Marduk is the TRUE god and all worshipping this Jesus are condemed to hell.
RainLover
fellow by a few millennia.
There is a group who 'seriously' believe in this God and they are
attempting to force schools to teach the story of Marduk and how he
created the earth and the sky. (something about slicing the terrible
beast Tiamat in half and throwing half up into the heavens and the
other half to the ground)
Now, they seem to only be pushing their God and creation theory in
schools that are under heavy pressure by Christians to include the
Jesus story in their schools.
Does anyone know the name of this group and how to join? I think they
are brilliant in their angle... If schools are going to teach the
Christian version of creation, then the same schools MUST teach of
Marduk.
Genius...
Anyone knowing about this group.... let us all know!
Thanks,
James, Seattle,
Tom Breton
> Marduk, the creator god of Babylonian times, predates this Jesus
> fellow by a few millennia.
>
> There is a group who 'seriously' believe in this God and they are
> attempting to force schools to teach the story of Marduk and how he
> created the earth and the sky. (something about slicing the terrible
> beast Tiamat in half and throwing half up into the heavens and the
> other half to the ground)
Yes, this is actually echoed at the very beginning of the bible
(Genesis 1:2, how's that for "toward the front"?)
> Now, they seem to only be pushing their God and creation theory in
> schools that are under heavy pressure by Christians to include the
> Jesus story in their schools.
>
> Does anyone know the name of this group and how to join? I think they
> are brilliant in their angle... If schools are going to teach the
> Christian version of creation, then the same schools MUST teach of
> Marduk.
Amusing. But I think the practical effect will be nil. It won't make
believers stop and think about how their own position is like that.
Ref the bunch that got a referendum on the (Colorado?) ballot that
would make some other stuff in Leviticus into law (No wearing a
garment of two materials (polyester), etc).
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
The Macho Milquetoast
news:m82mnvgpbchrlirop...@4ax.com...
> Marduk, the creator god of Babylonian times, predates this Jesus
> fellow by a few millennia.
Why bother replacing one cult with another? The cult of Marduk is no more
relevant than any other. Just a primitive myth to explain what the
Babylonians didn't understand. It also represents a turn away from goddess
and earth based religion to a patriarchal, sky based religion. All in all,
it's still no substitute for science and reason.
James
Malcolm
> fellow by a few millennia.
>
>
> There is a group who 'seriously' believe in this God and they are
> attempting to force schools to teach the story of Marduk and how he
> created the earth and the sky. (something about slicing the terrible
> beast Tiamat in half and throwing half up into the heavens and the
> other half to the ground)
>
"tehom" (as in "formless void" in Genesis 1) is etymologically related to
"Tiamat". Because in Genesis God also splits the heavens from the earth,
this indicates that the writers of this passage, called "P" or the priestly
source, got their cosmology from Babylon.
>
> Now, they seem to only be pushing their God and creation theory in
> schools that are under heavy pressure by Christians to include the
> Jesus story in their schools.
>
Genesis at all, it's important to mention Marduk because most academic
scholars are agreed that this is where the story came from.
Should you mention Genesis in schools? Well of course you must. How are you
going to teach literature - eg "Paradise Lost", "The Faerie Queene", "The
Lord of the Flies" - if the students know nothing of Christianity. What sort
of music course doesn't include "The Messiah", or the parts of the mass? How
are you going to teach 16th century history without some knowledge of what
is in the bible? In art, can religious images be excluded or, worse, taught
as abstract pictures? Even in science, normally when you teach an idea, like
the constant rate of acceleration of a falling body independent of its mass,
you teach something of the history of its discovery, such as Galileo on the
tower. For context, the students often need to know some religion.
For older children, there is no problem. They need to know about
Christianity, but teaching about a belief can be divorced from teaching that
the belief is true.
For younger children, it much more difficult to make this distinction,
particularly because the teacher himself usually has strong views on the
issues raised. The status of beliefs is subtle - on the existence of God
authorative voices are split. On Babylonian influence on Genesis 1, no
liberal Christian theologian doubts it, but there are many fundamentalist
and Jewish scholars who would deny it. On the truth of the Marduk fable
itself, there are no believers except for one small group who are just
pretending to believe to make a political point.
By teaching that "Marduk and Jesus have equal validity" the school is
effectively pushing atheism. By excluding Christianity from the curriculum
it is doing violence to the education of children who will enter a society
profoundly influenced by Christian culture. It also sends very confusing
messages, when something as important to young children as Christmas
receives no mention when they go to school.
American atheists think that the separation of state and religion is
essential for their liberty. In Britain we have a confessional state. What
this means in practise is that Christian parents can send their children to
Christian schools at public expense. State school pupils get a token one
period a week religious education. No-one monitors too closely whether
gospel stories are taught as fact, or whether Islam and Buddhism are taught
as of equal status to Christianity. The British situation is much better
than the highly politicised American one.
As a society we are not agreed about religion, so there are no easy answers
about what to teach young children.
dug
> As you probably know, but some people may be unaware, the Hebrew word
> "tehom" (as in "formless void" in Genesis 1) is etymologically related to
> "Tiamat". Because in Genesis God also splits the heavens from the earth,
> this indicates that the writers of this passage, called "P" or the priestly
> source, got their cosmology from Babylon.
Yeah, and Marduk sounds suspiciously like Mordecai, and Ishtar like
Esther, etc., etc. Which makes a huge mess of things if you base your
belief system on the bible as an archived newspaper. For other fun
mythological origins, pick up "Judaism for Dummies".
--doug
S.A.Joyce
properly teach Western history and culture, without acknowledging the
contributions (both positive and negative) of Christianity. Or Judaism.
Or Islam (since it controlled considerable portions of Europe at times,
and continues to have influence today). Or Hinduism (since European
interaction with the Indian subcontinent cannot be ignored). Or the
ancient religions of Rome, Greece, Persia, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, or
the religions of the Scandinavians, Celts, sub-Saharan Africans, and
native Americans, for that matter. And this consideration of the
historic role of religion may well entail providing a modest sampling
and comparison of (though surely not indoctrination in) the various
beliefs and traditions. However, there is one small nit that I can't
resist picking:
> By teaching that "Marduk and Jesus have equal validity" the school is
> effectively pushing atheism.
Actually, that's a fairly neutral statement (though it would certainly
be more so, if it instead compared Marduk with Yahweh, two supernatural
creator beings, rather than one such character with a man). It allows
the listener / reader to apply his own assessment of whether that
validity is zero or something else. It would be pushing atheism (or at
least anything other than Babylonian and Judeo-Christian belief) to
teach that "Marduk and Yahweh are equally *invalid.*" As I understand
it, it is not the case that such is being taught.
--
=SAJ=
To reply, delete NOSPAM from address.
http://tangents.home.att.net/
RainLover
<jwa...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Why bother replacing one cult with another? The cult of Marduk is no more
>relevant than any other. Just a primitive myth to explain what the
>Babylonians didn't understand. It also represents a turn away from goddess
>and earth based religion to a patriarchal, sky based religion. All in all,
>it's still no substitute for science and reason.
Why bother replacing one cult with another?
The replacement would NEVER happen, but the arguement involved in
discrediting one god myth (jesus or marduk) will work for another.
Let the christians explain why Marduk should not be taught in school
and them give them their own arguement for why their god should not be
taught.
James (in Seattle)
Malcolm
>
> It would be pushing atheism (or at least anything other than Babylonian
> and Judeo-Christian belief) to teach that "Marduk and Yahweh are
> equally *invalid.*" As I understand it, it is not the case that such is
> being taught.
>
credibility than the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or any number of fairy
stories" is obviously pushing atheism. A sensible atheist will also
acknowledge that this is just typical rhetoric and isn't true.
But what if we say "Christianity has no more or less credibility than
Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or any great religion." I would say that this
isn't true, and even if you don't believe in Christianity, it is uniquely
credible in that the evidence doesn't collapse when you submit its
scriptures and history to scholarly examination. However I wouldn't expect
an (intelligent and educated) Muslim to agree.
