Anunnaki

Metarock:
yeah right.,for the the sake of knowledge. LOL
It`s perfectly clear that the only knowledge you are interested in is whatever you can twist around in an attempt to try an prove to us that you are not a complete fool for believing what you believe.

Vorkosigan

Turtonm: First, the apostles didn't write the gospels, later writers did.

BK: Sorry, but you are simply accepting as true a theory of how the Gospels were created that is not the historically held view of the church and is, in many ways, a rather liberal view of the scriptures. There is very good reason to believe that the books of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by the very individuals to whome they have been attributed, and if you want details, you should read the introduction to those four books in the Anchor Bible.

BK, the Church may claim as it pleases. However, there is widespread agreement that the authors of the four canonical gospels were not the persons the Church attributes them to. Most scholars think John was edited several times, and it is obvious from the seams in the text that considerable blocks have been moved around. I recommend the discussion of John in Ehrman's Introduction to the New Testament.


turtonm: Consider that John presents obviously fruitcake scenes, such as a Jewish crowd demanding that a Roman government execute a Jewish criminal so he'd be a friend of Caesar. That's patently unbelievable.

BK: If you say so . . . .

Do you have a substantive response?


turtonm: The gospels go to great lengths to reduce Roman culpability in Jesus' death and blame it on the Jews, creating all sorts of absurdities. This is highly suspicious; it smacks of historical revisionism.

And what is the history it was revising?

Who can say? And that's the point. We don't know what events the gospels are covering up. Was Jesus a failed revolutionary? The last claimant to the Davidic throne? An eshcatological preacher? A wandering cynic teacher? A magician? A member of the Herodian family gone bad? Who can say? Why do you think there are so many interpretations?

turtonm: Second, we know from long interaction with religiously-motivated writers that they are habitually and deliberately propagandistic.

There is no doubt they were presenting their view of what happened. The Gospels are clearly written to present Jesus in various lights (Messiah, King, God). But that is part and parcel of how all histories are written. Have you ever read the book "Armies of the Night"? The author spends the first part of the book detailing the "more objective" view of the events surrounding a protest at the Pentagon in the 1960s so that when he gives his first hand account in the last part of the book, it can be understood in context. Well, all we have from the writers of the Gospels is the accounts with their various shadings written consistent with the more free-flowing style of recording history acceptable at that time.
Having acknowledged that, it does not make the accounts any less accurate. It does not mean they were re-written. Moreover, in a fiercly monotheistic society such as the Jews were, the fact that these people were willing to even speak about Jesus being "God" shouts volumes about their belief that what they were writing to be true.

The problem with your analogy is that it ultimately fails. The gospels are not-first hand accounts. Neither Mailer nor his critics disagree on whether there was a protest at the Pentagon. There are many extant biographies of Ulysses S. Grant. Which of them presents him as other than a President and General? You know, US Grant the industrialist, US Grant the Polish baker in Lorain, Ohio, US Grant the tax accountant in Cincinnati, US Grant the ambassador to India....

I have no doubt there's a kernel of truth -- somebody was executed by somebody within a hundred years of Paul, and this was fused with other traditions. But the 40-50 gospels clearly present a composite figure drawn from many sources.

Additionally, once the Canonical gospels are placed in the context of all the gospels, and early Church attempts to suppress competing versions.....it is clear that they are propaganda. Did Mary write the gospel of Mary? Do you believe James wrote the Apocryphon of James? Did Peter write the Gospel of Peter?

Finally, you didn't address the real issue, which is the reliability of religious writers. The gospels are obvious propaganda, and Luke and John both say so.

Note also how diverse modern readings are. Jesus was a peasant revolutionary. An eschatological teacher. A religious nationalist fanatic. A magician. Etc. Real history does not produce such diversity; people disagree about Caesar's motives, but nobody denies that he fought the battle of Alesia or was Consul.

And no true historian doubts the broad outlines of Jesus' story: born in Palestine in the early First Century, he preached to peasants, allegedly performed miracles, was crucified under the Roman Government, and his disciples claimed that they saw him resurrected. The fact that out-of-the-mainstream scholars in the Jesus Seminar make outrageous claims like you note about Him does not make the basic facts untrue.

Actually there are several historians who do. Eisenman, for example, believes that the Jesus traditions have absorbed traditions about James and other figures. Since Jesus is a composite figure, it would not be surprising if some of the stories have a basis in truth. It just that the truths are about different figures.....


bk: I will. I will have to see what could possibly be so convincing that escaped all of the other Biblical scholars' notice for the past 1900 years.

