Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So no historical evidence... No proof. Just your own understanding.
Why do you give Christians a hard time when your evidence and proof is really at the same level as ours?
I sincerely am not trying to give Christians a hard time. I am trying to point out some things I think are legitimate concerns non-Christians have that Christians refuse to open their eyes to. I used to be a hardcore Christian fundamentalist as little as 2 years ago before I discovered what 99% of Christians do not know just by studying the issues. I found too many things that should concern a Christian who truly opens up his/her mind instead of just automatically defending Christianity against any and all charges. Christianity is losing the fight taking that kind of tact defending it. The dropping numbers of Christianity is evidence of this fact.
I'll tell you a little known secret: Christians are their own worst enemy, not us. You Christians could cut us non-Christians off at the knees and all the opposition here would evaporate overnight if you just stopped fighting the rising tide and started listening a little to what we have to say. You don't have to believe it, just listen and say, "Okay maybe you do have a valid point on that one. Let me investigate it further and see what I think and I'll get back to you on it. And then make a sincere effort to research it.
Instead the moment I or others post something the fundamentalist apologists are all over us saying, "That's a lie. You're attacking Christianity without any justification. You're trolling. Christianity is perfect. Here they go again."
The few inerrantists here are losing the battle on the perfection of the Bible. Even a dye-in-the-wool fundamentalist genius like William Lane Craig has given up the battle trying to defend the inerrancy of the Bible because there are just too many errors to defend. It's become impossible to do. Craig, like many other apologists, have thus shifted the focus from inerrancy, a battle they cannot win, to "Why don't you just read the message contained in the Bible which is not errant, and stop focusing on mistakes the scribes made or the things they inserted to give the story more punch." That's a much more reasoned approach. Even Craig has a tough time explaining how one gospel writer says the rooster crowed twice while another says it crowed only once and in the end it just comes off sounding like a whitewash, even from a brainiac like Craig.
I sincerely am not trying to give Christians a hard time. I am trying to point out some things I think are legitimate concerns non-Christians have that Christians refuse to open their eyes to. I used to be a hardcore Christian fundamentalist as little as 2 years ago before I discovered what 99% of Christians do not know just by studying the issues. I found too many things that should concern a Christian who truly opens up his/her mind instead of just automatically defending Christianity against any and all charges. Christianity is losing the fight taking that kind of tact defending it. The dropping numbers of Christianity is evidence of this fact.
I'll tell you a little known secret: Christians are their own worst enemy, not us. You Christians could cut us non-Christians off at the knees and all the opposition here would evaporate overnight if you just stopped fighting the rising tide and started listening a little to what we have to say. You don't have to believe it, just listen and say, "Okay maybe you do have a valid point on that one. Let me investigate it further and see what I think and I'll get back to you on it. And then make a sincere effort to research it.
Instead the moment I or others post something the fundamentalist apologists are all over us saying, "That's a lie. You're attacking Christianity without any justification. You're trolling. Christianity is perfect. Here they go again."
The few inerrantists here are losing the battle on the perfection of the Bible. Even a dye-in-the-wool fundamentalist genius like William Lane Craig has given up the battle trying to defend the inerrancy of the Bible because there are just too many errors to defend. It's become impossible to do. Craig, like many other apologists, have thus shifted the focus from inerrancy, a battle they cannot win, to "Why don't you just read the message contained in the Bible which is not errant, and stop focusing on mistakes the scribes made or the things they inserted to give the story more punch." That's a much more reasoned approach. Even Craig has a tough time explaining how one gospel writer says the rooster crowed twice while another says it crowed only once and in the end it just comes off sounding like a whitewash, even from a brainiac like Craig.
Thrill, the sad but undeniable truth is many Christians don't want to learn/know/hear about, anything that might contradict what someone told them they need to believe in order to avoid hell, pass GO and get to heaven.
The dim bulb can only illuminate so much. It calls what it can see "the truth."
Brighter lights shine deeper and reveal more.
But many Christians can not, or will not, take off their dark, blinkered glasses. They feel safe thinking small thoughts and wading in shallow pools.*
*As a professional writer, I can mix as many metaphors as I wish. Please, don't try this at home.
Thrill, the sad but undeniable truth is many Christians don't want to learn/know/hear about, anything that might contradict what someone told them they need to believe in order to avoid hell, pass GO and get to heaven.
The dim bulb can only illuminate so much. It calls what it can see "the truth."
Brighter lights shine deeper and reveal more.
But many Christians can not, or will not, take off their dark, blinkered glasses. They feel safe thinking small thoughts and wading in shallow pools.*
*As a professional writer, I can mix as many metaphors as I wish. Please, don't try this at home.