Furthermore, remember we are dealing with children here. An adult can
understand that people who are otherwise sensible, responsible, mature
citizens often hold beliefs that have been disproved (creationism comes to
mind). An educated adult, on a strict definition of "educated", will also
understand what the status of beliefs are. Some are fringe eccentric
theories (pyramidology), some are nonsense but have wide currency (organic
vegetables are good for you), some are distinctly minority but have a few
eminent supporters (archaeopteryx is a fake), some are highly controversial
(sociobiology can usefully be applied to human behaviour), some are accepted
(evolution), some are universally accepted even by the masses
(heliocentricity). Children can't understand these distictions. As a boy, I
felt that Erich von Daniken had to be taken seriously, because his books
were in the library. I read them all.
chris
>even if you don't believe in Christianity, it is uniquely
>credible in that the evidence doesn't collapse when you submit its
>scriptures and history to scholarly examination.
LOL,
Even forgetting the laughably stupid assertions of the Old
Testament, The New Testament (the basis of Christianity) is hardly
what anyone would call "credible evidence."
The gospels do not agree with each other on important historical and
spiritual details and often contradict each other. Statements
attributed to Jesus show that, if he indeed spoke them, he did not
have a godly comprehension of the universe, but was just another
commoner who believed the Earth was flat and the stars were like
burning figs hanging from the dome shell of a sky covering us.
There is no real evidence that Jesus actually ever existed. Paul,
the founder of the Christian church, spoke not of a physical Christ,
but of a spiritual one. The main non-biblical reference, two lines of
Josephus, were forged by the Catholic church centuries after the fact.
There is nothing uniquely credible about it.
Chris
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
anne marie hovgaard
>
> Furthermore, remember we are dealing with children here. An adult can
> understand that people who are otherwise sensible, responsible, mature
> citizens often hold beliefs that have been disproved (creationism comes to
> mind). An educated adult, on a strict definition of "educated", will also
> understand what the status of beliefs are. Some are fringe eccentric
> theories (pyramidology), some are nonsense but have wide currency (organic
> vegetables are good for you),
farmers who grow and eat organic produce compared to "traditional"
farmers, but the _use_ of various chemicals is probably more important
than eating the end product.
dug
> Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or any great religion." I would say that this
> isn't true, and even if you don't believe in Christianity, it is uniquely
> credible in that the evidence doesn't collapse when you submit its
> scriptures and history to scholarly examination.
This is one of those obnoxious statements that make non-believers in
God, Jr., puke. What is your basis for saying Christianity is more
credible than other religions? Because YOU believe it? Maybe you're
right, maybe you're wrong--what has your leap of faith to do with
credibility? It reminds me of Mrs. Slocum on "Are You Being Served",
who follows her pronouncements with "and I am unanimous in this!"
> some are nonsense but have wide currency (organic
> vegetables are good for you)
Yeah, you're right. Pesticides and herbicides are much better for the
human body.
> some are universally accepted even by the masses
> (heliocentricity)
Huh?
> Children can't understand these distictions.
Do you get that a lot of people find the Christian theology to be not
only fanciful, but also harmful? (My own very sensible mother is
somewhat afraid that I might end up being tortured for eternity for
not believing in JJ. That's real psychological pain, folks, based on
nonsense.) And they should accept the "credibility" of the cult of
personality that it represents?
--doug
Walter Bushell
> I think this is a difficult one. To say "Christianity has no more or less
> credibility than the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or any number of fairy
> stories" is obviously pushing atheism.
Could be pitching Judaism, Jainism, Budhism or many other religions
also. I think the arguement is given by Orthodox Rabis to Jew for Jesus
types.
--
The last temptation is the highest treason:
To do the right thing for the wrong reason. --T..S. Eliot
Walter
Eric Pepke
> credibility than the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or any number of fairy
> stories" is obviously pushing atheism.
Really?
How about "The Christian conception of god has no more or less
credibility than Zeus, Mithras, Marduk, Krishna, or Zoroaster."
Would that be obviously pushing atheism?
> A sensible atheist will also
> acknowledge that this is just typical rhetoric and isn't true.
I guess, to you, I'm not sensible, then. That's fine.
To me, the legend of Santa Claus seems about the same, as
there is a reasonable amount of evidence for a person later
called "San Niklaus." Of course, he's been dead a long time,
so he probably doesn't get around much any more.
> But what if we say "Christianity has no more or less credibility than
> Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, or any great religion." I would say that this
> isn't true, and even if you don't believe in Christianity, it is uniquely
> credible in that the evidence doesn't collapse when you submit its
> scriptures and history to scholarly examination. However I wouldn't expect
> an (intelligent and educated) Muslim to agree.
That seems pretty poor, unless you consider the Old Testament
entirely apocryphal. Just how exactly can you have Judaism collapse
without knocking the struts out of Christianity?
> As a boy, I
> felt that Erich von Daniken had to be taken seriously, because his books
> were in the library. I read them all.
Maybe that's a difference. As a young teen, I was subjected to the Propellor
Beanies of the Gods, (an illness of the times), but it never caught hold
too deeply. Even I, insensible though you might think me, was able to
figure out that you could make a map of a lake without a spaceship.
John Secker
<mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>I think this is a difficult one. To say "Christianity has no more or less
>credibility than the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or any number of fairy
>stories" is obviously pushing atheism. A sensible atheist will also
>acknowledge that this is just typical rhetoric and isn't true.
Sorry, I regard myself as sensible, and certainly an atheist, and I
would certainly agree with that statement. If I had to quibble with it,
I would probably reckon that the tooth fairy is getting a bad deal, as
her story is more likely, and certainly contains fewer internal
contradictions, than the Christian one. On what basis would you seek to
demonstrate that Christianity self-evidently has more credibility than
Santa?
--
John Secker
Malcolm
>
> >even if you don't believe in Christianity, it is uniquely
> >credible in that the evidence doesn't collapse when you submit its
> >scriptures and history to scholarly examination.
>
> the founder of the Christian church, spoke not of a physical Christ,
> but of a spiritual one. The main non-biblical reference, two lines of
> Josephus, were forged by the Catholic church centuries after the fact.
>
cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting it. When invited to look at the
evidence for Christianity, what do we get? Far-fetched theories about Jesus
not existing.
chris
>
>QED. When asked to examine any other religion, atheists can come up with
>cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting it. When invited to look at the
>evidence for Christianity, what do we get? Far-fetched theories about Jesus
>not existing.
What credible evidence would you have me look at?
In my previous post I was going to list some of the major errors of
the old testament, but the last time I did that I was told not to be
concerned with the OT because it doesn't really matter that much, and
that I should concentrate on Jesus in the NT. Well the New Tesament
is four contradictory gospels, a bunch of letters from a guy who
didn't speak of an Earthly Christ, and a big acid trip nightmare (or
more likely, Roman Anarchist propaganda).
So I ask you again, what credible evidence do you want to present?
Chris
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> contains these words:
> QED. When asked to examine any other religion, atheists can come up with
> cogent and convincing reasons for rejecting it. When invited to look at the
> evidence for Christianity, what do we get? Far-fetched theories about Jesus
> not existing.
What evidence is there for Christianity? I have yet to see anything
that would convince me that Jesus was anything other than a charismatic
preacher about a way of life that few have ever followed. The limited
amount of what he actually said can be seen from Q.
It is apparent that most of what is in the New Testament was made up by
others, and in most cases written many decades after his death by people
who had never met him. All religions have their scriptures and I see no
reason to prefer that of Christianity over others for they are all
equally made made and utterly bogus.
I do not doubt that Jesus existed but see no basis for believing that he
was the son of god, while the other parts of the story such a virgin
birth and resurrection are obviously no more than myths.
