Dr S

(V) So, you think that executing him like a common criminal isn't taking note.
(S) Try to pay attention because you seem to be missing this point.
This is only part of a story. It is part of the claim.
There are no records that this ever happened.

(V) Have you read even one single gospel in its entirety? If so, I find it amazing that you would fail to realize that the Jewish leaders took note of Jesus the minute he became known among the people.

But the Pharisees went out and plotted how they might kill Jesus. Aware of this, Jesus withdrew from that place.

-- Matthew 12:14-15
(S) I am well aware of how violently anti-Semitic the NT is. The evil Jewish leaders take note of Jesus in this piece of fiction as do the Roman authorities.
Like most Atheists I became one because I read the bible.
But I'm not talking about this poorly cobbled together collection of myths. I'm talking about the real world. In the real-nonfiction-world there is nothing to show that Jesus and his band of merry men ever existed, let alone were magic makers.

(V) First, I would like you to demonstrate your claims about the direct comparisons between Christ and Mithras.
(S) I'm sure you've seen it time and again. Any web search for Mithra will provide a lengthy list for you.

(V) Second, the Acts of John would appear to be of the same caliber of the Gospel of Thomas, which contains "secret sayings" that consist primarily in theological embellishments. Such fabrications have all the marks of legendary development which are not to be found in the NT canon.
(S) They were found in Christian cannon until 325 CE when the Pagan Emperor Constantine had them removed for his own motives. They aren't in today's NT cannon because (if the Christian dates of 75 CE for the penning of the gospels are to be believed) after 250 years as THE word of God the Roman Government tossed them in the dumpster. Yes, they are of the same "caliber" as Thomas. Of equal or greater authenticity as the surviving gospels. They are exactly as legendary as the Imperial approved books are.
How do you know that these gospels aren't the true story? The Acts of John, The Gospel of Thomas, The Sophia of Jesus Christ, the Apocryphon of John, the Gospel of Mary Magdalene, the Pistis Sophia all written at the same time as your books, all about Jesus, all different stories than the surviving editions.
How do you know which is right? The Council of Nicaea was three hundred years after the character Jesus' execution. The council had nothing to check their facts by. All they knew was that they had to please the Emperor. Who was not even a Christian.
What makes you think they got it right?

(V) But what strikes me is your realization that you are intentionally being disrespectful and--if you are wrong--blasphemous.
(S) Yes I am being intentionally disrespectful of the Holy Bible. I'm also intentionally disrespectful of Mein Kampf. I have no respect for lies that cause so much human suffering.
Are you so afraid of that stupid little volume that you think to speak out against it is a crime? That's what blasphemy is you know--a crime. The crime of speaking out against oppression. We don't have that medieval tyranny here in the Untied States. We have FREEDOM OF SPEECH & FREEDOM OF RELIGION. I placed that in all caps because it actually is sacred. There is no such thing as blasphemy in a truly free country.

(V) Also, In notice that you appear to be concerned with some remnant of "morality" which compels you to protect children. To what moral standard do you subscribe, and what is its basis?
(S) Spare me your hollow boast that Christians invented morality. Until you learn what a lie is, and stop telling them about the EOG you are ill equipped to make any moral claims at all.

Vorkosigan

Please provide convincing references. Second, the Acts of John would appear to be of the same caliber of the Gospel of Thomas, which contains "secret sayings" that consist primarily in theological embellishments. Such fabrications have all the marks of legendary development which are not to be found in the NT canon.

This is rapidly becoming something that will have to move over to Bib Crit.

Vander --

Gospel of Thomas sayings are not "theologically embellished" but are similar in form and content to those found in the Synoptics. Specifically, some 25-40%, depending on which scholar you cite and what angle you take, are parallel. If you read the appendices in the back of Crossan's The Birth of Christianity you will find lists of which sayings are paralleled in the Q gospel, and hence, found in the Synoptics. Crossan gives the figure of 37% for Thomas sayings found in the Q gospel. The relationship between Thomas and the Synoptics is controversial, but it is difficult to deny that there is a relationship, and a close and genetic one.

As for marks of legendary development, they are found throughout the NT canon. But specifically, most scholars accept that the Virgin Birth stories, the feeding of the thousands, the water walk, the physical resurrection and most other miracles are legendary embellishment. The healings are not necessarily considered so, since healings were common in ancient times around the world.

However, this is not a fit topic for this forum. Why don't you post a question on the topic in Bib Crit? Many people will be happy to respond.
Vorkosigan

Vanderzyden

OK, so you have stooped to the level of calling me a liar. I simply asked for your moral basis.

This comes from a person who does nothing to substantiate his claims, but merely screams at and spits upon the Creator (who doesn't exist).

