Christian questions

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-02 04:48am

But they might not, which is why any student of that historian's work has to approach it with an open mind and a healthy dose of doubt.

The same goes for any non-fictional work: the intentions of the author have to be taken into account.

Otherwise you become no better than a religious fundimentalist.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 04:55am

True, and false. The historian would be the fundie, not the student. The studen becomes programmed with that same idea. However, the historian has to write it so that it can be analyzed, and if one theory is proven then it is fact, or law so to speak. However, there could be multiple causes, and the only choice is to speculate.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-02 07:16am

I still think that both are fundies. There is no fundamental difference between the Bible and any other history book - and those who take the Bible at face value are fundies, are they not?

A good student reads more than one text, and uses the differences between them to assess what actually happened. (in the Bible analogy, the Dead Sea Scrolls would be a good example)

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 07:19am

Fundamental difference between history books and Bible: History books have events that can be shown to happen. Bible has none.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-02 07:26am

Crap.

A man named Jesus lived and taught in Nazereth and Jerusalem during the first century CE
This is fact - it happened.

Not being an historian myself, I don't know what else exactly, - but a lot of the NT and later OT have been confirmed by other historical sources.

Just because the Bible is a religious text, doesn't mean it's all totla bullshit.

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 07:28am

innerbrat wrote:Crap.

A man named Jesus lived and taught in Nazereth and Jerusalem during the first century CE
This is fact - it happened.

Not being an historian myself, I don't know what else exactly, - but a lot of the NT and later OT have been confirmed by other historical sources.

Just because the Bible is a religious text, doesn't mean it's all totla bullshit.

So he lived. Whoopdedo. Anything else besides th people? Any of the evnts? We have no evidence of the Killing of the Innocents, IIRC, nor any of the miracles, aside from biblical and Jewish texts. Care to back up your claim a bit better?

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-02 07:41am

innerbrat wrote:Crap.

A man named Jesus lived and taught in Nazereth and Jerusalem during the first century CE
This is fact - it happened.

Not being an historian myself, I don't know what else exactly, - but a lot of the NT and later OT have been confirmed by other historical sources.

Just because the Bible is a religious text, doesn't mean it's all totla bullshit.

There is a lot more in the Bible that is total bullshit- particularly the all-important 'Resurrection'. Not mentioned in a single contemporary historical source. Also see Herod's Slaughter for the penchant the writer of the book of Matthew had for lying and making things up, not to mention his embarassing misunderstandings of the Old Testament that led him to fudge or plain make up prophecy- in particular where he misunderstands Hebrew repetition and has Jesus sit on TWO animals in his 'triumphal' entry into Jerusalem. Great stuff.

It's incredibly bad history and even worse science.

Jesus MAY have existed. Big whoop. L Ron Hubbard existed to, that doesnt make scientology true.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-02 08:00am

OK, am I being mistaken for a Christian here?

I didn't say it was good history. I was arguing that all historical works, (and scientific, and everything else) have to looked at with a touch of scepticism, and I was including the Bible with that.

The anti-holocaust claimants don't write good history, but they're still publishing history books.

Verilon - I may look up some historical events for you. Or I may write an assessed archaeology essay instead

Sorry if I don't get back to you, but maybe someone else will...

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 08:04am

innerbrat wrote:Verilon - I may look up some historical events for you. Or I may write an assessed archaeology essay instead Sorry if I don't get back to you, but maybe someone else will...

Maybe you can provide evidence and proof for the miracles. Those are more than subjecct to interpretation. As many thingsa s you come up with hard fact for the Bible, come up with interpretive things for history books.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-02 09:57am

verilon wrote: Maybe you can provide evidence and proof for the miracles. Those are more than subjecct to interpretation. As many thingsa s you come up with hard fact for the Bible, come up with interpretive things for history books.

Um, no. I'm not trying to proove that any miracles have occured.

Are we talking at cross purposes here?

Post by **haas mark** » 2002-12-02 09:58am

innerbrat wrote:
verilon wrote: Maybe you can provide evidence and proof for the miracles. Those are more than subjecct to interpretation. As many thingsa s you come up with hard fact for the Bible, come up with interpretive things for history books.
Um, no. I'm not trying to proove that any miracles have occured.

Are we talking at cross purposes here?

No. I said history books have events that have definite prove, and it is much much harder (impossible) to prove events of the Bible.

Slartibartfast · Post by **Slartibartfast** » 2002-12-02 12:03pm

innerbrat wrote:I still think that both are fundies. There is no fundamental difference between the Bible and any other history book - and those who take the Bible at face value are fundies, are they not?

