|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
 Posted - 10/28/2001 : 15:38:49 [Permalink]
|
 Thanks for the info I'll try and get the book,however,my point doesn't rest on the author of Luke's Gospel being male or female(Luke or Lucy)but that the author was very accurate in describing the Graeco= Roman world at the mid century point(ref.Sir Willam Ramsey's book St. Paul Roman Traveler;who I already pointed out was very skeptical of the Luke-Acts composition at first but as he studied the evidence he changed his mind).The next point would be if the author is reliable concerning things we can check out why not trust him or her when he/she tells us about the existence and mission of Jesus? 
|
 |
|
|
@tomic
Administrator
USA
4607 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2001 : 16:05:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The next point would be if the author is reliable concerning things we can check out why not trust him or her when he/she tells us about the existence and mission of Jesus?
Have you ever read a fictional story where the author did lots of research and crafted an amazing story with all kinds of factual detail yet the story was still just a story? It makes no sense to read these old books with a fact here and there and leap to the conclusion that Jesus even existed let alone did everything in the books. You should start off by trying to prove whether Jesus even existed. There are a good number of people that question that without Jesus what you are left with is one hell of a good fantasy novel. Not the sort of thing to base your life on, but it sure amde great material for all those epic movies like the 10 Commandments.
@tomic
Gravity, not just a good idea...it's the law! |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/28/2001 : 18:04:10 [Permalink]
|
Thanks for the info I'll try and get the book,
It's very good, tells in some detail how the gospels don't match with the facts at all..towns in the wrong place and the like. Nice part about Paul's conversion being lifted almost word for word from a popular play about Dionysus. Helms' latest Gospel Fictions has a interesting piece on Apollonius of Tyana the guy who came up with the name Christ.
however,my point doesn't rest on the author of Luke's Gospel being male or female(Luke or Lucy)but that the author was very accurate in describing the Graeco= Roman world at the mid century point(ref.Sir Willam Ramsey's book St. Paul Roman Traveler;
Yeah, I've been looking for that, with no luck. Last Friday Hank Hannagraff talked about Ramsey--strangely enough using exactly the same words you had written--so I did a search for Sir William. The only Sir William Ramsey I have found was the discoverer of neon. There are a couple who aren't lords..a music teacher at Stanford and an author of plup christian fiction ...but no archaeologists. Can you tell me if this book is new?
who I already pointed out was very skeptical of the Luke-Acts composition at first but as he studied the evidence he changed his mind).
That would make him one of the few. Most of the Atheists I know became Atheists after conducting this same study. Odd that he found information the rest of us missed. I'd love to find out what it is.
Are you sure that you are spelling his name correctly?
The next point would be if the author is reliable concerning things we can check out why not trust him or her when he/she tells us about the existence and mission of Jesus?
Are you saying that you have evidence that Jesus was a historical figure and not a work of fiction?
That should make things simple then and shut us right up. I've never heard of any myself and I've been looking for close to 40 years now. What have I missed? What record did anyone AT THE TIME (not generations later) make about Jesus?
What record is there that at the time of his death the sun went out for three hours, the veil of the Temple was "rent", the dead rose from their graves and walked the streets? Since the Romans were writing down everything else that was going on how could they miss this? They kept records of the rest of the people who claimed that they were the Messiah, we have the names and stories of four at the very time that Jesus was supposed to be struttin' his stuff. Has someone found the Roman or Jewish records that mention him?
Here's an archeological question for you.
Where is Nazareth? 1500 years of looking and no one has found it.
Here's a literary question. Since both the Illiad and the Odyssey give such an accurate vision of the pre-Hellenistic Greek world (quite good enough to find the lost City of Troy--using no other sources {See Nazareth above}) should I take it (following your own logic) that the only senseable thing to do is believe in Athene, Apollo and Zeus? "if the author is reliable concerning things we can check out why not trust him or her"--or does this thread of logic only apply to you belief system and not the Pagan?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2001 : 03:29:08 [Permalink]
|
To atomic:Even a good Tom Clancy novel is worth reading for its own merit.However,the gospels don't fall into that category.I don't know of one serious scholar who actually denies the existence of Jesus(not even Funk and the Jesus smear bunch),even Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide states in his book:The Resurrection of Jesus:A Jewish Perspective,(Minneapolis:Augsburg,1983),pp.97-100;concerning 1st Cor.15:3-8 on the resurrection of Jesus,"This unified piece of tradition which was soon solidified into a formula of faith may be considered a statement of EYEWITNESSES for whom the experience of the resurrection became the turning point of their lives"[emph mine].Gotta go work
|
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2001 : 06:21:06 [Permalink]
|
quote:
even Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide states in his book:The Resurrection of Jesus:A Jewish Perspective,(Minneapolis:Augsburg,1983),pp.97-100;concerning 1st Cor.15:3-8 on the resurrection of Jesus,"This unified piece of tradition which was soon solidified into a formula of faith may be considered a statement of EYEWITNESSES for whom the experience of the resurrection became the turning point of their lives"[emph mine].