--
**********
David W-G
**********
Lawrence Seib
> In article <bm8hda$bte$1...@news8.svr.pol.co.uk>, Malcolm
> <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> writes
> >I think this is a difficult one. To say "Christianity has no more or less
> >credibility than the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, or any number of fairy
> >stories" is obviously pushing atheism. A sensible atheist will also
> >acknowledge that this is just typical rhetoric and isn't true.
>
> Sorry, I regard myself as sensible, and certainly an atheist, and I
> would certainly agree with that statement. If I had to quibble with it,
> I would probably reckon that the tooth fairy is getting a bad deal, as
> her story is more likely, and certainly contains fewer internal
> contradictions, than the Christian one.
The difference is that the main tenants of Christianity
are actually believed by millions of adults. That of coarse
does not mean that they are right, however it does create
the problem of proving that something does not exist, the
Christian God. As most know, the burden of proof should
lie with those who make the claim. However since millions
already believe, we have the difficult proposition to try
to open their minds.
As a parent, I was rather startled by how fervent my spouse was
in perpetuating the myths of Santa Claus and the tooth fairy.
I could not understand why she thought it was so necessary to
basically lie to the kids, something I was not sure was right
at all.
Anyway I came to the conclusion that these myths help ease
the fears of childhood and also help to keep kids in line.
That to me is exactly what Christianity does for adults. The
fact that theists cannot see this boggles the mind.
Larry
Malcolm
>
>
> In my previous post I was going to list some of the major errors of
> the old testament, but the last time I did that I was told not to be
> concerned with the OT because it doesn't really matter that much, and
> that I should concentrate on Jesus in the NT.
>
but sadly not by fundamentalists. This has been accepted since the 5th
century at least, so it is not something discovered by modern scholars. Of
course that doesn't mean that nothing is true (it is quite likely that the
Israelites had a leader called Moses who led them out of Egypt, for
example). Nor does it mean that it is not important - the story of Adam and
Eve cannot be historical, but the myth does speak of the human condition.
As for the New Testament, the gospels are not modern academic biographies.
It is naive to think that everything that Jesus says and does was
historical. It is equally naive to belive that no such person existed, or
that the chronology is radically wrong and Jesus was really 1st century BC,
or that Jesus was a mushroom (seriously advanced, believe it or not).
>
>Well the New Tesament is four contradictory gospels,
>
If the gospels didn't contradict at all they would be considered one source.
>
> a bunch of letters from a guy who didn't speak of an Earthly Christ,
>
This is just a canard put about by Jesus mythers. Read the very first lines
of Paul in the NT (the opening to Romans).
>
>and a big acid trip nightmare (or more likely, Roman Anarchist
> propaganda).
>
Revelation is a strange book. It doesn't tell us much about Jesus, except
that He was a significant religous figure when the book was written, and
that He had a Jewish origin.
>
> So I ask you again, what credible evidence do you want to present?
>
If you look at the evidence you have presented, it is obvious (four separate
gospels, some letters, the book of Revelation) that a man called Jesus lived
in first century Palestine, taught about God, had some followers, was
regarded as a wonder-worker, and had a group of followers who went on to
become the Christian church.
Now an essential part of the story is that He was crucified, and rose from
the dead, and that event inspired the followers to spread the message
throughout the Roman world. However we cannot apply normal historical
criteria to the resurrection, because such an event is without precedent.
What this means is that, uniquely, Christianity is credible amongst
religions, and atheists are driven either to stupidity (Jesus didn't exist),
or the more sensible ones to defensible but not too strong positions (Jesus
didn't rise in the flesh, the apostles meant it as a metaphor for their
realisation that God's love triumphs even over death).
dug
> Now an essential part of the story is that He was crucified, and rose from
> the dead, and that event inspired the followers to spread the message
> throughout the Roman world. However we cannot apply normal historical
> criteria to the resurrection, because such an event is without precedent.
As the church lady used to say, "How conveeeeenyent!"
> What this means is that, uniquely, Christianity is credible amongst
> religions,
You continue to make this assertion without backing it up. Why, pray
tell, is Christianity credible amongst religions?
> or the more sensible ones to defensible but not too strong positions (Jesus
> didn't rise in the flesh, the apostles meant it as a metaphor for their
> realisation that God's love triumphs even over death).
"Not too strong"? Why?
Have you ever heard of oral tradition? So what do you think happens
when someone passes around an oral narrative? Have you ever played
that children's game where you whisper a message into someone's ear,
and they whisper it to the next kid, and so on, with the last kid
revealing the message? As I recall, when I played that in the 7th
grade the message got pretty seriously distorted.
"Hey, Jesus rose from the dead! Pass it on!"
--doug
strider
> However we cannot apply normal historical
> criteria to the resurrection, because such an event is without precedent.
Having primary sources claim something physically impossible happened
is not without precedent. Having 4 or more sources claim such a thing
is also not without precedent. It's completely unclear to me what
makes Jesus special. Heck, I bet we could even find other purported
resurrections.
John Secker
<mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>If you look at the evidence you have presented, it is obvious (four separate
>gospels, some letters, the book of Revelation) that a man called Jesus lived
>in first century Palestine, taught about God, had some followers, was
>regarded as a wonder-worker, and had a group of followers who went on to
>become the Christian church.
>
>Now an essential part of the story is that He was crucified, and rose from
>the dead, and that event inspired the followers to spread the message
>throughout the Roman world. However we cannot apply normal historical
>criteria to the resurrection, because such an event is without precedent.
>
consideration. Historians do not spend much time in considering whether
the real King Arthur, if he existed at all, floated off on a boat to
Avalon after his death.
>What this means is that, uniquely, Christianity is credible amongst
>religions,
are far better recorded and attested. If Jesus possibly existed as a
real person in some way, Mohammed almost certainly did. In both cases we
also have a bunch of superstitions which have been attached to them
afterwards. In what way do you claim that Christianity is "credible"
while Islam is not?
--
John Secker
chris
>"chris" <www...@infionline.net> wrote in message
>>
>> What credible evidence would you have me look at?
>>
>Early Christian history.
Gee, the fact that there was a church is evidence? All religions must
be true then...
I ask again, what is your evidence?
>A lot of the OT is myth, ... This has been accepted since the 5th
>century at least,
By whom in the 5th century?
(I do not dispute this point; I ask out of curiosity.)
>that doesn't mean that nothing is true (it is quite likely that the
>Israelites had a leader called Moses who led them out of Egypt, for
>example).
Um, no. There is no evidence that Egypt ever had Hebrew slaves at
all. They kept records on much more trivial things, but none about
Moses' people. Alas, Moses is just another myth whose exploits are
based on earlier stories of Sargon, Kali, and Heracles
>Nor does it mean that it is not important - the story of Adam and
>Eve cannot be historical, but the myth does speak of the human condition.
One can find meaning in a soup can.
>If the gospels didn't contradict at all they would be considered one source.
Sources can differ without contradicting. These don't.
>> a bunch of letters from a guy who didn't speak of an Earthly Christ,
>>
>This is just a canard put about by Jesus mythers. Read the very first lines
>of Paul in the NT (the opening to Romans).
The introductory lines of each epistle were not necessarily written by
Paul. It is widely believed that Paul did not write Ephesians,
despite the introduction to the contrary. If that's your proof Paul
believed in an Earthly Christ, it's very flimsy indeed.
>Now an essential part of the story is that He was crucified, and rose from
>the dead, and that event inspired the followers to spread the message
>throughout the Roman world. However we cannot apply normal historical
>criteria to the resurrection, because such an event is without precedent.
Why? We can apply normal historical criteria to the moon landing even
though such an event is without precedent. We can do the same for
thousands of other events. But you ask us not to do this to your myth
because, if we apply such to it, it falls apart very quickly.
>What this means is that, uniquely, Christianity is credible
What this means is that Christianity is like every other religion.
"...I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer
god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other
possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
- Stephen F. Roberts
Chris
Tom Breton
> "Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bms2de$1c4$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk>...
>
> > However we cannot apply normal historical
> > criteria to the resurrection, because such an event is without precedent.