A good student reads more than one text, and uses the differences between them to assess what actually happened. (in the Bible analogy, the Dead Sea Scrolls would be a good example)

That's not the point at ALL. The point is not whether the document is correct or not, it IS literal. It doesn't try to sound as vague as possible so that the reader imagines what might have happened. The document can be wrong as heck, can be biased, can include speculation or can be an outright lie. But there's no INTERPRETATION, they won't talk about the big flaming bird of sin that hit the roof of the building with fury, when it was a plane crash. Or maybe it was a big flaming bird? Who knows? Let's INTERPRET it!

Two readers reading the same historical document will understand the SAME thing, or else the document is poorly written and flawed. It doesn't mean it's ABSOLUTE TRUTH.

If you make heavy use of metaphore, and all that literary crap like Shakespeare, there can be room for interpretation, but when he actually writes that the "his heart was perforated by the sharp blade" or whatever, then it does mean that it happened (in this case is fiction, of course, but it's a FACT, not some literary figure where it actually means that the blade is the hatred he felt towards everyone, and the wound in his heart was the sorrow he experienced, when the scene was clearly depicted as a swordfight and two people were battling with sharp blades and one killed the other)

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-02 01:23pm

Hold on, I don't think InnerBrat is arguing in favor of the Fundie cause, or defending them-- he's just pointing out that there is some historical accuracy to the Bible (which is true) but it doesn't make the entire Bible literal truth as a Fundie might argue.

The Bible was written for a purpose-- to spread an ideology, to indoctrinate others-- and so a lot of tuths are lined up in a way that would make the 'cause' look good. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc... thay all want to write things in a certain way so they can spread the ideology and at the same time make themselves into heroes.

That's where you have to take the truths that exist in any given work and compare it to the author's agenda. For Tom Clancy, he writes about the true nations of the US and USSR, but his agenda is only to entertain and that is clear. L.Ron Hubbard, however, is trying to indoctrinate so one must read Dianetics with a careful eye and question his use of facts to prop up his silly ideology.

InnerBrat · Post by **InnerBrat** » 2002-12-02 02:44pm

Hooray! Thank you Coyote, I was beginning to think I was making no sense.

At least someone sees where I'm coming from.

I'm a girl, BTW

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-02 04:01pm

Gotcha covered, "Brat"... and I'll bear the femaleness in mind, sorry 'bout the pronouns...

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-02 06:55pm

The Bible was written for a purpose-- to spread an ideology, to indoctrinate others-- and so a lot of tuths are lined up in a way that would make the 'cause' look good. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc... thay all want to write things in a certain way so they can spread the ideology and at the same time make themselves into heroes.

Now this looks like a case that could use a base!

Care to explain and justify?

Or should I just pretend I am not seeing all these unsupported propositions from a boardful of "logicians" and "debaters"?

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-02 07:07pm

The Apologist wrote:
The Bible was written for a purpose-- to spread an ideology, to indoctrinate others-- and so a lot of tuths are lined up in a way that would make the 'cause' look good. Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, etc... thay all want to write things in a certain way so they can spread the ideology and at the same time make themselves into heroes.
Now this looks like a case that could use a base!

Care to explain and justify?

Or should I just pretend I am not seeing all these unsupported propositions from a boardful of "logicians" and "debaters"?

Ask yourself where Christmas came from. The Roman festival for the Winter Solstice of course. How about Easter? The Roman fertility festival. The two most important holidays in Christianity are rip-offs of Roman holidays. Where did Jesus' 12 apostles come from? It was ripped off of Mithraism (along with dying on a cross, being born of a virgin, saving the world, et cetera) in order to easily convert people from Mithraism, which was threatening to boot Christianity out as the Big Religion in Rome. Since a Christian's first duty is to "spread the word," early Christians did just that, any way they could. They adopted assimilation tactics that incorporated holidays from other religions into their own belief system so that people would be more willing to make the transition. Christianity is, quite simply, the whore of all religions. It's been around, and it's got a bit of every other religion in it.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-02 09:47pm

Durandal pretty much wrapped it up for me but we can get into nitpickey details if you wish, Apologist.

But tell me-- is the Bible, specifically the Christian version-- not intended to be spread among the masses? Is there or is there not a missionary imperative within the Christian church to spread the word and "witness" to the nations? Judaism does not have this imperative, it has its roots in the Church.

If that is indeed the case, then the Christian Bible is a document for missionary work and part of a culture of indoctrination and ideological assimilation. In a sense, a propaganda work.

And the books were written differently, Luke and Matthew could not even agree on who Jesus's ancestors were, supposedly linking him to King David, for example.

And BTW, welcome to the fest.

