|
|
|
Wolfgang_faust
Skeptic Friend
USA
59 Posts |
 Posted - 03/25/2002 : 15:15:55 [Permalink]
|
DA you might find the site www.skepticsannotatedbible.com to be interesting. Look through the various "prophesys" about Jesus. They were all fabricated to make him look like he fit into the Messiah picture. This site does a great job at shining a light on the errency of the Bible.
Add value to every day, Sharpen your skills, your understanding |
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 04:46:16 [Permalink]
|
Here's an amusing read:http://www.msnbc.com/news/726054.asp?pne=msn
Note that after all is said and done and after years of investigations with digital Jesus detectors full of blinking lights not one scrap of evidence has been found. Biddle keeps dancing around looking for other areas to research since there's no actual evidence. God I wonder who's funding this only to be told that the site may possibly fit the descriptions in the Bible. Not sure but the possibility exists. We will have to cinduct more studies.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 05:33:56 [Permalink]
|
Some interesting bits from the article:
[quote]But he also stresses that his prime focus is the “Tomb of Christ” — the history of the site as identified by Constantine and maintained over the centuries — rather than the “Tomb of Jesus,” the story of the death and resurrection of a historical Jesus.
“It is almost inconceivable that archaeology could throw any direct light on the life and death of a specific individual who would have seemed of relative insignificance in first-century Palestine,” he wrote in his book on the subject, “The Tomb of Christ.”
[/quote]
So even Biddle admits he's chasing a phantasm.
[quote]In fact, historian John Dominic Crossan speculated in the documentary that the origins of the Holy Sepulcher were driven less by 21st-century standards of evidence, and more by fourth-century political and religious necessities.
“When the emperor or the emperor's mother comes and says, ‘I would like to build a magnificent basilica over the site of the tomb,' you don't say, ‘Well, your imperial highness, we don't know where it was,'” he said. “Of course you're going to pick somewhere.” [/quote]
Good for Crossan.
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Donnie B.
Skeptic Friend
417 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 07:14:21 [Permalink]
|
I understand that a recent archeological dig in the suburbs of Rome has uncovered the tomb of Aragorn Elessar, Meriadoc Brandybuck, and Peregrine Took. This proves the historical accuracy of "The Lord of the Rings".
(Er, sorry, I don't have the link handy...)
-- Donnie B.
Brian: "No, no! You have to think for yourselves!" Crowd: "Yes! We have to think for ourselves!" |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 08:56:43 [Permalink]
|
I find it inconceivable that a God-made-man, here to save the world, would not have done a single thing worthy of note from the time he was 12 years old, until his death at ~33.
Come on! Not [i]one[/i] thing worth recording in the Word of God?!
------------
Sum Ergo Cogito |
|
|
|
Wolfgang_faust
Skeptic Friend
USA
59 Posts |
Posted - 03/27/2002 : 09:31:48 [Permalink]
|
An interesting site that most of you have probably been to is www.jesuspuzzle.com It gives information on the lack of evidence of a real Jesus person.
Add value to every day, Sharpen your skills, your understanding |
|
|
|
tergiversant
Skeptic Friend
USA
284 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2002 : 19:42:34 [Permalink]
|
Imagine a Galilean rabbi wandering about Palestine with a few followers, performing acts and preaching in ways quite common to "magicians" and itinerant sages of the era. Is it plausible that the myths and legends in the Bible could have accreted around such an historical figure?
"Nihil curo de ista tua stulta superstitione."
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 03/30/2002 : 23:44:28 [Permalink]
|
Imagine a Galilean rabbi wandering about Palestine with a few followers, performing acts and preaching in ways quite common to "magicians" and itinerant sages of the era. Is it plausible that the myths and legends in the Bible could have accreted around such an historical figure?
The question isn't "could" there be. The question is "were" there.
The answer to that is No.
We have the names and stories of a number (I've got four) in the 150 year period that surrounds Jesus.
None of them performed this set of magic tricks.
Apollonius of Tyana performed all the healing tricks. The others are from the god Dionysus.
None of them preformed the religious ceremonies as they weren't Jewish but were all Mithrain. A Rabbi would not have done these things, although a Magi (Magician) certainly would have.
None of them espoused the Jesus philosophy which was Greek not Jewish. This were not a form a "preaching" that was common to any Jew, Rabbi or "itinerant sage" (whatever that is).
None of them were named Jesus although it was an extremely common name.
All of them left records from the time they lived, except Jesus. And that, after all is what makes an historic figure an historic figure. Being recorded by history.
If there were a Jewish rabbi who did these things he would have called attention to himself if for no other reason than his complete blasphemy to the Jewish religion and his traitorous stance towards the Jewish State. It is implausible that such a singular figure should go unnoticed while those who were so much more mundane were well documented.