But, but...
What is the justification of claiming that something can be "considered a statement of eyewitnesses", when even the writers themselves admit that they were not eyewitnesses. Everything was written at least 50 years after the supposed death of Jesus.
This certainly wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Why would you accept such a low standard for evidence?
[bah! stupid grammar mistakes]
------------
Victory Not Vengeance
Edited by - tokyodreamer on 10/29/2001 06:23:04 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2001 : 10:34:54 [Permalink]
|
Even a good Tom Clancy novel is worth reading for its own merit. However, the gospels don't fall into that category.
No, they don't.
Tom is a very honest man. He never claims that his fiction is anything but.
If you want to match Ms Luke up with a modern author try L. Ron Hubbard.
I don't know of one serious scholar who actually denies the existence of Jesus
It depends on what you mean by "scholar."
According to a poll taken by the AAAS back in December of '99, 62% of the membership were Atheist/Agnostic. These figures changed when you got to the crème de la crème of U.S. scientists.
They became 100%. No theists at all.
Last year the Senator from Texas demand on the Senate floor that something be done about this state of affairs.
If you mean that serious "biblical scholars" all believe in the existence of Jesus--well….duh!
Do you think that that would be a field that attracts non-believers? Come to think of it, I can name a handful. But you are right, the over whelming majority of scholars who made their livings studying the bible say, to those that pay them, that they whole heartedly believe. They don't agree on just what it is that they believe, but they believe something.
even Jewish scholar Pinchas Lapide states in his book:The Resurrection
of Jesus: A Jewish Perspective… "This unified piece of tradition which was soon solidified into a formula of faith may be considered a statement of EYEWITNESSES for whom the experience of the resurrection became the turning point of their lives"[emph mine].
Apparently neither Pinchas nor you have every studied mythology.
Neither of you seems to have read the bible with a critical eye either.
What EYEWITNESSES?
Luke says that there were eyewitnesses but never says that she met them, or even who they were. Given even the most liberal interpretation to the time that the Gospel of Luke was written, no eyewitnesses could have lived long enough to collaborate. She was fibbing.
The only Gospel that claimed to be the work of an eyewitness was "The Acts of John." It was even written in the first person. The Council of Nicaea declared it to be "Docetic" and had it destroyed but not before one worthy read lengthy parts of it into the minutes of the council. All we know of it comes from these records and it claims (eyewitness account) that Jesus wasn't a flesh and blood man.
"Acts of John--no ref #:
Another glory, also, would I tell to you, my brethren: namely, that sometimes when I would take hold of him, I would meet with a material and solid body, but again, at other times, when I touched him, the substance was immaterial and as if it existed not at all… …And often when I walked with him, I desired to see the print of his foot, whether it appeared on the earth; for I saw him, as it were, sustaining himself above the earth: and I never saw it."
There is an "eyewitness" report for you. The Roman Catholics banned it--but it was gospel to the early church.
Resurrection itself was a very common thing among hero-gods. I posted a list earlier that was far from complete. It had 16 gods who had all died on the first day of spring or on the first full moon thereafter (Jesus came in at # 14). Usually it took 3 or 40 days (both magic numbers) for them to come back to life. The exception being Osiris, who had a quest motif added to his resurrection story.
Death and resurrection is one of the most common varieties of mythological story. They always come from agrarian cultures and deal not with an actual person coming back to life, but with the crops. This is why the first day of spring is so important.
That is also why in christian mythology the day is called Easter.
Easter, or Ishtar is the base myth to Aphrodite goddess of Love. She is the morning star (the planet Venus) The goddess of dawn (hence the planet) and the Spring. The place in the sky where dawn occurs is named for her--"East." She had a divine son/spouse who was two-thirds god and one-third man. Guy's name was Tammuz , in the Greek he was known as Adonis. He was killed, and his dead body was lain in her lap. You may have seen a version of this Pagan holy statue of the dead demi-god in his mother's lap having life re-breathed into him redone by Michaelanglo. (Egyptian had the same statue of Isis and Osiris)
Easter worked her magic on him for three days and nights. On the first full moon after the Vernal Equinox Tammuz/Adonis returned to life. This became the feast day of the goddess Easter.
