Kosh

I was able to get my head around "utter cobbler",
but "utter gonads"? That's got to represent
a total impossibility, right?

Muad'Dib

C'mon, Oolon, I know he's tromping on your toes, but is all of that really necessary in a higher forum?

RyanS2

Depends. The Sabians, the Magi, the Zoroastrians, the Greeks, the Romans, the Jews, the Chaldeans, the Hamite's, the Egyptians, and the Hindu's knew about astrotheology. (Check out the Catholic Encyclopedia under "astrology". Certainly if anyone would have a reason to deny this it'd be them!)

As far as Acharya S goes, some of the material is hers, some isn't.

In fact, there is very little in the Bible on either astronomy or astrology; the biggest astronomical motif I'm familiar with from the Bible is the story of Samson, which is often considered a Sun allegory.

That depends on how you interpret the Bible. The actual AMOUNT of astrotheological references in the Bible are pretty good. It depends on whether or not you take them to be astrotheological or not. Example?

Matthew 28:20 it states "Surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age". If you look at this astrotheologically, this is the end of the age of Pisces.

Joshua was called the Son of Nun, which in Hebrew means "fish". The new "age" being ushered in by Yeshua would be the "Age of Aquarius". The symbol for the age of Aquarius is the "Water-bearer", or the man with a water pitcher.  If you go to Luke 22:10, when Jesus is asked by his 12 apostles where he will go to settle his new kingdom, he responds, "Behold, when ye arew entered into the city, there shall a man meet you bearing a pitcher of water, follow him into the house where he entereth in."

That's the "House of Aquarius". The Sun is entering into the "House of Aquarius". If that were Chaldean or Egyptian, we'd automatically assume that's an astrotheological reference, but we never say that with the Bible.

Outside of the references I listed at the thread you posted under similar topic, if we go to 2 Kings 23:5:

"And he destroyed the soothsayers, whom the kings of Juda had appointed to sacrifice in the high places in the cities of Juda, and round about Jerusalem: them also that burnt incense to Baal, and to the sun, and to the moon, and to the twelve signs, and to all the host of heaven."

The "twelve signs" is the Hebraic word of "mazzalah", which has varying definitions. Perhaps Apikorus, (I think that's his name, my apologies to him if it's not proper nomenclature), can help us here, he seems fairly adept on Hebrew language and usage.

"Planet," "constellations", and "signs of the zodiac." The word used in the Greek translation is "mazarouth"; which does mean "zodiac". A "strained" connection is in the eye of the Beholder Petrich. For instance, your mythic-hero profile was thought to be very strained by the Christians, yet it makes perfect sense to you. Who's right? Different cultures, even ones unconnected, can find the same myths concurrent because they were usually based on the same thing. The same fear that made Japanese sailors use Kuji-in spells to protect their voyages was the same thing that made merchants in Arabia inscribe God names in appeal for help on the trade routes. Even in the ancient days, people knew what was and was not credible.

Take, for instance, the biographies of Muhammad. The earliest record keepers knew which ones sounded reasonable and which ones didn't, and as we go over more and more of the areas where these myths developed, we find more and more of the editing and deconstructionalism of the myths of Muhammad. (For instance, the one where his body hangs in mid-air). It's fairly well-known the most reliable hadith attributed to Muhammad are about 340 years post-death of Muhammad. Makes sense to me, that's when the most editing of what had/had not happened took place.

Even with what paltry remains we have of the literature of those early era's, we can clearly detect that they had some complete skeptics and critical thinkers in their midst, much like today.

RyanS2

Speaking of books with lots of astrotheology in it, try the book of Revelation.

Oolon Colluphid

It's called being provocative. It's a bit quiet next door in E/C atm, and when I've previously tried more subtle approaches to getting these fools in there to actually discuss it, I'm ignored. I thought I'd shout a bit this time. Sorry!

Oolon

Muad'Dib

No worries; I didn't realize you'd tried to attract his attention before--though in all fairness, calling them fools may not be the best way to convince them to visit you.

I'll try to be more diligent about sending people over to you--or at least telling them they'd be welcome to join the discussion.

Asha'man

Gee, good point. Is this a conspiracy theory? All it takes is one firm believer, such as yourself, to attack and ridicule the beliefs of a dissenter, such as myself. I guess that would never happen in the real world, would it?

Besides, why should a conspiracy be off the table? The whole premise of this thread is that parts of the Jesus story were a fabrication, drawn from other myths of the time. Am I that out of bounds thinking that someone was making stuff up and altering facts? If you invent or alter facts and try to pass them off as true, aren’t you conspiring to hide the truth?

Why do you assume there were 12 (11?) disciples that started this conspiracy? Because the bible mentions them by name? But aren’t they just part of the same story that we are questioning? IIRC, There are other documents that mention names of disciples, up to 5 of them, but I don’t think you want to accept those documents, since they also claim Jesus was a fraud.

Gee, I’m accusing the authors of the Gospels of lying, and you think it is a fallacy to consider their character? I think my hypothesis would be entirely incomplete if I left out the issue of motive.

I guess you didn’t get the point of my example. I’m proposing that the Gospel writers fit a particular behavior pattern and belief structure. I give a modern example of that same behavior pattern and belief structure, proving that such a pattern does exist. Where exactly is that fallacy again?

This leads me more to the conclusion that the whole thing was entirely fictional from the start. Was that your point? However, the story isn’t really all that consistent, is it? Even following just from Mark to Matthew and Luke, the story of the trial is altered. Given how much Luke and Matthew quoted Mark verbatim, I think any changes are significant. Why would the trial be altered? Was someone objecting to the original story? Were they trying to do a better job of hiding some facts?

