Freethought & Rationalism Archive

J-D · 04-29-2012, 02:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The roolz here discourage calling out another poster in the title of a thread.

The title of this thread does not name any poster.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

After all, consider what she says:

It is clear that scholars have known about the mythological nature of the Bible, yet they have gone to immense lengths to hide it, including using sophisticated language, like the priestly counterparts who have utilized the dead language Latin to go over the heads of the uneducated masses.

This pretty much describes the situation in American seminaries during the last generation, when seminarians learned that the gospels were not literally true, but then went out to pastor churches and found that their parishioners would hear nothing of it, and needed to be told that everything happened exactly like the gospels said it did.

There is a big difference between 'mythological' and 'not literal'. To take a Biblical example, 'I am a rose of Sharon, a lily of the valleys' is not literal language, but it's not mythological.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

A lot of universities are in fact under the dominion of the Catholic Church.

What fraction of all universities are Catholic? One in twenty? One in ten? What fraction would count as 'a lot'?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

We seem to have cross posted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

... I'm genuinely interested if any Acharya S supporter will respond. Surely even for them there comes a time when they will throw up their hands and say "C'mon Acharya S, that claim is nuttier than a chestnut tree in a peanut factory!" If none do, then no worries if you move it.

There are no identifiable Acharya S supporters among the regulars here except for Dave31, and he has declined to participate.

I think you are trying to poison the well by continually bringing up Acharya S's nuttier theories and tying them to Doherty. If you want to discuss Doherty, make a clean thread and leave Acharya S out of it. Doherty does not engage in conspiracy theories or cite outdated history of religion theories.

I personally am grateful to have this additional piece of information added to the (virtual) nothing I previously knew about Acharya S, despite recognising the name from past mentions in this forum.

steve_bnk · 04-29-2012, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

I hope Dave31 can join in here. Acharya S writes in "The Christ Conspiracy" (or via: amazon.co.uk) that the Catholic Church is behind the surpression of mythicism, and scholars have gone to immense lengths to hide the mythological nature of the Bible! My emphasis below:

Page 348:

Unbeknownst to the masses, the pope is the Grand Master-Mason of the Masonic branches of the world.

and Page 376:

It is clear that scholars have known about the mythological nature of the Bible, yet they have gone to immense lengths to hide it, including using sophisticated language, like the priestly counterparts who have utilized the dead language Latin to go over the heads of the uneducated masses. It is possible that any number of these scholars are also Masons or members of some such secret brotherhood who are under the blood oath.

Or they may merely be products of their occupation, in that many universities and colleges are under the dominion of the fraternities and the grand master, the Pope, i.e., the Catholic Church.

In any case, they have been pawns, unwitting or otherwise, in the Christ conspiracy, which has obscured ancient knowledge and wisdom under a false front of historicity, by the most thorough of methods, including secrecy, forgery, force and destruction.

Dave31 or any other mythicist, is it possible that Ehrman is a Mason or member of some such secret brotherhood under a blood oath, and under the influence of the Pope? Or is that unlikely?

Back off...we/they/us know where you live! We are pledged to protect teh secret at all costs. Or was that The Mummy or maybe Inidiana Jones.

There was some academic infighting and teritorialism surrounding the trfanslation of the Dead Sea Scrolls. Conspiracy?

In a book I read Breaking The Mayan Code there was serious academic supression of investigation and alternatives approaches untill one partcular person died.

These things happen, but it is a stretch to make it into long running organized conspiracy on biblical studies. Academic schools of thought form often contray to one another.

As to the RCC it is a 2000 year old conspiracy if you want to look at it that way. The Vatican these days is run by PHD level people. They are not stupid. Do they all really believe it all? I doubt it. The job of the RCC theoogians are to mainatian a seamless theology with no ambiguities or questions within the church.

The common foundation for all Chhristianity is a belief in the ressurection based on alleged eyewitness accounts in the gospels. Take that away and Christianity falls apart. Myth is not an option.

Toto · 04-29-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The roolz here discourage calling out another poster in the title of a thread.

The title of this thread does not name any poster.

The title was edited to remove a name.

Quote:

There is a big difference between 'mythological' and 'not literal'. ...

There are also various meanings of "myth." The quote does not actually allow us to know which meaning was intended.

Quote:

I personally am grateful to have this additional piece of information added to the (virtual) nothing I previously knew about Acharya S, despite recognising the name from past mentions in this forum.

Most of the time her name comes up here, GDon is trying to condemn someone else with guilt by association.

sotto voce · 04-29-2012, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

As to the RCC it is a 2000 year old conspiracy if you want to look at it that way.

1700 years old. In its first decades, the church went unnoticed by the Empire; thereafter it was infiltrated, bribed, corrupted, threatened, slaughtered, until, in the fulness of time, it was unrecognisable as apostolic, and ripe for the Empire to call its own. That was entirely predictable then, and for anyone who knows the New Testament and the history of the Roman Empire, it is the only possible outcome for the contemporary historian. The only question that remains is why deity would create that witness in those inauspicious circumstances.

Perhaps it is a trap.

Anyway, it follows that the Vatican embraces mythicism; just as it kisses the Qur'an, whores with Hinduism and voodoo, is bedfellow with the atheist— who knows that there is no Christ, yet knows who is a Christian. The devil doesn't mind what people believe, as long as it's wrong.

steve_bnk · 04-29-2012, 04:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

As to the RCC it is a 2000 year old conspiracy if you want to look at it that way.

