hope to live to a time when that event is fifty years in the past. Decades are practically nothing, that is the whole value of the NT as a historical document. Scarcely any other kind of paper-based history has anything like as good a record. That gives it some worth in a non-theological context.

Are stating facts inflammatory ?

Referring to stories the veracity of which you have doubts about, as "fairy stories", "fairytales" and "fables", amounts to inflammatory language, in my opinion.

Also I do not understand how coming to a conclusion amounts to being arrogant. My two or three points are enough and self consistent to demolish "christian" claims on resurrection. If christians and theor relatives cannot understand that it is not my problem.

But it is your problem. If you cannot make your case clearly enough and without denigratory comments about the intellgence of your opponents, then what is the point of your having posted? Why post a theory, if you have no interest in persuading people who do not share your views?

Well, some actual Gospel quotations would be useful, plus references to the Mithra and Osiris myths you referred to, ie what actually happened in those myths?

How is it relevant here, when I am referring to the "idea of ressurection" being around for a long time. It is common knowledge that Mithra, Osiris are believed to have been ressurected. The specifics are irrelevant to discussion here.

No, the specifics are relevant!! For heavens sake, everybody here is pretty much well informed to know that the origin of any kind of religious belief in the mind of humanity starts off with the concept of Resurrection. All the most ancient god-myths have Resurrection in them because of the cyclic nature of life - the passage of the sun through the sky, its "death" at night and "rebirth" in the morning, the annual passage of the seasons etc. It's not unnatural that Resurrection is part of the zeitgeist. But you need to talk specific details if you're really going to draw a significant and convincing parallel between those Resurrection tales and the Resurrection of Jesus as depicted in the Gospels and the rest of the NT.

What I would have hoped to see from you, r0kan, in terms of backup was something like this. Now, not exactly like that, because that takes a position that the Resurrection story as told about Jesus is original with Jesus and is not derived from other sources. It undoubtedly has a Christian bias. Nevertheless it is one of the most informative, thorough and clearly written articles on this issue that I've ever seen. It examines many different arguments for the mythological status of the Gospel stories, with cited sources from all sides. I'm not suggesting you accept what I say because this article follows the same reasoning, I'm saying that something at least half as well referenced to the substantial arguments should have been part of what you have posted. Just stating "Resurrection was a well known myth at the time, therefore Jesus's resurrection was a myth" is no better than saying, "Jesus died and rose again, look here it says so in the Bible!"

 

[charles cure]

My position tries to be one of mutual respect. I had you down as one of those people who might argue from such a position, but you seem to be too willing to join the ranks of "lets just denigrate xians because, well, they're xians!" Well, I'm still willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on that.

silas, for there to be a position of mutual respect, both sides have to respect each other. an adherent to a religion that takes the position that non-believers will suffer eternal torment does not qualify as someone who can ever have respect for what i think. sorry if that disappoints you.

But you see here we have our problem. What if it turned out the other way? What if every word of the Bible turned out, in some currently impossible to imagine way, to be true? Can you advocate the promotion of unacceptable policies on the basis that they are founded on sacred texts that are true? Then don't advocate the rejection of their policies on the basis that the sacred texts are false. Those policies which we both are against are contrary to human advancement, to compassion, to common decency, to any idea of human justice. Whether the book is utterly fictional or not is irrelevant, since it is utterly impossible to prove either way. You just get Christians' backs up when you say their book is untrue. You just have to get them to see that it's incompatible with common humanity. (Best way to do that is to get them to read the bloody thing!)

i disagree on two fronts. first of all, i think that the god portrayed in the bible is a cruel monster who unjustly tortures and besets humanity with all kinds of obstacles at his whim. creator or not, this being is involved in a sadistic game in the same way that a kid frying ants with a magnifying glass is. if it exists, then we are tragically foolish to attempt to follow its twisted rules and expect anything but random acts of vicious retribution that are utterly disproportionate to our transgressions.
secondly, the bible is a flasehood, and i can't believe that you think there is a possibility that it is true. there maybe a nugget of relative "truth" in it here and there, but the premise that an infallible and omnipresent god created the earth in six days and then when, for no apparent reason (considering god's infallibility) things went wrong with humanity, he incarnated himself into an avatar that was a poor carpenter born of a woman that never had sex and then had that person's body crucified and beaten in order to save the world from all of its sins - sins that he created to begin with - does not add up. even if we lived in some fucked up twilight dimension where there were remote shreds of proof for such a scenario, how can you not see that as the cruelest of all cosmic jokes? please. i refuse to call an elephant a tiger. the bible is false and i will not call it something else just to spare the feelings of people who want to poison the world with the arbitrary rules of their absurd fantasy land. atheism, paganism, secularism - none of these have ever been given respect in the eyes of the christian community, so how can you expect to successfully debate them by walking on eggshells?

you advocate for the dismissal of bad policies on the grounds that they are bad policies based on false assumptions and flawed logic, whether those assumptions and logic are biblical in nature or not is irrelevant.

Advocate the bible-is-fiction position if you wish, but do it for the right reasons.

i think i do.