>
> Having primary sources claim something physically impossible happened
> is not without precedent.
For instance, any number of UFO reports, people who "saw Uri bend
spoons with his mind and he never touched the spoons" even though
videotape shows otherwise, etc
FWIW, I am not saying that that explains Jesus. IMHO the Jesus story
developed in a different way, along the lines Earl Doherty suggests.
> Having 4 or more sources claim such a thing
> is also not without precedent. It's completely unclear to me what
> makes Jesus special. Heck, I bet we could even find other purported
> resurrections.
Yes, in fact some mythological resurrections were well known at that
time: Osiris, Krishna, Mithra.
dug
> Heck, I bet we could even find other purported
> resurrections.
It's probably fairly common in the old mythological stories, though I
can't think of more than a couple at the moment. And you can find
multiple sources for mythology, for the same reason you can find
multiple sources for the christ story--it started out as an oral
presentation.
--doug
Malcolm
> not?
>
didn't exist". However Mohammed is by common consensus dead. Jesus died but
rose again.
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> contains these words:
> "Mohammed didn't exist" would be just as ridiculous a theory as "Jesus
> didn't exist". However Mohammed is by common consensus dead. Jesus died but
> rose again.
There is good contemporary evidence for the existence of the Prophet but
precious little for the existence of Jesus and certainly no evidence
that he actually rose again. As it is a trick no one has ever achieved,
and there is neither a heaven or a hell, it is far more likely that
Jesus survived and was resuscitated rather than resurrected.
chris
<mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Mohammed didn't exist" would be just as ridiculous a theory as "Jesus
>didn't exist". However Mohammed is by common consensus dead. Jesus died but
>rose again.
Not by common concensus.
S.A.Joyce
>
> "John Secker" <jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> >
> > In what way do you claim that Christianity is "credible" while Islam
is
> > not?
> >
> "Mohammed didn't exist" would be just as ridiculous a theory as "Jesus
> didn't exist".
Even more so, since the historical leaders of the Islamic movement
during its first few years were relatives of the prophet. Their
lineage, policies, and activities were clearly documented by their
contemporaries (including--importantly--a number of their rivals and
adversaries). Shortly after Muhammad's death in 632, his father-in-law,
Abu Bakr, was selected as his first successor ("caliph"); after that,
leadership passed to Umar and then to Uthman. When Uthman was
assassinated in 656, Muhammad Ali (the prophet's cousin) became caliph.
In 661, Ali himself was assassinated, and leadership passed to a rival,
Mu'awiyah, governor of Syria. Indeed, it is the historical factional
disputes which led to the schism between Sunni and Shiite Muslims.
Unfortunately, compared to Muhammad, the historical linkage of Jesus to
subsequent generations of followers is much less well defined, and in
the initial stages very murky indeed.
>However Mohammed is by common consensus dead. Jesus died but
> rose again.
Now let me get this straight: Assertion of an incredible event makes
something *more* credible in your view? How odd. I wonder how you
would respond as a juror in a criminal trial, if the defendant's twelve
closest friends all testified that he couldn't have committed the crime
because he was dead at the time. Assuming that you could see the
defendant, obviously alive, sitting in the courtroom and nodding
approval to his buddies, would you consider the testimony of his friends
credible?
Granted, a "rising from the dead" claim might greatly enhance many
things about Christianity (or any other religion which has also employed
it), such as its emotional appeal or entertainment value. However,
given that a few billion examples have pretty well established that
death in humans is permanent, an extraordinary claim contradicting that
well established pattern would seem to *detract* from any supposed
credibility. (That's not to say that humans haven't sometimes revived
from being *apparently* dead, but that's another issue. Maybe.)
Malcolm
> be true then...
>
> I ask again, what is your evidence?
>
religions.
>
> By whom in the 5th century?
> (I do not dispute this point; I ask out of curiosity.)
>
>
> Um, no. There is no evidence that Egypt ever had Hebrew slaves at
> all. They kept records on much more trivial things, but none about
> Moses' people. Alas, Moses is just another myth whose exploits are
> based on earlier stories of Sargon, Kali, and Heracles
>
the Egyptians had a tradtion of making moral precepts in groups of ten,
which suggest that the Ten Commandments were written by someone with an
Egyptian education. Also boxes very similar to the Ark of the Covenant have
been found in Egypt, giving credibility to that part of the story.
>
> >Nor does it mean that it is not important - the story of Adam and
> >Eve cannot be historical, but the myth does speak of the human
> >condition.
>
> One can find meaning in a soup can.
>
powerful sections of the most influention book ever written and a tin of
Campbells condensed chicken soup.
>
> Sources can differ without contradicting. These don't.
>
on many salient points of the story, such as that Jesus was a 1st century
Palestinian Jew.
>
> The introductory lines of each epistle were not necessarily written by
> Paul. It is widely believed that Paul did not write Ephesians,
> despite the introduction to the contrary. If that's your proof Paul
> believed in an Earthly Christ, it's very flimsy indeed.
>
that Jesus was a 1st century Palestian Jew" then you need some pretty good
evidence. If you start insisting that inconvenient passage must be
interpolations, you're on pretty thin ground. Of course there is other
evidence - for instance Paul describes how he stayed with James "the brother
of the Lord", then there are endless passages describing Jesus as crucified.
>
> Why? We can apply normal historical criteria to the moon landing
> even though such an event is without precedent. We can do the same
> for thousands of other events. But you ask us not to do this to your
> myth because, if we apply such to it, it falls apart very quickly.
>
documented - hundreds of references in the New Testament and apocrypha. It
is also essential to our understanding of the development of Christianity -
it explains why it spread so quickly and why its adherents were prepared to
die rather than renounce their faith. Therefore it happened.
Except the only reason for not believing in the resurrection is that it is a
miracle, and a man rising from the dead is without precedent.
>
> >What this means is that, uniquely, Christianity is credible
>
> What this means is that Christianity is like every other religion.
>
culture has anything superior to offer. Other religions disappear when
scholarship brings its razor to bear. When atheists try to attack the roots
of Christianity, the best they can do is the "Jesus was mythical" nonsense.
Malcolm
subsequent generations of followers is much less well defined, and in
> the initial stages very murky indeed.
>
Jewish sect. However the apostles are reasonably well-documented, and there
is a list of Popes stretching from Peter.
The broad outline, that Peter existed, was a follower of Jesus, and became a
leading figure in early Christianity, even if he wasn't what we would now
associate with a pope, is established. You can argue about details such as
the organisational structure of the church, and whether bishops were really
elders, and so on.
>
> >However Mohammed is by common consensus dead. Jesus died but
> > rose again.
>
> Now let me get this straight: Assertion of an incredible event makes
> something *more* credible in your view? How odd.
>
Both Mohammed and Jesus existed. Both claimed privileged information about
God. However Jesus' claim to privileged information is more credible than
Mohammed's claim because Jesus rose from the dead.
You can claim that, since Jesus is supposed to have risen from the dead,
obviously He didn't exist at all. However this lands you in all sorts of
problems which we discuss at length whenever the Jesus denial theme pops up.
You could also claim that Mohammed is actually more credible, because God
doesn't do miracles like raising people from the dead any more. To amswer
this you would have to look closely at Christian and Islamic scriptures to
see whether the Islamic Allah really is non-miraculous and more credible
than the Christian God.
Chris Michael
"Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bn6t09$f3e$1...@news6.svr.pol.co.uk...
> "Mohammed didn't exist" would be just as ridiculous a theory as "Jesus
> didn't exist". However Mohammed is by common consensus dead. Jesus died
but
> rose again.
>
In this regard at least then, Islam is MORE credible than Xtianity given
than it is not makes the incredible claim. (Resurrection.)
Chris Michael
"Lawrence Seib" <ls...@kuhub.cc.ukans.edu> wrote in message
news:75ab6396.03101...@posting.google.com...
> Anyway I came to the conclusion that these myths help ease
> the fears of childhood and also help to keep kids in line.
