10 of 12
10
Blog: Is Jesus a Myth?
Posted: 29 July 2012 09:54 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 136 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-07-10

Jesus without his miracles is meaningless and his actual existence becomes irrelevant.
The most backs logic applied to the bible will prove it meaningless.
It’s inconsistencies alone should convince the most ardent believer.
People believe because they want to believe.

 

Yes I agree that it is unlikely Jesus was anymore special than any other wandering ‘holy’ man of which there were many at the time. But the original question asked was; ‘is Jesus a myth’  to which the answer is no;  it is highly probable that he was a real person peddling his brand of Judaism around Palestine in the 1st Century AD. 

As to deciding what he did or didn’t say or did or didn’t do that can only be assessed by analysing the texts that are available to us, in this case the NT, and not dismissing them out of hand just because they are ‘religious’ in nature. 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 29 July 2012 06:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 137 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
agerweb - 29 July 2012 09:54 AM

Jesus without his miracles is meaningless and his actual existence becomes irrelevant.
The most backs logic applied to the bible will prove it meaningless.
It’s inconsistencies alone should convince the most ardent believer.
People believe because they want to believe.

 

Yes I agree that it is unlikely Jesus was anymore special than any other wandering ‘holy’ man of which there were many at the time. But the original question asked was; ‘is Jesus a myth’  to which the answer is no;  it is highly probable that he was a real person peddling his brand of Judaism around Palestine in the 1st Century AD. 

As to deciding what he did or didn’t say or did or didn’t do that can only be assessed by analysing the texts that are available to us, in this case the NT, and not dismissing them out of hand just because they are ‘religious’ in nature. 

 

 
The NT was written a hundred years after his supposed death.
After being translated through four languages and butchered by King James, any hope of validity is lost.
There is simply no indication that Jesus ever existed.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2012 05:13 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 138 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-07-10

The NT was written a hundred years after his supposed death.
After being translated through four languages and butchered by King James, any hope of validity is lost.
There is simply no indication that Jesus ever existed.

I am afraid that is the nature of History; unless you are lucky enough to have your text carved on a wall you are reading texts that have been translated and re translated.  Herodotus is a good example of multiple translations and many of the writings of the Greeks are pieced together from quotations of other authors. If we rejected texts because we did not have the original we would be left with very little knowledge of what happened in the Iron Age at all.

Anyway Mark, Mathew, John and Luke were composed towards the end of the 1st Century AD not a hundred years after his death. We of course don’t have the originals but stylistically this is a reasonably dating. Not surprisingly secular scholars tend to put the dates closer to 100AD and religious scholars closer to 40/50AD. It doesn’t really matter in the question of his existence but does when you are considering the accuracy of the narrative, the greater the time gap the more likely writers are to make stuff up.  Hence the religious requirement to have them written early.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2012 06:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 139 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
agerweb - 30 July 2012 05:13 AM

The NT was written a hundred years after his supposed death.
After being translated through four languages and butchered by King James, any hope of validity is lost.
There is simply no indication that Jesus ever existed.

I am afraid that is the nature of History; unless you are lucky enough to have your text carved on a wall you are reading texts that have been translated and re translated.  Herodotus is a good example of multiple translations and many of the writings of the Greeks are pieced together from quotations of other authors. If we rejected texts because we did not have the original we would be left with very little knowledge of what happened in the Iron Age at all.

Anyway Mark, Mathew, John and Luke were composed towards the end of the 1st Century AD not a hundred years after his death. We of course don’t have the originals but stylistically this is a reasonably dating. Not surprisingly secular scholars tend to put the dates closer to 100AD and religious scholars closer to 40/50AD. It doesn’t really matter in the question of his existence but does when you are considering the accuracy of the narrative, the greater the time gap the more likely writers are to make stuff up.  Hence the religious requirement to have them written early.