Let's see....most of twentieth century scholarship has escaped Bible scholars for the last 1900 years. But read Helms.

turtonm: Do you know of many dispassionate religious biographies from, say, the first 1500 years of Christianity?

BK: Let's see. We have a man who performed miracles, claimed to be God, rose from the dead. If these things actually happened (as I think they clearly did based upon the evidence), I would be surprised to find someone not take sides in writing a biography. Either Jesus was a fraud or he was God. There are no real alternatives.

Or people lied about him in the service of their own agendas. Or he was misunderstood. Or the gospel Jesus is a composite figure and a myth, like Arthur, Robin Hood, Hong of the Hongs...... There are lots of real alternatives.

Also, you didn't answer the question. Do you know of many dispassionate religious biographies from, say, the first 1500 years of Christianity?

Also, what about Buddha? Did the ancient Taoists really make gold and fly?

Michael

RyanS2

Wow, that's probably the greatest dismissive argument I've ever heard, (particularly because you've never read his whole argument). You may wish to study a little bit of mythology, however. The Winter/Summer sun theme is very reoccurant in mythology, (for instance Yule). Religioustolerance.org puts it as:

"In pre-historic times, winter was a very difficult time for Aboriginal people in the northern latitudes. The growing season had ended and the tribe had to live off of stored food and whatever animals they could catch. The people would be troubled as the life-giving sun sank lower in the sky each noon. They feared that it would eventually disappear and leave them in permanent darkness and extreme cold. After the winter solstice, they would have reason to celebrate as they saw the sun rising and strengthening once more. Although many months of cold weather remained before spring, they took heart that the return of the warm season was inevitable. The concept of birth and or death/rebirth became associated with the winter solstice. The Aboriginal people had no elaborate instruments to detect the solstice. But they were able to notice a slight elevation of the sun's path within a few days after the solstice -- perhaps by DEC-25. Celebrations were often timed for about the 25th."

Not just for the Aborigines, but for a great deal of other people as well. Romans, Greeks, even Egyptians all had sacred days on this time corresponding to a god of suffering. (For instance, Dionysus's death was celebrated as
"Lenaea", the Festival of the Wild Women.) We can name a few others. Appolo, Attis, Baal, Dionysus, Helios, Hercules, Horus, Mithra, Osiris, Perseus, and Theseus. The Roman Saturnalia celebrated them all.

Vorkosigan

lpetrich

First off, I'd like to see where Metacrock recalculates Jesus Christ's Lord-Raglan Mythic-Hero score as 7.

You'll be pleasantly surprised by Earl Doherty's work. He considers very serious matters.

Simply score him on Lord Raglan's Mythic Hero scale, as I've done on the beginning of this thread. I've scored him at 18.5, Krishna at 16.5, Moses at 15, the Buddha at 12.5, Mohammed at 6 to 8, Charles Darwin at 7.5, and JFK at 3 to 6. LR himself scores Oedipus at 21, Theseus at 20, Moses at 20, Dionysus at 19, Romulus at 18, Perseus at 18, Hercules at 17; Alan Dundes scores Jesus Christ at 19.

I've ordered the book "In Quest of the Hero", which discusses Lord Raglan's work, and I'm thinking of creating a detailed hero-score webpage.

Planets and stars are a bit too big for any one human being to build, except perhaps one with super powers. And any entity that can manufacture planets and stars can do better than perform such piddling miracles as cursing fig trees and appearing to die and then rising from the dead three days later. Why did he not make himself 900 feet tall and walk all over the world, speaking everybody's languages fluently?

BK

Actually there are two broad schools of thought. You are merely voicing the more liberal school. I belong to the more conservative view. Thus, I would say that scholars in that branch agree with what you say. I, and many scholars, do not.

That's as much of a substantive response as the statement calls for.


Because people doubt the central message of the Bible. No more, no less.

Yes they are.
That's only because it is too recent. Practically every event in ancient history, if you look hard enough, is doubted. Ah, but was he a drunk? Was he a dumb guy? Was he a shrewd politician? Was he a clever general or just the butcher who threw enough armies at the South to beat them? His identity is not in question, but who he was is in question.

4 Gospels, all present the same Jesus. There is no question his name was Jesus. There is no question he was crucified. There is no question that he performed miracles. Just look it up some time.

Since we are exchaning book references, I suggest you read the History of the Christian church. Most of these "other" gospels are of late origin and were not ever considered to carry the same weight as the four Gospels included.