> That to me is exactly what Christianity does for adults. The
> fact that theists cannot see this boggles the mind.
>
The mind would boggle if they DID see this given that they are THEISTS.
strider
> Both Mohammed and Jesus existed. Both claimed privileged information about
> God. However Jesus' claim to privileged information is more credible than
> Mohammed's claim because Jesus rose from the dead.
> You can claim that, since Jesus is supposed to have risen from the dead,
> obviously He didn't exist at all. However this lands you in all sorts of
> problems which we discuss at length whenever the Jesus denial theme pops up.
This line of reasoning keeps popping up, and I don't understand why.
Accepting that Jesus existed does not require that one accept the
resurection. Accepting one thing a primary source says does not entail
accepting everything they say. Normal historical methodology (which
would preclude accepting the resurection as clear historical fact) can
not be suspended just because the claim is incredible, because to do
so would suspend normall historical methodology frequently. It
follows, that the rational thing to do is to treat Jesus like other
similar incidents where a primary source, or several sources claim the
physically impossible (or what does not mesh with more reliable
accounts). One place I would point you twoards for similar incidents
is mass revival movements in American in the late 18th and early 19th
century where literally hundreds of witnesses will record the
physically impossible. Another superior source would be Anglo-American
comentaries on Native American religion. Here you have skeptics
recording what a large group of people claimed with little reason to
make it up. The list goes on and on.
Jesus existed but never rose from the dead. What exactly happened is
unclear. Maybe he just took a nap. Maybe they decided to make it up to
explain why someone so all powerfull could die. Maybe they made it up
for that reason, without quite realizing they were doing that. That is
to say they interpeted rumors, dreams, reality through a "lense" where
Jesus *had* to come back from the dead. Which of these is the case is
difficult t say. What is clear is that Jesus didn't rise from the
dead.
If anyone is going to reply to this, please reply to the strong
argument namely that this is common and we can't just take it at face
value because Jesus is not special before engaging my individual
alternate explanations. To do so is, I feel, an unfair tactic which
misrepresents my overall point.
CM
> No, that's a canard spread by people who don't like to feel
> that Western culture has anything superior to offer. Other
> religions disappear when scholarship brings its razor to bear.
Oh, really? Then why is Islam, Judaism, Buddism, Hinduism, Shinto,
Taoism, Sikkism, Jainism, Ba'haism, etc. all very much in existence?
None of those are even close to "disappearing".
> When atheists try to attack the roots of Christianity, the
> best they can do is the "Jesus was mythical" nonsense.
And it works very well when we point out the mythical
characteristics of the tale.
CM
John Secker
<mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>> Now let me get this straight: Assertion of an incredible event makes
>> something *more* credible in your view? How odd.
>>
>Both Mohammed and Jesus existed. Both claimed privileged information about
>God. However Jesus' claim to privileged information is more credible than
>Mohammed's claim because Jesus rose from the dead.
more.
>You can claim that, since Jesus is supposed to have risen from the dead,
>obviously He didn't exist at all.
about him coming back from the dead was made up, like most of the rest.
The fact that Alfred didn't burn the cakes does not mean that he did not
exist - it just means that historical figures can be associated with
mythical actions.
> However this lands you in all sorts of
>problems which we discuss at length whenever the Jesus denial theme pops up.
>You could also claim that Mohammed is actually more credible, because God
>doesn't do miracles like raising people from the dead any more. To amswer
>this you would have to look closely at Christian and Islamic scriptures to
>see whether the Islamic Allah really is non-miraculous and more credible
>than the Christian God.
>
them, with no evidence able to be produced. Just like Santa Claus.
--
John Secker
chris
>All religions must have something going for them to be successful as
>religions.
I'm not sure what you mean by this; it seems to be an incomplete
thought and it does not seem to be evidence.
There's no denying that Christianity does in deed have something going
for it. It can make people feel good about themselves. It can give
them hope and satisfaction. It can be responsible for great works of
charity. And in today's mellowed form of the cult of "follow the
golden rule and go to heaven" it can spread much goodwill. All this
does not mean the Bible is inerrant or even mostly true.
>The story that Moses was found in the bulrushes is surely mythical. However
>the Egyptians had a tradtion of making moral precepts in groups of ten,
>which suggest that the Ten Commandments were written by someone with an
>Egyptian education.
...or by someone with ten fingers perhaps?
>Also boxes very similar to the Ark of the Covenant have
>been found in Egypt, giving credibility to that part of the story.
Then the fact we have handkerchiefs lends credibility to Douglas
Adams' claim that the Universe was, in fact, sneezed out of the nose
of a being called the Great Green Arkleseizure and we should live in
perpetual fear of the time of the Coming of the Great White
Handkerchief.
>This is postmodernism. To fail to see the difference between one of the most
>powerful sections of the most influention book ever written and a tin of
>Campbells condensed chicken soup.
Cream of Mushroom, actually :-)
You wrote another incomplete thought, but my point remains that the
fact that some find meaning in the Adam and Eve myth is meaningless.
Countless authors and poets over the millennia have written things
that better speak to the human condition.
>Hard if they are extensive accounts.
Easy if it's really the word of God.
>OK we apply normal historical critera to the resurrection. It is very well
>documented - hundreds of references in the New Testament and apocrypha. It
>is also essential to our understanding of the development of Christianity -
>it explains why it spread so quickly and why its adherents were prepared to
>die rather than renounce their faith. Therefore it happened.
The story of Luke Skywalker is very well documented - thousands of
references in movies, tv shows, books, newspapers, action figures, tin
lunchboxes, etc. It is essential to our understanding of Star Wars
fanaticism - it explains why it spread so quickly and why its
adherents are prepared to die rather than renounce their fandom.
Therefore it happened.
>a man rising from the dead is without precedent.
Numerous examples of men rising from the dead predate Jesus.
>No, that's a canard spread by people who don't like to feel that Western
>culture has anything superior to offer.
Western culture has dominated the world! English is the international
language of business. Just about every merchant in the world accepts
the US dollar. Our books, television, movies, and music top almost
all entertainment charts.
Perhaps you have forgotten that Israel is in the Middle East? Asatru
and Wicca are more representative of Western traditions. Some would
claim that Science is the new religion; and who is considered the
world leader in scientific research and discovery?
>Other religions disappear when
>scholarship brings its razor to bear.
Yeah, Islam and Buddhism went 'poof' just last week.
> When atheists try to attack the roots
>of Christianity, the best they can do is the "Jesus was mythical" nonsense.
No, that's merely one of a large number of reasons not to believe the
Bible. Each by itself can be excused or explained away by apologists,
but taken together they reveal that the Bible is not the word of God,
but that of fallible men, doing the best they could.
Chris
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> contains these words:
> "Mohammed didn't exist" would be just as ridiculous a theory as "Jesus
> didn't exist". However Mohammed is by common consensus dead. Jesus died but
> rose again.
Jesus probably existed but was not a god or any part of a god. That
idea only developed long after his eventual death. Mohammed allegedly
rose up to heaven from the Dome of the Rock. Jesus allegedly not only
rose up to heaven but also came down again.
However, there is no evidence to support any of these allegations and
they are no more than beliefs. No one can tell you where heaven is
situated yet if people are bodily assumed into to it then it has to be a
physical place.
There is, of course, no such place as heaven and it is therefore
impossible either to rise into it or come back from it. It is clear
that Jesus did not die on the cross but was taken down and resuscitated.
It was wiser thereafter to explain his appearances by the story that he
had been resurrected in order to avoid a second execution. His survival
destroys much of the Christian dogma about salvation and was doubtless
the reason for the very thorough elimination of both the Cathars and the
Templars who both knew that Jesus had survived.
Geoff McCaughan
> It is clear that Jesus did not die on the cross but was taken down and
> resuscitated.
Is it? It's is also possible he died and the ressurection story is later
embellishment of rumours arising from 'sightings' such as arose after Elvis
died.