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-02 10:32pm

Ask yourself where Christmas came from. The Roman festival for the Winter Solstice of course. How about Easter? The Roman fertility festival. The two most important holidays in Christianity are rip-offs of Roman holidays. Where did Jesus' 12 apostles come from? It was ripped off of Mithraism (along with dying on a cross, being born of a virgin, saving the world, et cetera) in order to easily convert people from Mithraism, which was threatening to boot Christianity out as the Big Religion in Rome. Since a Christian's first duty is to "spread the word," early Christians did just that, any way they could. They adopted assimilation tactics that incorporated holidays from other religions into their own belief system so that people would be more willing to make the transition. Christianity is, quite simply, the whore of all religions. It's been around, and it's got a bit of every other religion in it.

Typically, it is a bad idea to respond to a request for the supporting of statements with more unsupported statements. Why should I believe the information you give me regarding Mithraism? Where did you get it?

But tell me-- is the Bible, specifically the Christian version-- not intended to be spread among the masses? Is there or is there not a missionary imperative within the Christian church to spread the word and "witness" to the nations? Judaism does not have this imperative, it has its roots in the Church.

If that is indeed the case, then the Christian Bible is a document for missionary work and part of a culture of indoctrination and ideological assimilation. In a sense, a propaganda work.

Well, I was objecting more to the implicit self-seeking in your description - "making themselves into heroes." I see no reason to believe that any author of the Bible was looking to his own interest in his writing.

It is one thing to maintain that the Bible is intended for indoctrination and "the spreading of an ideology," in a didactic and yet autotelic sense - after all, the Bible itself proposes this in 2 Timothy 3:16: "All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness." Indeed, if the Bible is theopneustos, what else can be said of its utility?

However, it is quite another thing to suggest that the writers (of the New Testament, at least) contrived the Scriptures out of selfish ambition and vain conceit. This is what I was questioning - that any biblical authors made their contributions for their own gain. Can you support this?

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-02 10:43pm

The Apologist wrote:
However, it is quite another thing to suggest that the writers (of the New Testament, at least) contrived the Scriptures out of selfish ambition and vain conceit. This is what I was questioning - that any biblical authors made their contributions for their own gain. Can you support this?

Quite easily. See the Book of John, the verse where it says that these things were written so the reader may believe.

More specifically, see the Book of Matthew, whose writer loves pulling prophecy out of thin air. Explain his embarassing mistake of saying that Jesus rode in on TWO animals (how?!) in his triumphal entry to Jerusalem- when the other three gospels understood the OT correctly and put him on one animal (Matthew misunderstood Hebrew repetition). Also see Herod's Slaughter for the transparent inclusion of a very common dangerous child myth, and the Isaiah 'prophecy' from the OT which has nothing to do with Jesus.

The Apologist · Post by **The Apologist** » 2002-12-02 10:56pm

Quite easily. See the Book of John, the verse where it says that these things were written so the reader may believe.

And how does this support the idea that John was writing for his own gain?

Explain his embarassing mistake of saying that Jesus rode in on TWO animals (how?!) in his triumphal entry to Jerusalem- when the other three gospels understood the OT correctly and put him on one animal (Matthew misunderstood Hebrew repetition).

Why does anything need to be explained? I fail to see your point.

Also see Herod's Slaughter for the transparent inclusion of a very common dangerous child myth, and the Isaiah 'prophecy' from the OT which has nothing to do with Jesus.

On the other hand, here is something which requires explaining. Please do so.

Post by **Coyote** » 2002-12-02 10:57pm

The fact is, they all wrote their own versions of the story; perhaps you will say that it was all 'from their individual points of view' but in the case of Matthew and Luke, they gave completely different versions of Jesus's supposed "Davidic Lineage".

My primary point was that the Bible was written to indoctrinate people into an ideology. I'd have to plod through the writings of the disciples to get a clue as to their state of mind, but why else would so many people write different versions of the ame story if not to present their version as the 'right' one?

It is easy to imagine: "Don't read Matthew, he's a hack, he doesn't now what he's talking about; here read my version. This is what really happened." This is my opinion on the matter; if I feel like making a mountain of this molehill I'll read them and form an argument or change my mind as I see fit.

The information about Mithras is right on, btw. It dates back to the time of the Emperor Constantine and Eusebius of Caesariyya, I believe Lactantius mentions it as well. The Church of Constantine in Constantinople is built on an old temple to Sol, who was the subject of monotheistic sun-god worship for a long time (many Sol coins were minted from the Third Century, I recently did a paper on it for the coins of the Emperor Probus). Beneath the Temple to Sol was a Temple to Mithras.

Mithras was born to a virgin seeded by a montheistic God, was symbolized by a cross, and supposedly died for the sins of humanity. Also remember the tale of Rome's founders and heroes, Romulus and Remus, born of a Vestal Virgin of the Temple to Jupiter who was supposedly impregnanted by the god Mars.