For a book that claims to be divinely inspired,, the new testament certainly contains a number of historical errors and contradictions.
Even if one could prove that it was historically correct, that would not validate its premise .
Even of the shroud of Turrin were proven to be the burial cloth of Christ, it would in no way indicate that he was the son of God.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2012 09:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 140 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-07-10


For a book that claims to be divinely inspired,, the new testament certainly contains a number of historical errors and contradictions.
Even if one could prove that it was historically correct, that would not validate its premise .
Even of the shroud of Turin were proven to be the burial cloth of Christ, it would in no way indicate that he was the son of God.

I think it is largely people who claim its divinely inspired rather than the book itself. So take away the people and you just have a standard ancient text about people and events in the 1st Century AD, some things will be true and some things will not be and it is bound to have contradictions as it is written by more than one person based on the oral records of more than one person.  This by definition rules it out as divinely inspired because presumably they would have been ‘inspired’ to record a consistent story.

In fact its very inconsistency gives it some historical (but not religious) authenticity as it tends to preclude what would be a too coherent and fabricated narrative. 

The Turin Shroud has been carbon dated to 14th Century so no danger of it being Christ’s.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 30 July 2012 08:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 141 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
agerweb - 30 July 2012 09:15 AM


For a book that claims to be divinely inspired,, the new testament certainly contains a number of historical errors and contradictions.
Even if one could prove that it was historically correct, that would not validate its premise .
Even of the shroud of Turin were proven to be the burial cloth of Christ, it would in no way indicate that he was the son of God.

I think it is largely people who claim its divinely inspired rather than the book itself. So take away the people and you just have a standard ancient text about people and events in the 1st Century AD, some things will be true and some things will not be and it is bound to have contradictions as it is written by more than one person based on the oral records of more than one person.  This by definition rules it out as divinely inspired because presumably they would have been ‘inspired’ to record a consistent story.

In fact its very inconsistency gives it some historical (but not religious) authenticity as it tends to preclude what would be a too coherent and fabricated narrative. 

The Turin Shroud has been carbon dated to 14th Century so no danger of it being Christ’s.

 


I don’t understand how the Bible’s inconsistencies add to its credibility.
As to the Bible’s statements concerning its own divine origin:

(From “Got Questions.org.”)

When people speak of the Bible as inspired, they are referring to the fact that God divinely influenced the human authors of the Scriptures in such a way that what they wrote was the very Word of God. In the context of the Scriptures, the word “inspiration” simply means “God-breathed.” Inspiration means the Bible truly is the Word of God and makes the Bible unique among all other books.

While there are different views as to the extent to which the Bible is inspired, there can be no doubt that the Bible itself claims that every word in every part of the Bible comes from God (1 Corinthians 2:12-13; 2 Timothy 3:16-17). This view of the Scriptures is often referred to as “verbal plenary” inspiration. That means the inspiration extends to the very words themselves (verbal)—not just concepts or ideas—and that the inspiration extends to all parts of Scripture and all subject matters of Scripture (plenary). Some people believe only parts of the Bible are inspired or only the thoughts or concepts that deal with religion are inspired, but these views of inspiration fall short of the Bible’s claims about itself. Full verbal plenary inspiration is an essential characteristic of the Word of God.

The extent of inspiration can be clearly seen in 2 Timothy 3:16, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.” This verse tells us that God inspired all Scripture and that it is profitable to us. It is not just the parts of the Bible that deal with religious doctrines that are inspired, but each and every word from Genesis to Revelation. Because it is inspired by God, the Scriptures are therefore authoritative when it comes to establishing doctrine, and sufficient for teaching man how be in a right relationship with God. The Bible claims not only to be inspired by God, but also to have the supernatural ability to change us and make us “complete.” What more can we need?

Another verse that deals with the inspiration of the Scriptures is 2 Peter 1:21. This verse helps us to understand that even though God used men with their distinctive personalities and writing styles, God divinely inspired the very words they wrote. Jesus Himself confirmed the verbal plenary inspiration of the Scriptures when He said, “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law…” (Matthew 5:17-18). In these verses, Jesus is reinforcing the accuracy of the Scriptures down to the smallest detail and the slightest punctuation mark, because it is the very Word of God.