John Secker
<jo...@secker.demon.co.uk> writes
>>You can claim that, since Jesus is supposed to have risen from the dead,
>>obviously He didn't exist at all.
>Strawman. You can also claim that Jesus existed, but that the story
>about him coming back from the dead was made up, like most of the rest.
>The fact that Alfred didn't burn the cakes does not mean that he did not
>exist - it just means that historical figures can be associated with
>mythical actions.
the story of Robin Hood. The first recorded mentions of him are in the
13th century, and because they are so much more recent than the stories
of Jesus we can more easily see how they have developed. For example the
original stories had no Maid Marian, no Friar Tuck, no Little John, no
robbing the rich to give to the poor, and Robin was a yeoman, not an
aristocrat, and did not live in the reign of Richard the Lionheart. The
stories were very widely distributed, and told in taverns and the like,
and hundreds of villages had "Robin Hood Games" on Whit Sunday, sounding
like a sort of "Lords of Misrule" event. There was also a lot of
discussion about the possible historical basis for Robin Hood - a
"Richard Hood" in the court of Edward II for example. The relevance is
that whether or not there was in fact a "historical" Robin Hood, or a
number of concatenated role models, it is certain that many of the
crucial "facts" that we are all familiar with today were invented
decades or centuries later. Even if you decide that it is impossible to
shoot an arrow down the centre of another arrow, this does not prove
that Robin Hood was fictional - simply that this particular feat was
fiction attributed to a real person.
--
John Secker
Malcolm
"strider" <strider...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> This line of reasoning keeps popping up, and I don't understand why.
> Accepting that Jesus existed does not require that one accept the
> resurection.
>
century Palestinian but aren't Christians.
>
>Accepting one thing a primary source says does not entail accepting
>everything they say.
>
Peter, Herod, Herod Antipas, Pilate. This means that we would need good
reasons for supposing that they are not broadly right about Jesus. However
this doesn't mean that we have to accept every parable, every mircale story
as historical.
>
> Normal historical methodology (which would preclude accepting the
> resurection as clear historical fact) can not be suspended just because
> the claim is incredible, because to do so would suspend normall
> historical methodology frequently.
>
There are of course many dying and resurrecting Sun gods or corn gods, but
these aren't located in history. There are plenty of supernatural claims,
but most of these disappear quite quickly on investigation.
To say that "miracles never happen therefore the resurrection didn't happen"
is a pure faith position. To say "I will only accept a miracle as the last
explanation when others have been exhausted" is reasonable.
>
> That is to say they interpeted rumors, dreams, reality through a "lense"
> where Jesus *had* to come back from the dead.
>
This is a possibility.
>
> If anyone is going to reply to this, please reply to the strong argument
> namely that this is common
>
The argument is that "we don't need to look at the resurrection of Jesus
particularly closely because people are always making up similar stories
which turn out to be untrue". Now no other miracle story has had the
historical impact that the resurrection has had. I'd also argue that none is
as _credible_, which is a weaker test than _proven_. Manchester United are
credible contenders for the Champins League, but they are not yet
guaranteed winners.
As for Islam. If someone claims to have received a communication from the
Angel Gabriel and produces some acceptable poetry (the Koran is not
downright laughable in English, I can't comment on the quality of the Arabic
style of course), then, yes, maybe Gabriel really appeared to him. If
someone claims "I know the Father", and then proceeds to walk on water, feed
five thousand people with five loaves of bread, heal the crippled, and
finally rises from the dead, his claim is far stronger. However you can
legitimately question whether the second person really did these things,
whilst there is no doubt that Mohammed actually produced the Koran.
CM
>>> Jesus died but rose again.
>> Now let me get this straight: Assertion of an incredible event
>> makes something *more* credible in your view? How odd.
> Both Mohammed and Jesus existed. Both claimed privileged
> information about God. However Jesus' claim to privileged
> information is more credible than Mohammed's claim because
> Jesus rose from the dead.
According to Islamic mythology, Mohammed ascended to heaven riding a
white horse. Shouldn't that make his information just as credible as
Jesus's resurrection did? Worse, Islam claims Jesus as a "prophet of
God (Allah)" and say that the many Christian sects have corrupted his
teachings, and that Mohammed restored the true gospel Jesus preached 6
centuries later!
> You can claim that, since Jesus is supposed to have risen from
> the dead, obviously He didn't exist at all. However this lands
> you in all sorts of problems which we discuss at length whenever
> the Jesus denial theme pops up.
No, we claim that the "resurrection story" is mythical, and that
throws doubt on the claims of Christianity. As the evidence for the
existance of Jesus is extremely sparse, athiest opinion is divided,
some suspecting that it was a real person mythologized, others
suspecting a complete fictional fabrication.
There is also the distinct possibility that Jesus did not die on the
cross, but was simply rendered unconscious (perhaps aided by a
laudanum soaked sponge), awoke in the tomb, and assumed he had been
resurrected.
> You could also claim that Mohammed is actually more credible,
> because God doesn't do miracles like raising people from the
> dead any more. To answer this you would have to look closely
> at Christian and Islamic scriptures to see whether the Islamic
> Allah really is non-miraculous and more credible than the
> Christian God.
Muslims claim that Allah IS the "God of Christ", and that the
Christians have fallen away from the "true gospel". With over a
thousand different incompatable Christian sects, they would have
a point - except that Islam has also splintered into several
different incompatable sects!
Also, Islam, like most religions, has it's own set of myths and
miracles.
CM
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Geoff McCaughan <geo...@spam.fqdn.com> contains these words:
> David Wynne-Griffiths <dav...@zetnet.co.uk> wrote:
> > It is clear that Jesus did not die on the cross but was taken down and
> > resuscitated.
> Is it? It's is also possible he died and the resurrection story is later
> embellishment of rumours arising from 'sightings' such as arose after Elvis
> died.
His subsequent alleged appearances could well be the embellishment of
rumours but their extent makes resuscitation the more probable
explanation. There must have been a practical use for all the aloes
delivered to the tomb and the most obvious one is to deal with trauma.
Resuscitation is perfectly possible and there are accounts of people
surviving crucifixion in Josephus while people have frequently been
revived from apparent death. However, no one has ever been resurrected
except in legend.
The Sophist
> No. We know that the gospels are broadly right about John the Baptist, St
> Peter, Herod, Herod Antipas, Pilate. This means that we would need good
> reasons for supposing that they are not broadly right about Jesus. However
> this doesn't mean that we have to accept every parable, every mircale story
> as historical.
We know that the gospels are broadly (very broadly, it should be noted)
right about some historical figures because they are mentioned in other
sources. These other sources were likely available to the authors of
the Gospels, enabling them to get their stories roughly straight. But
the other sources don't mention Jesus, so this does not to my mind give
overwhelming reason to suppose the authors of the Gospels got the story
broadly right about Jesus (we have no reason to think the sources
available to them about Jesus were as good as those on the more famous
(in their own time) historical figures).
--
Aaron Boyden
"I may have done this and that for sufferers; but always I seemed to
have done better when I learned to feel better joys."
-Thus spoke Zarathustra
strider
> >
> > If anyone is going to reply to this, please reply to the strong argument
> > namely that this is common
> >
> The argument is that "we don't need to look at the resurrection of Jesus
> particularly closely because people are always making up similar stories
> which turn out to be untrue". Now no other miracle story has had the
> historical impact that the resurrection has had. I'd also argue that none is
> as _credible_, which is a weaker test than _proven_. Manchester United are
> credible contenders for the Champins League, but they are not yet
> guaranteed winners.