She had eyewitnesses.
Osiris had eyewitnesses.
Mithra had eyewitnesses.
Zoroaster had eyewitnesses.
Dionysos had eyewitnesses.
Apollonius had eyewitnesses.
Even Uruk of the temple city of Anu had eyewitnesses that he died and was resurrected on the third day. He beat out JC by about about fourteen hundred years.
Resurrection was common as dirt amongst the deities of the Near East.
And yet you choose not to believe in any of these gods. Why not, they all fulfill the criteria you set as to whether a story is fact or not?
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2001 : 20:17:59 [Permalink]
|
 LOOK, I was raised an agnostic ,didn't any of you folks ever read anything by C.S.Lewis he answered 99% of all your sophomoric rejections of the truth that will set you free
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/29/2001 : 23:54:43 [Permalink]
|
The truth will set you free.
The lies and absurdities of theism will enslave you.
"Why be born again when you can just grow up?"
"A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45"
|
|
|
|
Trish
SFN Addict
USA
2102 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2001 : 03:54:47 [Permalink]
|
quote:
LOOK, I was raised an agnostic ,didn't any of you folks ever read anything by C.S.Lewis he answered 99% of all your sophomoric rejections of the truth that will set you free
Which books would those be? The ones about Narnia and traveling through the wardrobe? The Chronicles of Narnia: The Magician's Nephew; The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe; The Horse and His Boy; Prince Caspian; The Voyage of the Dawn Treader; The Silver Chair; and The Last Battle.
Um, this stuff is a fun read - but still pure fiction.
"Say what you will about the sweet miracle of unquestioning faith. I consider the capacity for it terrifying." ~Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. |
|
|
|
Garrette
SFN Regular
USA
562 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2001 : 03:59:39 [Permalink]
|
quote:
LOOK, I was raised an agnostic ,didn't any of you folks ever read anything by C.S.Lewis he answered 99% of all your sophomoric rejections of the truth that will set you free
Yes, actually. Years ago. And they answered nothing except to C.S.'s satisfaction.
But C.S. didn't come here; you did. Can YOU answer our sophomoric objections? Perhaps answer one or two of the direct questions?
My kids still love me. |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2001 : 13:25:40 [Permalink]
|
LOOK, I was raised an agnostic ,
You were? That's about as hard to swallow as PASTOR OF THE C of E William M. Ramsey being a Skeptic (Yeah, I found him. You didn't tell me he was from a hundred years ago. And you got the title wrong it's "St. Paul the Traveler and Roman Citizen") I think you might be being disingenuous with us because you had no idea of the difference between the acceptance of scientific fact and "faith." Also Christians show up on regular bases and make that same claim. They always (so far) have their own "unique" definition of the word Agnostic.
didn't any of you folks ever read anything by C.S.Lewis
What? Mere Christianity? I plodded through that a few years back at the insistence of a Christian that I worked with.
he answered 99% of all your sophomoric rejections of the truth that will set you free
THE TRUTH? YOU CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!
The only thing Lewis answered was the question "who is the most pompous bore on the Island of Britain?" If it turned out that he, and he alone, was responsible for the English public turning away from religion I wouldn't be at all surprised.
Now, as for my sophomoric rejections of the truth--since it was you who came here, and not C. S., why don't you address them?
You set up criteria for what was to be considered "truth." Your criteria stated that if an author was verifiably correct in background information then one was to make the assumption that non-verifiable specific information was also correct. Even if, in the case of Jesus, it went against know scientific facts.
Your criterion is flawed. My questions to you were rhetorical and for the sole purpose of demonstrating the invalidity of your criteria. I'm sorry if I'm "talking down to you" here, but either you are purposely ignoring these questions or you don't understand them. I have no way of telling which.
By your stated criteria the fact that Homer got all of his background information correct (description in detail of ships, historic figures, locations of cities and islands, culture) then one would be forced to conclude that there were such things as giant one eyed Cyclops.
However you do not conclude that at all.
The criteria that you have set up for what should be considered a fact would include that which we know to be fiction. Ergo, the set of criteria used is demonstrably flawed as it cannot differentiate between fact and fancy.