No, and neither did the early church.

Because they are saying that the works are being written so that you will believe? LOL. Then all efforts to persuade are propaganda.

I stand by what I said.

That's exactly why I don't buy into the majority of the 20th Century "scholarship" on these issues. It is very much like trying to reconstruct the truth by reconfiguring the pieces of the puzzle based upon assumptions that are not necessarily (or even probably) correct.

Quote:

Or people lied about him in the service of their own agendas. Or he was misunderstood. Or the gospel Jesus is a composite figure and a myth, like Arthur, Robin Hood, Hong of the Hongs...... There are lots of real alternatives.

Their own agendas? And in light of the persecution that Christians underwent from the very beginning, what would be that agenda? He was misunderstood? Well, he has been misunderstood throughout history, so I guess I can't argue that possiblity. But I don't think that him being misunderstood could explain Christianity. Composite figure? No way.

What constitutes dispassionate?

I wouldn't expect so, but I don't know enough about it to answer off the cuff. I do know about Christianity, and I do know about the type of scholars you are relying upon, and I have strong reasons for rejecting them.

BK

[ January 24, 2002: Message edited by: BK ]</p>

BK

Look around. If you can see anything, that is an example of his handiwork since it is against countless odds that sight arose through evolution.

BK

BK

No, I have read the argument. It is nonsense when it relates to Christianity. You are trying to apply reasoning of fertility religions and apply it to a society that had a very monotheistic culture. It was a society that did not believe in bodily resurrection. The arguments don't wash.

BK

GunnerJ

Come one, come all! The rare and wily Metacrock is putting on a show! No, kids, don't throw peanuts of logic at him, it just makes him mad!

Don't give yourself so much credit, Metacrock! (Or should I say "Meatcrock?") I did see your "reduction," which is why I commented on how sloppy they were. Perhaps you missed that. But then, why would you say this:

Yes, folks, this is what Meatcrock considers scholarship: poorly-formed insults directed at his critics. I especially like his whole "I'm more educated than you" screed. I wonder where he gets all this info about me? I'll bet his dad can beat up my dad, and that his dick is longer than mine, too. Seriuosly, I have to be skeptical about his claim that he doesn't care what I think. The sloppy responces and idiotic insults he throws my way after each of my posts seem to contradict this claim. Oh sing me a song of a lone fighter against ignorance... they call him Meatcrock, the gallant. <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

BK

Oh, so you are talking about this?

First, I don't know how Lord Raglan constructed this list, but all too often these lists are created for no other reason than to discredit Christianity. I wonder how much thought was put into identifying Jesus as a fraud when the list was constructed. But, let's look, shall we?

(1) The hero's mother is a royal virgin, while

Nope, Mary was not a "royal" virgin. So I'll give a half point.

(2) his father is a king, and

Nope, Joseph was not a king.

(3) the father is related to the mother.

Nope, except that they are both of the House of David. That's like two people being named Smith. Okay, I'll go a quarter point.

(4) The hero's conception is unusual or miraculous; hence

Okay, we'll give it a point here.

(5) he is reputed to be a son of a god.

Nope, Jesus was God. Big difference. But since he refers to himself as the Son of God (meaning, in Jewish culture, that He was God) I'll give a point.

(6) Evil forces attempt to kill the infant or boy hero, but

Okay.

(7) he is spirited away to safety and

Okay.

(8) reared by foster parents in a foreign land. Besides this,

Nope, reared by his own parents in Galilee.

(9) we learn no details of his childhood until

Nope, we have a couple of stories from his childhood. But the fact we know little about his childhood isn't so strange because it isn't his childhood we are interested in.

(10) he journeys to his future kingdom, where

Nope.

(11) he triumphs over the reigning king and/or a giant, dragon, or wild beast, and

Nope.

(12) marries a princess, often his predecessor's daughter, and

Nope.

(13) becomes king himself.

Nope.

(14) For a while he reigns uneventfully,

Nope.

(15) promulgating laws. But

Nope.

(16) he later loses favor with his subjects or with the gods and

Nope.

(17) is driven from the throne and the city and

Nope.

(18) meets with a mysterious death,

Nope.

(19) often atop a hill.

No, because of 18.

(20) If he has children, they do not succeed him.

Nope.

(21) His body is not buried, yet

Nope.

(22) he has one or more holy sepulchers.

Okay.

Wow,5 and 3/4! Quite the myth.

BK