My guess is that you have not read the Bible for yourself, only selectively browsing it to suit your whims.

Your claims are false, plain and simple. But you and I shall not discuss them directly--not when you choose to engage in this manner.

...to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

Good day.

Vanderzyden

Vanderzyden

While I don't agree with the "most scholars" support you are claiming for evaluation of the NT canon, I do agree with your assessment of the suitability of these digressions to another forum. Eventually, I will venture over there. However, I have too many irons in the fire right now.

You should know that I appreciate this type of post much better, finding it to be a markedly different from our previous engagements.

Thanks!

John

Dr S

You say there is a god.
You also say that god gives you no proof of his existence.
You also say there is proof but neglect say what it is.

I'm calling a spade a spade. You give no indication of knowing what basic honesty is.

If god doesn't allow proof of his existence in order to preserve "free will" then you cannot possibly know that he exists let alone what his motivation is.
To declare that you do means that either you are not being honest about knowing he exists or you are not being honest about your not being in possession of proof.
Whichever it is, it isn't moral behavior.
If you expect people to keep writing to you, you are going to have to show them the bare minimum of respect of being honest to them.

Vibr8gKiwi

I wish that every Christian who repeats this sort of insinuation over and over again, would spend some time discussing with a Muslim or Hindu or something who made similar comments. Then they'd see how lame and annoying it is to be told things like: "you're only dissin' my god Allah 'cause you hate him and therefore really believe in him!"

Funny but these comments are exactly what most of us here would say to you. Though we're usually willing to discuss and give support to our opinion, despite being insulted over and over again by things like the following:

Dr S

(Vibr8gKiwi)...to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

(S) Oh, he meant that towards us? I guess... yes, of course he did. The funny thing is that it so closely describes what he is doing.

But at least in this thread the question of just who is in denial has been answered.

(Vanderzyden) This comes from a person who does nothing to substantiate his claims, but merely screams at and spits upon the Creator (who doesn't exist).

(S) Here's a prime piece of denial. Still can't get it into his head that we are talking about only a "story" that he is telling, not an actual being.
Screaming and spitting over the internet are quite a feat. One I am incapable of. Maybe I should read up on html. Actually I couldn't be calmer. I find Xians antics amusing.

But the capper to this denial (or would it be simply self-deception?) is, after hearing that someone is offended by his behavior, he takes offense that the other is offended. Boy oh boy, that's one big bruiser of an ego. No justification for his behavior is offered. Certainly no apology, only a 'how dare you be offended by my lying to you?! I'm leaving.'

Could this denial actually go so deep that he doesn't realize his god story is just a story? Could he somehow think that he is involved with god, that god is only an extension of Vanderzyden?
It would explain a lot.

Vibr8gKiwi

I've noticed this is often the case. The classic example is when Christians say to read the bible when almost none of them have read it themselves (Van used that one I believe, but then they all do).

I don't think he's knowingly lying, however that doesn't make what he says true. It would be a bit less annoying for me if there were some evidence, or even a decent argument that came up for the Christian side occasionally. Usually there's just hypocrisy, double standards, special pleading, and the occasional argument from ignorance.

The bottom line is theists don't even accept their own arguments when those same arguments are made for a different religion, yet somehow they expect us to accept them. I don't know why they are so blind to this simple fact.

Theists (are you listening Van?), do yourself a favor: try phrasing your argument to yourself to support a religion you don't believe (almost all theist arguments can be modified that way, as all religions seem to share the same arguments anyway). If you aren't convinced by the argument when phrased to support Islam (or whatever), then don't waste your time expecting we'll be convinced of Christianity with that argument. Isn't that simple? It will save us all a lot of time and you won't look like a hypocrite.

[ September 05, 2002: Message edited by: Vibr8gKiwi ]</p>

wade-w

Originally posted by Vanderzyden:


What have you done to substantiate your claims for the "historical accuracy" of the bible? If you want to be taken seriously, you need to lose the double standard!

Vanderzyden

You have done nothing to answer my question. Instead you continue to be divisive with your accusations of lying.

So, yes, it is you who that is in denial. You arguing from a vacuum--that is, nothing. And you continually fail to produce anything to back up your claims. You continue to repeat your unsubstantiated beliefs.

Have you brought these preposterous claims along with supportive evidence into the biblical criticism forum? Why not? Because they won't withstand the criticism. Recently, I see that no one takes you seriously with regard to your Mithras and miracle comparisons and your disrespectful insinuations pertaining to biblical "inerrancy".

So, I won't bother discussing the serious issues with you. Instead, let's focus on your approach: why should we bother engaging you if all you do is insult and play games?

Vanderzyden