As for your assertion that Jesus may have been raising an army, that is really a pretty absurd leap in logic. If Jesus was raising an army, why would the Jews object, and why wouldn’t Rome have fallen in they year 36 or so? For that matter, why raise an army when you could just turn all the Roman soldiers into pillars of salt?

But back to the original issue, did the Sanhedrin have the authority to enforce capital punishment? I say they lost that power in the year 40, and provided a reason for my belief. I also say that they both had and used that power up till then. Do you have any (non-biblical) evidence otherwise? Can you point out an earlier date, and provide a reference?

If Jesus wasn’t being accused of blasphemy, how exactly do you interpret Mark 16:63-64: “Then the high priest rent his clothes, and saith, What need we any further witnesses? Ye have heard the blasphemy: what think ye? And they all condemned him to be guilty of death.” (It seems that rending garments after a blasphemy is required by the Talmudic interpretation of 2 Kings 18:37)

PS. Metacrock, I’m glad to see that your responses are full of Christian love and scholarly impartiality. I would hate to see this discussion degenerate into point-by-point ridicule of every sentence, those are so much less interesting to follow.

PPS. I’m still drawing parts of my positon from Robert Sheaffer’s Making of the Messiah, for those who are interested.

BK

Only because Jesus is to be from the line of David. It has nothing to do with him being a King. Heck, everyone who gathered in Bethlehem on that night 2000 years ago was of the lineage of David. The number of heirs of David (given the number of grandchildren he must have had through Solomon alone) were probably very numerous. This is not the same as being the son of a King who is the rightful heir to the king's throne (although there is that aspect involved).

Yes, even Jesus notes that. But that is quite a bit different that Jesus saying the things he said about himself (I am the bread of life, I am the living water, I am the Lord of the Sabbath, I and the Father are one, etc.)

Actually, I believe he went to Egypt earlier than 8, but regardless, by age 12 he had returned to Nazareth. Hardly a long time in Egypt.

But that is not what LR's factor states. It says: "he triumphs over the reigning king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast". He did none of these things. You are reaching.

Are we talking about the Gospel or speculation about the Gospels? The Gospels do not say that Jesus married anyone. Now, if you want to read things into the Gospel, well you can read all of the factors into the Gospel by making up enough details.

He became a king only in the sense that he said that his kingdom was not of this earth. He never became a king on earth. And being a prophet did not make anyone a king.

First I rejected 14 because it depends on 13 which is not a fit. Second, I reject this because from the very beginning, he was stirring up controversy with his miracles and claims.

That is a real stetch, IMO. While he was alive, he was teaching. He was not promulgating laws that anyone but his disciples believed ought to be followed. Do the other examples have people who teach being given credit as lawmakers when their teaching were later given the force of law?

He lost favor with the temple priests long before the "temper tantrum" (as you call it). He never lost favor with God. He never lost favor with his disciples (although they abandoned him--it wasn't because he lost favor but because they were scared). The rulers were his enemies almost from the start.

That is not being driven from the throne or the City.

That is not how I understand the word "mysterious." He was crucified. That was not mysterious.

Sure, but I said no because of 18 (as I noted. There was nothing mysterious about the death.

There is nothing that says that Mary Magdalene had sexual relations with Jesus, this is pure speculation. As I earlier said, stick to the Gospels and not speculative details and there is no way you can say anything but "no" about this.

Yes, that is the good news. But LR's factor is that his body wasn't buried. As you acknowledge, it was.

And I still stand by my low score.

BK

[ January 28, 2002: Message edited by: BK ]</p>

BK

With a couple of exceptions that still puzzle me, it is coherent, and I never quote it out of context.

The church fathers who were closer in time to the actual writings than the Biblical revisionists of the 20th Century.

No, it is the same Jesus, and the Gospels have not been heavily edited.
Yes and no. Certainly there was a committee that ultimately decided to leave them out, but any reading of church history will show that the four Gospels that are included were undisputed from the very beginning, and the other "Gospels" were always given less credence.
Big difference. These guys would have been required to be willing to die based upon some they would have known to be false if Jesus had not risen from the dead. The Muslims are martyring based upon belief. The Communists and Japanese are dying for an idea. How many of these people would have died if they knew that Mohammed lied (assuming he did) about being given the Koran from God? How many would have died if they did not believe the teaching of Communism or Japanese miliarism? I bet the answer would be none. But you are suggesting that the original followers of Christ, knowing that his resurrection was a fraud, were willing to die for him anyway. No, I don't buy that.
I don't claim to be. Are you? You seem to have no hesitation to tell me that I am wrong.
I am aware of that as I have read several, several articles on the subject. It boils down to this: there is no known mechanism in the biochemistry area for the eye to have developed. It is simply too chancy. But evolutions insist that it is a mistake to simply identify a creator because science has alwasy found solutions to problems in the past (not true, but we'll go with it for now), and surrendering to design will impair research. Fine. That is an epistemological belief, but it needs to be recognized as a belief--faith, if you will, in science.

And I think it all looks like design. To show me I am wrong, simply illustrate the intermediate chemical steps that led to the photo sensitive patch, and calculate the odds of each step occuring that is realisitic. That's all.

BK

BK

The Freethinker's Guide to Debating Christians on the Internet

1) Affect an amused condescending tolerance from the beginning, like you, the professor, might have time to indulge in lowering yourself to speaking with them. This sets the proper tone.

2) When you see one appear, usually they'll post a sweet intro, in which they'll use some such phrase like, "in Christ's love" or "God bless you". Take this as an immediate opportunity to post amongst yourselves intellectual messages like, "Uh oh, another fundie." and "Oh great, another idiot christian trying to ram their hate down our throats."

Oh boy. Some of you are well acquainted with the handbook.

BK