Because the Scriptures are the inspired Word of God, we can conclude that they are also inerrant and authoritative. A correct view of God will lead us to a correct view of His Word. Because God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and completely perfect, His Word will by its very nature have the same characteristics. The same verses that establish the inspiration of the Scriptures also establish that it is both inerrant and authoritative. Without a doubt the Bible is what it claims to be—the undeniable, authoritative, Word of God to humanity.

 

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 04:28 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 142 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  29
Joined  2012-07-10

I don’t understand how the Bible’s inconsistencies add to its credibility.
As to the Bible’s statements concerning its own divine origin:

(From “Got Questions.org.”)

Yes but that’s all religious inspired interpretation and not relevant to its historicity.
Try forgetting its a religious book, forget about Christianity, forget about literal interpretation, forget about religious inconsistencies, forget about divine inspirations and look at it purely from a secular point of view as just another ancient text like for example the Iliad. They both have extensive mythic content but do contain historical information.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 31 July 2012 06:44 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 143 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
agerweb - 31 July 2012 04:28 PM

I don’t understand how the Bible’s inconsistencies add to its credibility.
As to the Bible’s statements concerning its own divine origin:

(From “Got Questions.org.”)

Yes but that’s all religious inspired interpretation and not relevant to its historicity.
Try forgetting its a religious book, forget about Christianity, forget about literal interpretation, forget about religious inconsistencies, forget about divine inspirations and look at it purely from a secular point of view as just another ancient text like for example the Iliad. They both have extensive mythic content but do contain historical information.

 


I honestly cannot see how anyone can value the Bible.
For the most part, its depiction of history is invalid.
The morality it suggests is deplorable.
Its views on children and women are disgusting.
God admits to being culturally myopic, shrimp hating killer of babies.
Its an awful book written and revised by cavemen.
Richard Dawkins depicts the non-existent God as “a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sado-masochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”
What kind of creature would offer no reason to believe in him and then kill non-believers?
What kind of a monster would create an eternal hell for his children?
If every Christian were to read the Bible from cover to cover, there would be a mass conversion to secularism.

 

[ Edited: 31 July 2012 09:59 PM by toombaru]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2012 12:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 144 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Jesus is a myth and the whole Judeo-Christian morality and ethics is a sick anti-human death cult.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2012 01:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 145 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
mormovies - 07 August 2012 12:06 PM

Jesus is a myth and the whole Judeo-Christian morality and ethics is a sick anti-human death cult.

 

Can you think of any religious or mystical belief structure that might be considered valid?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2012 02:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 146 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

No. Belief is not knowing.  A valid belief structure would be to be believe in reality as revealed to us by science.  We observe, learn and begin to know.  We don’t have to believe anything.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2012 03:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 147 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
mormovies - 07 August 2012 02:20 PM

No. Belief is not knowing.  A valid belief structure would be to be believe in reality as revealed to us by science.  We observe, learn and begin to know.  We don’t have to believe anything.


Can we ever know anything?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2012 07:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 148 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Yes, we can know things but through beliefs.  We actually know a lot for a species that has inhabited the planet for such a short time.  We just landed on Mars again.  That was achieved through knowledge of reality not by believing, chanting or wishful thinking.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2012 07:24 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 149 ]  
Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  800
Joined  2010-11-12
mormovies - 07 August 2012 07:12 PM

Yes, we can know things but through beliefs.  We actually know a lot for a species that has inhabited the planet for such a short time.  We just landed on Mars again.  That was achieved through knowledge of reality not by believing, chanting or wishful thinking.

Other than mathematical relationship, nothing can be known.
Do you believe that the length of a river or the height of a mountain can be known?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 August 2012 07:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 150 ]  
Member
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  286
Joined  2011-04-26

Do you believe that the length of a river or the height of a mountain can be known?

I think so (I don’t believe) since we know the length (distance) from earth to mars, we have the mind and technology to measure a river or mountain.  Not a problem.

Profile
 
 
   
10 of 12
10
 
‹‹ Passion of the atheist      Chew-toy alert ››
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed