Jesus, Myth, etc.

NotReady · #1 01-06-2007, 04:01 AM

For those of you who are actually interested in this question and not just making superficial and absurd allegations you can't defend see this.

Anyone who wants to engage in genuine debate I would be glad to discuss the title question in the light of the information given here. I haven't read it all but plan to over the next couple of years. Yeah, it's voluminous.

So much for intellectual dishonesty and being afraid of nitwits.

madnak · #2 01-06-2007, 04:16 AM

Looks like he's taking hundreds of counts against Christianity and trying to establish nothing more than plausible deniability while glossing over much of the circumstancial evidence. I don't see how this has a point, even if he does manage to establish universal plausible deniability.

Obviously I've only read a fraction of this but he doesn't seem to dispute that the copycat thesis is a reasonable hypothesis - only that it's possible that it's not valid. Furthermore his analysis begins and ends with the assumption that the Christian God exists and is true.

Please explain why this is a relevant source?

Praxis101 · #3 01-06-2007, 04:20 AM

This is partially a suggestion for the SMP Bible club. I like this post, though, so I'd like to post it here! [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

The Bible presents perspectives from all kinds of individuals. The Bible is a re-creation of reality, characterizing various mindsets. It's philosophy, probably one man's philosophy.

Ultimately, there are a few core ideas. These ideas are never explicitly stated. You have to search for them. There are extremely few people who can confidently put these ideas to words. Most of them are probably wrong. I don't know.

Certain characters might present our author's actual opinion - though, again, we will have to really search. One would have to verily want to know this information.

-----> In other words, this is the Bible: fast-track. I have yet to try it, I cannot comment on its effectiveness. It seems quite effective.

The words of RayBonert (I hope you don't mind

[ QUOTE ]
re-read all of the new testament red text (the words of jesus)

review all of history with 2 ideas in mind:

a) the needs of the christian collective
b) the needs of the christian individual

if you demand that these be the same, trouble arises (and i believe that nietzsche pointed to this)

if you allow them to be different then you get jesus as addressing the individual (mostly) and you get paul addressing the collective (moreso).

i.e. micro christianity and macro christianity

note that scientists are not abused because quantum level behavior is different than cosmic level behavior. but christianity is regularly abused for discrepancies between micro and macro.

i haven't read a lot of nietzsche but it seems he was trying to get people to notice this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Praxis101 · #4 01-06-2007, 04:24 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore his analysis begins and ends with the assumption that the Christian God exists and is true.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is necissarily the case.

If we look at the Bible as one man's philosophy (which it likely is a representation of) - we're looking for WHAT HE VALUES. To see if we value the same thing.

The Bible discusses its particualr notion of God frequently. If you ask me, certain individuals who HATE CHRISTIANITY manage to still thouroughly accept and intergrate it's philosophy.

It is a fact that the idea of the Christian God exists. I personally have no idea what the author's conception of God is.

Praxis101 · #5 01-06-2007, 04:27 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Furthermore his analysis begins and ends with the assumption that the Christian God exists and is true.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is necissarily the case.

If we look at the Bible as one man's philosophy (which it likely is a representation of) - we're looking for WHAT HE VALUES. To see if we value the same thing.

The Bible discusses its particualr notion of God frequently. If you ask me, certain individuals who HATE CHRISTIANITY manage to still thouroughly accept and intergrate it's philosophy.

It is a fact that the idea of the Christian God exists. I personally have no idea what the author's conception of God is.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm trying to say that the Bible is philosophy, not science. The Bible does not claim to be reality. It is a representation of reality, through a particular perspective, created in a particular fashion, to discuss philisophical ideas.

You do, however, need science when exploring philosophy.

NotReady · #6 01-06-2007, 04:29 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Please explain why this is a relevant source?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. You've only read a fraction of it.

madnak · #7 01-06-2007, 04:34 AM

Care to link me to the relevant parts, or the parts that contradict my impressions?

NotReady · #8 01-06-2007, 04:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Care to link me to the relevant parts, or the parts that contradict my impressions?

[/ QUOTE ]

I have no idea what you consider relevant or what would contradict your impressions. I posted it to answer general allegations made in another thread. Read it, don't, believe it, don't, make some debate points, don't - up to you.

arahant · #9 01-06-2007, 03:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
For those of you who are actually interested in this question and not just making superficial and absurd allegations you can't defend see this.

Anyone who wants to engage in genuine debate I would be glad to discuss the title question in the light of the information given here. I haven't read it all but plan to over the next couple of years. Yeah, it's voluminous.

So much for intellectual dishonesty and being afraid of nitwits.

[/ QUOTE ]

What is the 'title question'?
I'd actually never heard of this argument against christianity. I don't see how christianity being modelled off paganism, if this were/is the case, is (much of) an argument against it's truth.

Seems like an obscure corner of theology/sociology to me. Is this some sort of big debate I hadn't heard of until now (wouldn't surprise...I'm not a theologian).

Edit: I see this is a spinoff thread. Interesting.

CallMeIshmael · #10 01-06-2007, 04:04 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Please explain why this is a relevant source?

[/ QUOTE ]

You're right. You've only read a fraction of it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I love these "Heres a page with 45 articles, and if someone responds asking why its relevant to read all of them, you're just like OMG I BET YOU DIDNT READ ALL OF THEM" posts