See a thread? Jesus is just one more Mediterannean virgin/god birth story in a culture where such things abounded. The Old Testament Hebrew prophesies were twisted and bent to accomodate Jesus. Constantine accepted Christianity without understanding it; in fact he wouldn't allow anyone to say the word "Christ" in his prescence; he only allowed the term "Teos epi Pantone" which means "the God Above All", an oblique reference which could have meant Sol, Mithras, or Jupiter. Read Eusebius to back this up.

Durandal · Post by **Durandal** » 2002-12-02 10:58pm

Typically, it is a bad idea to respond to a request for the supporting of statements with more unsupported statements. Why should I believe the information you give me regarding Mithraism? Where did you get it?

Plenty of places. Here's one. You can do a Google search to dig up more links, though I'd recommend sticking strictly to .edu ones.

Post by **Vympel** » 2002-12-02 11:06pm

The Apologist wrote:
And how does this support the idea that John was writing for his own gain?

He was writing to promote his religion.

Why does anything need to be explained? I fail to see your point.

The point is that a- the writer obviously wasn't there (if it happened at all) and b- read a prophecy in the Old Testament and shoe-horned Jesus into it (badly) by misunderstanding it and having Jesus ride on TWO animals at once. Do you have a reading comprehension problem?

On the other hand, here is something which requires explaining. Please do so.

Therefore the Lord Himself giveth to you a sign, Lo, the young woman is conceiving, And is bringing forth a son, And hath called his name Immanuel" Isaiah 7:14 (note the correct translation is young woman, NOT virgin)

And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel" Matthew 1:21-23

Thus, the woman--not a virgin --is already carrying the child whose birth is imminent; thus, the Isaiah verse cannot refer to a future conception. We see above that Isaiah was not speaking of a messiah which would appear eight hundred years later; he was referring to the present. The child he spoke of was already conceived; the child, which would soon be born, would be a sign--a good omen--to a king about to engage in battle.

Note that the name of the child to be conceived was to be Immanuel, not "Jesus". In the entire New Testament the name Immanuel appears only once--in Matthew's verse where he quotes the false Isaiah prophecy. More than a thousand times the name Jesus appears in the New Testament, but not once is the savior from Nazareth called Immanuel, except in the single verse where Matthew tells us what Isaiah said the child would be called. One would think that if Jesus was ever called Immanuel by anyone, then one of the characters in the Bible, or one of the writers, would have done so, as Matthew said Isaiah said would happen; Mark, Luke, John, Paul, or Peter would surely have mentioned the name a few times, but they mentioned it not once. The reasonable inferrence to be made here is that Isaiah was not predicting that a future savior of the Jews would be called Immanuel

Additional evidence that the prophet in Isaiah referred to an event soon to be realized, and not an event in Bethlehem eight hundred years later, may be found in the very next chapter in Isaiah (see table, below), where a child called "Immanuel" is born. As proof that the boys in these two Isaiah chapters are one and the same, we may note below in the table below, both chapters mention the conquest of the lands of two kings "before the boy" reaches a certain age; this key phrase links the two chapters to the same child, Immanuel. The unborn and born child in the two Isaiah chapters are further linked by the appearance of the name Immanuel in both places. Immanuel, which in Hebrew means "God is with us" is a name which one may be sure was carefully chosen by the prophet to reassure the king that God would be on his side. Thus, in the second chapter we see the exclamation, "O Immanuel", which is Isaiah's proud announcement that the child was born and represented a sign that "God is with us".

To summarize:

Jesus was not called "Immanuel", except just once, by Matthew.
The child referred to in Isaiah 6 was apparently born two chapters later.
The child-omen to a king living in 800 BC would be Jesus in 30 AD.
The word "ha-almah" normally means "young woman", not "virgin".
The word "harah" is past tense, not future tense, and means "conceived".

Gricksigger · Post by **Gricksigger** » 2002-12-02 11:15pm

As for donkey business, let's look at the verses in question:

Matt 21:7
They brought the donkey and the colt, placed their cloaks on them, and Jesus sat on them.

Okay, first off, the disciples brought a domesticated ass and a young male horse. Then the disciples put their cloaks on the animals. Then Jesus sat on "them." What is "them"? Does it necessarily refer to the animals? Maybe Jesus sat on the cloaks, which is referred to by the pronoun "them." It appears as if the main animal were the colt, and the ass were brought along perhaps to keep the young male horse (by definition of colt) from acting.... like a young male horse.

Keener writes, the colt "might [have] require[d] the mother's presence to keep it calm amid shouting crowds".