In other words you may have the wool pulled over your own eyes, but you're the only one.
If you cannot PROVE that that which you claim to be truth is in fact true, then you cannot KNOW that it is true.
If you don't KNOW that it is true then you have no business trying to get other people to accept it. Because if you don't KNOW that what you are saying is true then you are lying; irrespective of whether or not what you claim later turns out to be a fact.
So, put up, or shut up. Prove your claims or stop making them--it's the only honest thing to do.
-------
The brain that was stolen from my laboratory was a criminal brain. Only evil will come from it.
Edited by - slater on 10/30/2001 13:28:38 |
|
|
|
Valiant Dancer
Forum Goalie
USA
4826 Posts |
Posted - 10/30/2001 : 13:57:08 [Permalink]
|
quote:
The truth will set you free.
The lies and absurdities of theism will enslave you.
"Why be born again when you can just grow up?"
"A society without religion is like a crazed psychopath without a loaded .45"
I beleive a more accurate quote would be "the lies and absurdities of fundamentalism will enslave you."
Theism is a philosiphy. Some people don't subscribe to it. It doesn't make them wrong. I don't believe I am enslaved by my Theism. Nor do I think that my Theism is a lie or absurd. It is my religion. Religion is a form of philosiphy.
|
|
|
|
Starman
SFN Regular
Sweden
1613 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2001 : 01:47:21 [Permalink]
|
quote:
I beleive a more accurate quote would be "the lies and absurdities of fundamentalism will enslave you."
Theism is a philosiphy. Some people don't subscribe to it. It doesn't make them wrong. I don't believe I am enslaved by my Theism. Nor do I think that my Theism is a lie or absurd. It is my religion. Religion is a form of philosiphy.
I agree that fundamentalism is the the better word. Hope I didn't offend you. 
I have friends being both Xtians and Moslem and as long as they don't try to force their religious beliefs on me, I stay out of theirs.
I would say that theism and religion is a bit more than a philosophy, its a belief system. This mean that it can be wrong and untrue, just as my belief that JC was not divine can be wrong and untrue. Non-theistic philosophies can also be absurd, and somethimes the truth wont set you free.
"If only God would give me some clear sign!
Like making a large deposit in my name at a Swiss Bank."
-- Woody Allen |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 10/31/2001 : 17:20:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
quote:
The truth will set you free.
The lies and absurdities of theism will enslave you.
I beleive a more accurate quote would be "the lies and absurdities of fundamentalism will enslave you."
Theism is a philosiphy. Some people don't subscribe to it. It doesn't make them wrong. I don't believe I am enslaved by my Theism. Nor do I think that my Theism is a lie or absurd. It is my religion. Religion is a form of philosiphy.
I've got to go with Starman's first shot. Theism will enslave you. True Fundamentalism is worse but it is merely a matter of degree.
To base the philosophy that guides your life on a lie--and lets call a spade a spade--the very notion of gods or goddesses is a blatant lie-- is demeaning to the individual in the extreeme. To institutionalize damned lies for the control of human beings is a form of slavery.
You may not think that it is a lie. You may not find it absurd. Willian Shatner may not think that people know he wears a toupee.
Your family and friends should have let you know.
Since they didn't I'll break it to you.(I'm no where near as nice as Starman--but his niceness is what is called "being an enabler." My harshness will stand you better stead.)
You have been enslaved by utterly absurd nonsense, and you don't even know it.
Time to get up and act like a free man.
-----
Snap out of it |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 11/02/2001 : 03:54:47 [Permalink]
|
I can take the heat.As far as the the other dying and rising "gods" of the mystery religions they were sworn to secrecy the exact opposite of the of the apostles who boldly proclaimed that Jesus had risen in front of hostile witnesses.That my friend is the major diffrence between Christianty and any other religion ancient or modern. Concerning blind Homer I'm pretty sure he didn't claim to be an eyewitness of the siege of Troy ,considering he only sang about it, the events took place around 1250B.C. and weren't written down untill 700B.C.(contrast that with the N.T. and there's no comparison).Weather his accuracy in topographic and geographic matters gives validilty to the Greek gods and goddess's I suppose a good photograph of the top of Mt. Olympus would settle that question. With Christianty its always been habeus courpus just show us the body and we will pack up and shut up.As far as the existence of the one eye cyclops I'll have to run that by Art Bell's website and see what info i get,perhaps he's what you evolutionist have been looking for...an undisputed transitional form.
|
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