>
No. The argument is that if we accept the resurrection based on the
level of evidence supplied for it, literally thousands of other
physically impossible (and often mutually exclusive) things become
true. This argument was made fairly clearly, and actually pasting in
the entire sentence may have helped you understand it. "...namely that
this is common and we can't just take it at face value because Jesus
is not special before engaging my individual alternate explanations. "
This statement was of course intended to be read in concert with. "It
follows, that the rational thing to do is to treat Jesus like other
similar incidents where a primary source, or several sources claim the
physically impossible (or what does not mesh with more reliable
accounts)." The whole point is that the level of evidence in Christian
mythology is easily matched by other claims. Perhaps a more careful
reading of my posts is in order, you seem to frequently misunderstand
my points. For my part I will try and write more clearly.
I (and others on this list) have already provided examples. Providing
more is trivial. Yet another set of examples can be found in the
literature of anthropologists who record how their subjects engage
with demons or other supernatural forces on a daily basis and report
on their knowledge of how it works. Individuals often claim (and are
supported by their fellows) to do battle with the supernatural. I
notice you cut the two examples I gave you from your post. You may
want to read that section again. If your faith is based on the
historical nature of Christianity it might be worth knowing that the
standard of evidence you have used to claim it validates lots of
things. Of course, the burden of evidence really isn't on me. You have
claimed Christianity is unique, please explain why?
I would propose that we explain and understand religions based on the
cultural, economic, social and political contexts in which they were
created. This has the advantage of actually explaining how religion
and society works around the world and across time. Your method of
having one historical methodology for Chrisitianity and another for
everything else seems quite limiting to me.
The historical impact of Christianity does not supply evidence for its
correctness. Its impact seems to have little to do with the
plausibility of its claims, but the political savvy, luck and
circumstances of its adherents. It is simply unclear to me why one
would even make the claim that we should measure the truth of an
ideology based on is "historic impact."
Additionally, you are supplying a profoundly Eurocentric view of
history. What about all those Muslims, Buddhists, Hindu? Those
religions have had enormous impact on the world. Even within a
Eurocentric world view, one could easily argue that the civilizing
force of the Roman Empire and/or the philosophical legacy of the
Greeks are the most important historical event. One can even locate
Christianity's success as *hinging* on this context. Would the
relatively similar polytheistic worlds of the Greeks and Romans then
not be correct?
Personally, I think the most far reaching historical event, such as I
can name one, might very well be the enlightenment and its attack on
the religious world view. I would put increasing secularism, deism,
and atheism first on my list of radical ideas that allowed for
advances in political and scientific thought. One of my problems with
this is that it leaves out, at least as I just explained it, the
momentous impacts of Persian, Chinese, African, and even American
(Native) civilizations (to name only a few broad areas) and their
respective historical trajectories. Of course, so do you.
Chris Michael
> OK we apply normal historical critera to the resurrection. It is very well
> documented - hundreds of references in the New Testament and apocrypha. It
> is also essential to our understanding of the development of
Christianity -
> it explains why it spread so quickly and why its adherents were prepared
to
> die rather than renounce their faith. Therefore it happened.
Apples are fruit, therefore its Friday. How can you as an intelligent person
make the above silly statement. People die for belief = belief is true!!!
That means that most religions are true. Muslims would rather die than
renounce their faith. Therefore it happened.
> No, that's a canard spread by people who don't like to feel that Western
> culture has anything superior to offer.
The source of the West's current superiority (in terms of technology,
standard of living, respect for individuals' rights, which I am not too
'liberal' to concede and indeed celebrate) is almost certainly the fact that
we are MORE secular than other parts of the world. The more secular a
society (all other factors being equal), the happier, more well adjusted and
better off the people will be.
> Other religions disappear when
> scholarship brings its razor to bear. When atheists try to attack the
roots
> of Christianity, the best they can do is the "Jesus was mythical"
nonsense.
No, the best they can do is point out the bible's internal contradictions,
contradiction against all science, and abominable morality. Not being a
historian I don't know what the evidence is for a man called Jesus in 1st
century Israel is, and I care even less. Because what is for sure is if he
did exist, he was a man and nothing more. (There are hundreds of reports of
a man fasting in a box for 44 days, he also performs magic; David Blaine
must be a divinity).
You seem to think that if a beleif is popular enough that is evidence that
it is true. This is not how serious inquiry is conducted.
Malcolm
"Chris Michael" <no...@m.pls> wrote in message
>
> Apples are fruit, therefore its Friday. How can you as an intelligent
> person make the above silly statement. People die for belief = belief is
> true!!!
>
that a Palestinian suicide bomber really believes that Isreal has the right
to occupy Palestine, that terrorism is counter-productive and only
entrenches Jewish hardliners, that Islam is wrong in promoting martyrdom.
Similarly, it isn't plausible that the apostles died for Christianity, but
didn't believe that Jesus was divine. However, unlike the Palestinian
suicide bomber, the apostles were in a position to know.
Chris Michael
> People die for a belief, therefore they hold that belief.
That is not what you said. You said "...its adherents were prepared
Woden
news:boijps$kgb$1...@newsg3.svr.pol.co.uk:
Good point. Now all you have to do is provide some real historical
evidence that the apostles really existed, that they really wrote the
stories attributed to them, and that the events in these stories really
happened and weren't made up by these apostles.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
Malcolm
"Woden" <wo...@charter.net> wrote in message
>
> Good point. Now all you have to do is provide some real historical
> evidence that the apostles really existed, that they really wrote the
> stories attributed to them, and that the events in these stories really
> happened and weren't made up by these apostles.
>
you think Paul didn't exist, or do you think that he invented Peter? Do you
seriously believe that such a rich set of traditions as the letters and
gospels could have coalesced around a non-existent person in a few tens of
years? Do you think that all the serious scholars are wrong when they
dismiss Jesus mythers as not worth serious academic debate?
Malcolm
"Chris Michael" <no...@m.pls> wrote in message
>
>
> That is not what you said. You said "...its adherents were prepared
> to die rather than renounce their faith. Therefore it happened."
>
applied to the resurrection. ie, we don't make any special allowances for it
being a miracle. Well the resurrection is very well documented, and it
explains why the martyrs were prepared to die, and why Christianity grew so
fast. Therefore it happened. The only reason for rejecting the resurrection
as an historical event is that it is a miacle.
Patrick May
> Quote in context. That was assuming that normal historical criteria
> can be applied to the resurrection. ie, we don't make any special
> allowances for it being a miracle. Well the resurrection is very
> well documented, and it explains why the martyrs were prepared to
> die, and why Christianity grew so fast. Therefore it happened. The
> only reason for rejecting the resurrection as an historical event is
> that it is a miacle.
What exactly do you mean by "very well documented"? Other than
the synoptic gospels, written long after the alleged events by people
who could not have been eye witnesses, on what do you base your
assertion?
Regards,
Patrick
------------------------------------------------------------------------
S P Engineering, Inc. | The experts in large scale distributed OO
| systems design and implementation.
p...@spe.com | (C++, Java, ObjectStore, Oracle, CORBA, UML)
David Wynne-Griffiths
from "Malcolm" <mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> contains these words:
> The only reason for rejecting the resurrection
> as an historical event is that it is a miacle.
How could it have been anything else? Firstly it is an impossible feat
for there are no such places as heaven and hell. Secondly the story was
used to cover the fact that Jesus was in fact resuscitated not
resurrected.
--
~~~~~~
Davidwg
~~~~~~
Woden
news:bop0eu$v45$3...@news7.svr.pol.co.uk:
> QED. The best atheists can offer is the "Jesus didn't exist" nonsense.
> Do you think Paul didn't exist, or do you think that he invented
> Peter? Do you seriously believe that such a rich set of traditions as
> the letters and gospels could have coalesced around a non-existent
> person in a few tens of years? Do you think that all the serious
> scholars are wrong when they dismiss Jesus mythers as not worth
> serious academic debate?
All I did was ask for you to provide some evidence. With some real
evidence, we could settle the issue and whether I believe a Jesus person
existed would become irrelevent. So unless you can produce some
evidence, I see no reason to consider the Jesus story of the bible to be
anything other than mythical.
