spin

Not so. I can use the history I know to corroborate or reject certain parts of the bible.

You need to have some way to corroborate your analyses, otherwise the analyses themselves have little value.

There was a king of Judah called Hezekiah. There were known kings from Samaria, such as Jehu and Ahab and a royal house named Omri. The Assyrians came and conquered Samaria, bringing their power base to an end. The Babylonian king came and conquered Jerusalem removing the noble class to Babylon. There's lots of stuff that doesn't require guesswork. Want more?


spin

mountainman

The history of the fabrication and invention of the Universal Roman
religious order needs to understand that the first part of the bible,
(ie: the OT) is an innocent bystander which effectively got hijacked.

The books of the NT are presumed to have been written perhaps in
the 1st, perhaps in the 2nd, perhaps in the 3rd century CE, but not
in the 4th century. Historically the module called the NT got public
promotion only as late as 330 CE, at which time we first hear about
these two modules (OT + NT) being bound together.

However it is equally conceivable that the fabrication of the
Galilaeans was written entirely in the period 312-324 CE,
in preparation for "bullneck's Supremacy Party".

Imperial.

Theological romance has been "in" since bullneck fished
Maxentius' head out of the Tiber, and sent it on a pike
around the streets of Rome, and then off to Africa as a
stern message.

aa5874

I thought it would be obvious to you that I cannot speculate on the motives of the unknown authors of the NT. I need other vital information. For example, who exactly is the so-called Matthew, how did he gather his information, why is it all his so-called prophecies about Jesus the Christ are out of context, did he personally copy the core of his story from another source, could he understand Greek or Aramic, was he blind and was he illiterate?

These are but a few of the questions I would like to get answered to make a determination whether anyone of the unknown authors concocted their fictitious material.

aa5874

To illustrate one of the many concepts or doctrines of the non-historical Christ that was prevalent in the 2nd century, I will show an excerpt from 'Against Heresies' book 1 ch XXIV section 2- the doctrines of Saturninus and Balisides, it reads as follows: Now, was this the original doctrine or concept of Jesus the Christ and was later re-worked to produce the virgin birth conception? Who or what is Jesus the Christ and what exactly is a follower of Christ?

Steve Weiss

You can mention names and places from the bible until the cows come home, but it won't verify the truthfulness of accounts and stories in the bible. Please select even one story in the bible that you claim is true and validate it. Mentioning names and locations is irrelevant. Every novel does the same. Please indicate which "events" are true and how you know it to be so. Of course, you won't because it can't be done.

spin

So, the stories about the invasion of the Assyrians and that of the Babylonians aren't truthful?

I already have. I specifically mentioned the relations of the Samarians with the Assyrians and Judahites with the Babylonians.

Read the text and not your desires. There is a fair amount about the steady encroachment of the Assyrians against Samaria in the bible. Hezekiah's resistance to Sennacherib is attested in Assyrian texts. There is also a significant part about Nebuchadnezzar. The exile is a nice historically verified event. But go ahead, turn your back on these things. They don't suit your presuppositions.


spin

Steve Weiss

The stories that you mention in a vague sort of way do nothing to contradict my point that incidential references to historic, or allegedly historic, people and events does not lend credibility to the religious project known as the bible. The bible is largely a tribal mythology that contends that there is a special relationship of certain peoples with their deity, and that certain miraclulous events happened that verify the existence of this god and its chosen people Your mention of tangential groups and events that do not figure in these tall tales in any essential way are irrelevant. As I said, any novel does the same thing. I think that you are well aware of the legends and fables that I am referring to, but you choose to evade the issue.

Please deal with the main characters and theme of this fantasy book, not those characters that are playing a cameo role.

spin

Hezekiah was a main character. Sad isn't it? Your erroneous understanding doesn't hold, so you stretch to make it work. Then you'll stretch more. Why not read the book and get out of your fantasy world of everything nice and neat. The world is dirtier and more complex than you would like. Get used to it.


spin

Steve Weiss

Main character? Compared to whom? Moses, Abraham, Jesus? And the true stories central to the religious theme of the bible that you find to be credible are? Yes, the bible is dirty, on that we can agree.

Craigart14

Funny, but also a good point. The Santa Claus we revive every year (earlier and earlier for marketing reasons) bears about as much resemblance to the historical St. Nicholas as the Easter Bunny does to a rabbit. I don't doubt that there was a historical Jesus; there might have been thousands of them. To call him "the Christ," though, is begging the question, since whether or not he was the messiah or son of god would by no means be established even if we had absolute proof of his existence. The claim of a historical Jesus is not the same as the claim of a historical Christ. And even if James Cameron does have his bones in a box, that certainly doesn't prove that he could heal the sick with a touch or turn water into wine, let alone that he crawled alive out of the tomb. He may have been the leader or rabbi of a small Jewish sect. Who cares? The sayings gospels of Thomas and Mary Magdalene are just sayings; no miracles, no proof of divinity. Paul's letters, both those accepted as genuine and those of the Pauline school, claim he did perform miracles. That's where I get off the train. (Of course Paul says Jesus appeared to James and Peter, then to 500 others, and lastly to him, but he also says that Jesus appeared to him in a vision, not in the flesh. If he appeard to others in the same sort of vision, then we have hallucinations--or unverified claims of such--NOT real physical appearances with a handy open wound for doubting Thomas to stick his hand into.) As Doherty points out, pre-Markan writings contain no details about Jesus' life and ministry. People were undeducated and credulous; they routinely believed in miracles, in sexual unions between gods and women and goddesses and men. They liked miracle stories and visions of the apocalypse, when, as John says, the Romans would get what was coming to them. Mark fleshed out the sayings with a little hagiography borrowed from the OT, Matthew and Luke built on Mark, and John borrowed from Matthew and added a good bit from his own feverish brain, and voila! The Christ! That there was a Jesus is a perfectly ordinary claim. That there was a Christ who performed miracles and raised the dead is impossible.

Craig