1700 years old. In its first decades, the church went unnoticed by the Empire; thereafter it was infiltrated, bribed, corrupted, threatened, slaughtered, until, in the fulness of time, it was unrecognisable as apostolic, and ripe for the Empire to call its own. That was entirely predictable then, and for anyone who knows the New Testament and the history of the Roman Empire, it is the only possible outcome for the contemporary historian. The only question that remains is why deity would create that witness in those inauspicious circumstances.

Perhaps it is a trap.

Anyway, it follows that the Vatican embraces mythicism; just as it kisses the Qur'an, whores with Hinduism and voodoo, is bedfellow with the atheist— who knows that there is no Christ, yet knows who is a Christian. The devil doesn't mind what people believe, as long as it's wrong.

Christ as myth is anathema to Christianity.

sotto voce · 04-29-2012, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

Quote:

Originally Posted by steve_bnk

As to the RCC it is a 2000 year old conspiracy if you want to look at it that way.

1700 years old. In its first decades, the church went unnoticed by the Empire; thereafter it was infiltrated, bribed, corrupted, threatened, slaughtered, until, in the fulness of time, it was unrecognisable as apostolic, and ripe for the Empire to call its own. That was entirely predictable then, and for anyone who knows the New Testament and the history of the Roman Empire, it is the only possible outcome for the contemporary historian. The only question that remains is why deity would create that witness in those inauspicious circumstances.

Perhaps it is a trap.

Anyway, it follows that the Vatican embraces mythicism; just as it kisses the Qur'an, whores with Hinduism and voodoo, is bedfellow with the atheist— who knows that there is no Christ, yet knows who is a Christian. The devil doesn't mind what people believe, as long as it's wrong.

Christ as myth is anathema to Christianity.

Like Roman Catholicism.

aa5874 · 04-29-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sotto voce

....Anyway, it follows that the Vatican embraces mythicism; just as it kisses the Qur'an, whores with Hinduism and voodoo, is bedfellow with the atheist— who knows that there is no Christ, yet knows who is a Christian. The devil doesn't mind what people believe, as long as it's wrong.

What devil are you talking about?? There is NO historical Devil just like Jesus.

Based on Apologetic sources the Devil EXISTED as an EVIL being and Jesus existed as the Son of God.

They are ALL MYTHS.

There is no such thing as RIGHT BELIEF in Mythology except that people ARE RIGHT not to accept Myth Fable characters as Gods and Devils.

If you believe in Gods be careful --you might BELIEVE in the wrong one--the one that dosen't exist.

MrMacSon · 04-29-2012, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon quoting AS

.. the Catholic Church is behind the surpression of mythicism, and scholars have gone to immense lengths to hide the mythological nature of the Bible!

It is highly likely the early church administrators hid the mythological nature, and perhaps there is still some evidence in the Vatican vaults for that mythological nature or the hiding of it, or both; but, it is hard to know how much subsequent generations of priests and church administrators knew & know today.

so, yes some ...

Quote:

... 'scholars' [may know or have known] about the mythological nature of the Bible, [with the early church] having gone to immense lengths to hide it, including using sophisticated language, like the priestly counterparts who have utilized the dead language Latin to go over the heads of the uneducated masses.

[and] .... obscured ancient knowledge and wisdom under a false front of historicity, by the most thorough of methods, including secrecy, forgery, force and destruction.

But charges like these may be counter-productive by establishing tangental arguments about their validity and soundness ...

Quote:

Unbeknownst to the masses, the pope is the Grand Master-Mason of the Masonic branches of the world.

It is possible that any number of these scholars are also Masons or members of some such secret brotherhood who are under the blood oath.

J-D · 04-29-2012, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

Originally Posted by J-D

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

The roolz here discourage calling out another poster in the title of a thread.

The title of this thread does not name any poster.

The title was edited to remove a name.

I didn't know that. Fair point. I apologise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toto

Quote:

There is a big difference between 'mythological' and 'not literal'. ...

There are also various meanings of "myth." The quote does not actually allow us to know which meaning was intended.

Then there's inadequate justification for the conclusion implicit in your earlier remarks.

aa5874 · 04-29-2012, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GakuseiDon

Toto, I have been saying for years that there is very little evidence for a historical Jesus and that questioning his historicity is, in my view, a valid line of enquiry.

Last year Doherty even said I was a "99% mythicist" (though mystifyingly on his website, on the exact same points I suddenly became an "Internet apologist"). He welcomed me to the mythicist club! But as I responded, I've already been there a long time.

There is very little evidence for a historical Jesus, our sources contain very little verifiable evidence for what he said and did, so any reconstruction is built on probabilities, most of them low. It's just that in my view: (a) a historical Jesus as the origin for Christianity is the best explanation for the evidence we do have.... .....

This is most astonishing. A mythicist who believes there is an historical Jesus, in effect, a mythicist who is an historicist.

Why do we have to deal with such hopeless ridiculous contradiction???

Sometimes, it is as if people become so INUNDATED with their absurdities that they become completely blind to reason.

You hardly ever support any person who argues Jesus was Non-historical and have the boldness to admit there is little evidence for an historical Jesus when there is NONE---ZERO.

What is your problem?? We know there is NO credible source, and NO DATED source for an historical Jesus in the 1st century between 1 CE and 36 CE.

Please Identify the VERY LITTLE EVIDENCE for an historical Jesus.

The very people who I would expect to be fair keep on repeating Chinese Whispers about very little evidence when they cannot present the Little that they have.

Ok, I understand. The evidence is SO LITTLE It can't be seen with the Naked Eye.

I am under the impression that people here may be in some kind of cult because they refuse to accept any evidence that can show that their position is FLAWED while they admit simultaneously that their evidence of Jesus is very weak.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.