As to your specific questions. Did Paul exist: obviously someone wrote
those letters. Who it was and what that person was like, we have nothing
beyond the bible as a basis for learning about him. Do I think the
letters & gospels could have come about in a hundred years or so: yes, it
happens all the time. How long did it take for myths about George
Washington to develop? How long after his time did the cherry tree story
come around, or the story about throwing the dollar across the Potomac?
Do I think "all" serious scholars dismiss Jesus "mythers": well,
considering the number of serious scholars that contend Jesus was
mythical, your argument looks pretty stupid.
John Secker
<mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>QED. The best atheists can offer is the "Jesus didn't exist" nonsense.
How do you think that this "proves" your contention? Did Woden claim
that he was about to advance the "best atheists could offer". Did all
the other atheists in the world get together and agree that Woden was
representing us, and that his argument was better than anything else we
could think of?
Of course the "Jesus didn't exist" argument is not even particularly
relevant to atheism. There are plenty of atheists (myself included) who
take the view that Jesus probably did exist in some form. Plenty of
others disagree. But we are all atheists - so "Jesus didn't exist" is
not only NOT the strongest atheist argument, it isn't even particularly
important to atheism.
--
John Secker
John Secker
<mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>Quote in context. That was assuming that normal historical criteria can be
>applied to the resurrection. ie, we don't make any special allowances for it
>being a miracle. Well the resurrection is very well documented, and it
>explains why the martyrs were prepared to die, and why Christianity grew so
>fast. Therefore it happened.
in the resurrection, then that is all that it proves - that they
believed it. We know, from all the incompatible religions around the
world, that many millions of people believe false things, and are
prepared to die for them. Plenty of martyrs die in false causes -
therefore martydom cannot prove a cause true.
--
John Secker
Tom Breton
> How could it have been anything else? Firstly it is an impossible feat
> for there are no such places as heaven and hell. Secondly the story was
> used to cover the fact that Jesus was in fact resuscitated not
> resurrected.
Just out of curiosity, what convinced you that Jesus was real and was
resuscitated? Was it _The Passover Plot_?
--
Tom Breton at panix.com, username tehom. http://www.panix.com/~tehom
RainLover
<mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>By teaching that "Marduk and Jesus have equal validity" the school is
>effectively pushing atheism. By excluding Christianity from the curriculum
>it is doing violence to the education of children who will enter a society
>profoundly influenced by Christian culture.
My point exactly! So What if we changed it to giving Mohomad and
Jesus equal validity? Would THAT be "pushing atheism" too? What
about the Budha and Jesus as equal? Another athiest agenda in your
mind?
No. Christians don't want christianity to be a PART of the curriculum
in schools... they want it to be the ONLY one.
James, Seattle.
RainLover
<mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>QED. The best atheists can offer is the "Jesus didn't exist" nonsense. Do
>you think Paul didn't exist, or do you think that he invented Peter? Do you
>seriously believe that such a rich set of traditions as the letters and
>gospels could have coalesced around a non-existent person in a few tens of
>years? Do you think that all the serious scholars are wrong when they
>dismiss Jesus mythers as not worth serious academic debate?
>
I don't think the "jesus mythers" would all say that Jesus, the man,
never existed... but as to if he was a GOD? ... a myth.
James, Seattle
RainLover
<mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>Quote in context. That was assuming that normal historical criteria can be
>applied to the resurrection. ie, we don't make any special allowances for it
>being a miracle. Well the resurrection is very well documented, and it
>explains why the martyrs were prepared to die, and why Christianity grew so
>fast. Therefore it happened. The only reason for rejecting the resurrection
>as an historical event is that it is a miacle.
The resurrection is a fabrication. Your "well documented"
documentation is all stuff that people have put into the christian
bible, nothing more.
Mormonism has grown MUCH faster than traditional 'christianity', so,
by your arguement, therefore, Joeseph Smith talked to God and God gave
him the book of mormon. (It took jesus's christians over a 1,000
years to have a Million followers... it only took Mormons 20 years to
reach that number.)
Why do you reject all the other stories of gods and men being
resurrected throughout history? Nearly every religon has them...
Mesopotamia, Indians, Budhists, ect...
James, Seattle
David Wynne-Griffiths
from Tom Breton <te...@panix.com> contains these words:
> Just out of curiosity, what convinced you that Jesus was real and was
> resuscitated? Was it _The Passover Plot_?
I think it is probable that such a person existed and it is alleged that
he appeared to many people after his alleged death. As resurrection is
imposible resuscitation is the probable explanation. There are accounts
of people being cut down from the cross and resuscitated in for instance
Josephus.
I presume that 'The Passover Plot' is a book but I have not read it.
--
~~~~~~~
Davidwg
~~~~~~~
Tom Breton
> Nonsense. Even if we accept that the martyrs died because they believed
> in the resurrection, then that is all that it proves - that they
> believed it. We know, from all the incompatible religions around the
> world, that many millions of people believe false things, and are
> prepared to die for them. Plenty of martyrs die in false causes -
> therefore martydom cannot prove a cause true.
And indeed, some martyrs die in contradictory causes. For instance,
seems to me Muslim suicide bombers and Christian martyrs were working
at cross purposes.
And their relevant characteristic seems to be shared with bungee
jumpers who were entirely sure the bungee cord was securely attached
when it wasn't.
Malcolm
"Patrick May" <p...@spe.com> wrote in message
[ resurrection ]
> What exactly do you mean by "very well documented"? Other than
> the synoptic gospels, written long after the alleged events by people
> who could not have been eye witnesses, on what do you base your
> assertion?
>
around AD50-60, so within 30 years of the alleged event. The gospels
probably are not eyewitness accounts, but some may have been and some
sections may have been written by eyewitnesses. They weren't written "long
after" the alleged events - the latest possible date for the last gospel is
about AD120 for John, just on the fringes of living memory. There's a bit
literature on dating the synoptics, some people putting them before AD70 (on
the grounds that the prophecies of the destruction of Jerusalem aren't
specific enough to be retroactive).
That's pretty good evidence. If it wasn't a miracle, the resurrection would
be accepted as a fact.
Tom Breton
> The message <m3wua33...@mail.panix.com>
> from Tom Breton <te...@panix.com> contains these words:
>
> > Just out of curiosity, what convinced you that Jesus was real and was
> > resuscitated? Was it _The Passover Plot_?
>
> I think it is probable that such a person existed and it is alleged that
> he appeared to many people after his alleged death. As resurrection is
> imposible resuscitation is the probable explanation. There are accounts
> of people being cut down from the cross and resuscitated in for instance
> Josephus.
I see. But I have to disagree.
Second part first: it is also alleged that Elvis appeared to many
people after his alleged death.
And IMO there's no good evidence of a historical Jesus and much
circumstantial evidence against his existence (A good reference,
http://pages.ca.inter.net/~oblio/home.htm).
What one usually points to when trying to prove Jesus' historical
existence are two references in Josephus and one in Tacitus. None of
the three carry much weight.
The first in Josephus, in WOTJ 18, is positioned beside obvious fairy
tales and bears signs of whole or partial change later. The second,
in WOTJ 20, badly breaks the flow of text for no apparent reason. So
basically, Christians added them later.
Tacitus was writing decades later. It is unlikely that he had actual
evidence since the records were probably burned when Rome burned, the
Roman records of executions wouldn't have called him the Christ, and
Tacitus wasn't much of a fact-checker anyways. It's likely that he
took Christian accounts at face value.
This is all expanded on in Scott Oser's Historicity Of Jesus FAQ,
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
> I presume that 'The Passover Plot' is a book but I have not read it.
Yes, it's a book that argues something similar.
John Secker
<mal...@55bank.freeserve.co.uk> writes
>That's pretty good evidence. If it wasn't a miracle, the resurrection would
>be accepted as a fact.
>
a chariot drawn by mystical horses. This is contemporary description,
written by people who were actually alive on the very days that the sun
was in the sky! Eyewitnesses, indeed! If it wasn't a load of
unscientific superstitious codswallop, it would be accepted as fact.
--
John Secker