The nature of the Jesus story, philosophy and history (or lack there of) point solely to a fictional character and not a living breathing human being.
There is just nothing there for all your wishful thinking.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 03/31/2002 : 17:34:39 [Permalink]
|
I think the Jesus, that the bible writes about is, an amalgam of others stories and myths. And has never existed in reality. I visited Egypt a few years ago, and saw the following picture there:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/6946/images/isis_harpocrates.jpg
No, that's not Mary and Jesus. That's the goddess Isis with the child Horus, son of Osiris.
I think the Roman Empire was in need of a new deity. A single God, to go with the single emperor and hold Rome together. The one God of the Jews might've seemed appealing, but then there was the stuff about circumcision and other traditions. So Rome invented Judaism 2.0, based on texts of the Jews, mixed with stories from all over the Roman Empire.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 04/01/2002 : 20:55:54 [Permalink]
|
To Slater,as far as your comparison to the NT with the Acts of John I'm supprised you ,being a skeptic,couldn't tell the diffrence between an "eyewitness" account of the life of Jesus and a 2nd century refabrication.First,you should have remembered the bibliographic test and you would have found that it's very weak,I think Tertullian is the first to even mention it(late 2nd cent.)in the eastern church,with no mentions at all in the western church untill the 3rd cent.Secondly,it fails the internal test rather woefully.That is not hard to prove since its suppose to be based on the teachings of the Apostle John and anyone even remotely familar with his doctrine would know that if anything John was anti-gnostic(those who deny the humanity of Jesus).All you have to do is READ ANY OF HIS WORKS:Jn.1:14,"And the Word[Jesus] took on flesh;1st Jn.1:1,"That which was from the beginning,which we have heard,...seen with our eyes,which havelooked on upon,and our hands handeled ,the Word of life-the life was manifested,and we have seen,and bear wittness,...(4:3) every spirit that does not confess that Jesus Christ has not come in the flesh is not of God.".But I can hear you say "how is that proof?".Easy, let's suppose I came acrossa webpage where I noticed someone claiming that they were "Slater" from The Skeptics Friends Networkand they were claiming that the evidence for the historic existence of Jesus was quite remarkable and for his divinity aswell.Should I conclude that this writer is the SAME SLATER I know?Gotta go>
|
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/02/2002 : 11:28:47 [Permalink]
|
To Slater,as far as your comparison to the NT with the Acts of John I'm supprised you ,being a skeptic,couldn't tell the diffrence between an "eyewitness" account of the life of Jesus and a 2nd century refabrication.
Of course I didn't say it was an eyewitness account. I said that it was the only gospel that CLAIMED to be an eyewitness account. It's just as much a phony as the rest are.
First,you should have remembered the bibliographic test and you would have found that it's very weak,I think Tertullian is the first to even mention it(late 2nd cent.)in the eastern church,with no mentions at all in the western church untill the 3rd cent.
But of course none of these "church Father" mentions, or copies of John itself date from before the fourth century. They and the earliest orthodox NTs and all the Gnostic NTs date from exactly the same time- the middle of the fourth century.
Secondly,it fails the internal test rather woefully.That is not hard to prove since its suppose to be based on the teachings of the Apostle John and anyone even remotely familar with his doctrine would know that if anything John was anti-gnostic(those who deny the humanity of Jesus).
Or another way of looking at it is that your copies of St John fail the internal test because they don't match the Gnostic versions. There were certainly enough Gnostic books to the bible, many more than just John. Since you have no outside references to check them against you have no way of knowing which-IF EITHER-bible version more closely matches historic fact. You are not comparing it to an ESTABLISHED FACT you are only comparing it to an ASSUMPTION.
All you have to do is READ ANY OF HIS WORKS:Jn.1:14…1st Jn.1:1…(4:3)
So what? It contradicts the Gnostic John and the Gnostic John contradicts it. So they both can't be correct (although they both can be wrong). The Gnostic John has all the same "evidence" that you claim the orthodox John has.
This is the criteria you set up and it is obviously faulty. That's what this whole conversation is about. Your lousy criteria and how it doesn't work, so stay on the subject.
You use this criteria to "prove" the validity of John (A).
Then you say that John (A) is different from John (B) so John (B) must be false.
However John (B) meets the criteria you set up equally well as John (A) did.
Since it "proves" the validity of a "known falsehood" you cannot assume the John in question is correct because the perimeters of your criteria are shown to be faulty.
Of course Gnostic John doesn't represent actual facts. I'm saying that the convoluted standards you set up to prove the nonsense of the orthodox NT prove Gnostic John to be true too. That doesn't mean GJ is true; that means that your standards don't work. They cannot demonstrate that a set of writings represent facts and not fiction.
It's a basic scientific test and you failed.
But I can hear you say "how is that proof?".Easy, let's suppose I came acrossa webpage where I noticed someone claiming that they were "Slater" from The Skeptics Friends Networkand they were claiming that the evidence for the historic existence of Jesus was quite remarkable and for his divinity aswell.Should I conclude that this writer is the SAME SLATER I know?
Your logic is faulty.
Again.
The Gnostic John claims to be the TRUE John not the John of the orthodox version, it doesn't acknowledge the orthodox version..
The orthodox John in turn claims to be the TRUE John not the Gnostic one.
If you found another Slater whose opinions differed so broadly you would know that it wasn't SFN Slater. But the claim isn't that he is SFN Slater, the claim is that he is the REAL Slater. The SFN Slater also claims to be the REAL Slater. Without an outside reference (which you don't have) you have no way to tell.
Nor do you have a way of telling which Slater-if either- is correct.
You are used to SFN Slater, you've been reading his stuff for some time; but that is no reason to decide on him. The assumption is that what he writes must be true because it's part of SFN which says that everything it posts is absolutely true. Although SFN says that everything it posts is true they offer no proof that it is. Rather SFN DEMANDS that you have FAITH that everything it posts is true. It's the SFN (read: "gospel") Truth!
Second Slater doesn't post on SFN. He used to when it first started, but (web-emperor) @tomic took him off when he started a new format. @tomic-the great has a different set of opinions from either SFN Slater or Second Slater-he thinks both are wrong. He allows one to post and the other not merely from personal reasons of his own.
There is no way for you to tell if either Slater is the REAL Slater from the information you have. There is no way for you to even tell if there is a REAL Slater at all or if this is just a pseudonym someone else took on. Neither Slater offers a story that you can check.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2002 : 18:55:49 [Permalink]
|
Hm. I guess we can then safely conclude that Jesus didn't exist then? :)
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 04/12/2002 : 21:32:55 [Permalink]
|
Usually web-threads like this are only dead for three days before they come back to life. 
I don't think for a minute that logic won out. It's probably wasn't even understood. I imagine a hardware or software problem on DA's end ended this thread. Sigh.
-------
It will sometimes be necessary to use falsehood for the benefit of those who need such a mode of treatment.
----Eusebius of Nicomedia,
The Preparation of the Gospel |
|
|
|
Omega
Skeptic Friend
Denmark
164 Posts |
Posted - 05/04/2002 : 17:17:46 [Permalink]
|
Slater> I don't think so! :)
No replies here either. I just found a lot of threads were one particular participant vanished from sight.
But you're probably right. Logic didn't win. Ignorance did.
"All it takes to fly is to fling yourself at the ground... and miss."
- Douglas Adams |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 05/06/2002 : 11:18:34 [Permalink]
|
While everyone is waiting for darwin alogos to return, I'll pitch in with a thought. 
I am truly skeptical that a world-wide religion could be founded on someone who didn't exist. It seems to me that even a Roman Emperor could only push a fiction so far--and, I can't imagine Constantine (or anyone) choosing as his newly concocted "god" someone from Judea, a place that--historically--was little more than a great, sharp thorn in the side of the Empire.
So: I, for one, believe in Jesus.
On the other hand: I, for one (and probably the only one), have become utterly skeptical that the Romans could/would have executed Jesus. It seems to me, based on reading the usual four gospels, that the Romans would have packed Jesus, the Prophet-god, up and shipped him off to somewhere (--anywhere--) else. (The person that the Jews saw crucified, I think, was some well-pulped look-alike stand-in.)
For some months now, I've been wondering where the Romans could have transported Jesus. Lars_H wrote early in this thread:quote:
US researcher seeks to exhume 'Jesus Christ' in Kashmir
An American researcher who believes she has found the final resting place of Jesus Christ, is campaigning to exhume a body at a Muslim shrine in Indian-administered Kashmir for scientific tests.
Suzanne Marie Olsson, a New York-based researcher is currently in Srinagar, Kashmir's summer capital, studying the Muslim shrine of Rozabal.
While Muslims say Rozabal houses the tomb of Yuza Asaf, a Muslim saint, many researchers believe it contains the body of Jesus Christ.
To put an end to speculation, Ms Olsson has suggested exhuming the remains at Rozabal for DNA testing and carbon dating.
Etc.
Since I had concluded that Jesus' final destination was uphill Iran-eastward, Kashmir sounds to be just about right. Could it be?
(My speculations in this matter have almost-all been based on increasingly brutal levels of raw skepticism.) 
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