So true, Trout. More than not wanting to know the truth, to paraphrase Jack Nicholson, "They couldn't handle the truth". It's the fear that if our side started making sense to them their faith and thus their comfortable little flowery world would crumble--that's their real fear. But I'm living proof they could handle the truth if it's fed to them a little at a time.
But darling little snowball, please take your own advice and research before you make wild, half-baked claims that look like they're designed more to mislead than to inform.
I am tempted to keep out of this but that was an excellent debunk. I pretty much debate on the gospel accounts themselves and even Paul and Acts (though I find them quite interesting now) I got dragged into perforce, because they were presented as validation of the gospels (in fact they undermine more than support). And I have barely looked at the church Fathers.
As to judging the gospels by modern journalistic standards...isn't that what the apologists do - but only when it suits them to argue that wildly wrong reporting doesn't mean the basic facts are not true?
But, when you go back to the accounts themselves and show that they cannot be taken as reliable - forget about "Eyewitness" - then suddenly we are supposed to find a whole different criterion for assessing them.
I already know what that is - it is what a work colleague of mine called 'The big picture'. Which took me a while to figure out. It means 'Take it all as true on faith" and just explain away if you can, rewrite if you must and simply ignore if you can't even get away with that, all problems. contradictions and discrepancies and then pretend they don't exist.
Well, sorry, but asking me to be as uncritically gullible (or "Open minded" as they call it) as the apologist is not going to work
P.s I did not the post going over the same ground as a book I read trying to make the resurrection accounts work by having the discrepant accounts work by shuttling the characters back and forth so the Sunday morning was as busy as a stage farce, explaining away an problems such as just saying there was a young man in the tomb didn't mean there wasn't two (the 'didn't bother to mention' argument that is used to paper over cracks from the discrepancy in Acts and II Corinthians about the Threat in Damascus to why John doesn't have a transfiguration - which even the most ingenious invention can't overcome and which is the touchstone precedent that (under the 'clean hands' principle) supports the more probable contention that Paul and Acts and Matthew and Mark contradict in a way that trashes the reliability of at least one of the accounts.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-05-2015 at 08:12 AM..
That's an interesting theory, Lively, and I've thought about it a bit. Here are my questions:
Your theory is predicated upon the idea that the Jews of Jesus' time hated him with a passion. How do you know that? Maybe the majority were really indifferent to Jesus, or even unaware of him. The authors of the gospels didn't write about him until many years later. The Talmud didn't come into existence until much, much later when the Jesus narrative had gained a great deal of steam. Is it on the testimony of those writings alone that you believe the Jews of Jesus' time hated Jesus? Perhaps that was a fabrication or a skewed view of the truth. Then too, perhaps the bit about Jesus rising from the dead wasn't added to the story until later on. In which case, at the time of Jesus' death, anyone who hated him would have had no reason to refute something that hadn't yet been proposed, and by the time it was proposed, refuting it as a hoax would not have been possible if anyone even was interested in making the effort to try. Certainly those who compiled the writings of the Talmud would not have been able to.
Now, here is a site that seems to call into question what you are saying about the talmud altogether:
"There are many talmudic passages that are alleged to be referring to Jesus. However, talmudic scholars and historians have long debated whether these passages are actually about Jesus. The evidence is very unclear."
"There are four main passages in the Talmud that are alleged by some to discuss the story of Jesus' life and death. What we will do here is to analyze closely these passages and see the reasons one may or may not attribute these stories to the life of Jesus. We will also look at another two passages that help us identify our protagonist(s). We will quickly realize that there are great difficulties in stating that any of these texts refer to Jesus. We will see that a large number of historians and talmudists have addressed these issues and have concluded that either none of these passages refer to Jesus or that they refer to a proto-Jesus, whose life was later obfuscated by the theologically motivated rewriting of history."
I have never heard your theory from anyone else before (it gave me pause ) and have never studied any of this. These are just my initial thoughts and questions.
Maybe this evening, or if not possibly in the following morning, I will be more able to respond at length to your post
Meanwhile, for any who think the Talmud is unclear as to whether it is addressing Jesus and His mother Mary in such a disparaging and distasteful manner check out the authors work and words at this link
As far my theories not being heard of before now.......I have appeared under the username "Livelystone" for roughly 12 years in multiple Christian forums but always with the same message of God's plan for man
As far my theories not being heard of before now.......I have appeared under the username "Livelystone" for roughly 12 years in multiple Christian forums but always with the same message of God's plan for man
Seems like you thought I was slamming you? Not at all. You brought something up I'd never heard of before. I didn't say no one else had.
Quote:
Who are you?
Deep and broad question. Maybe you could narrow it down for me a bit? What are you wanting to know, specifically.
Maybe this evening, or if not possibly in the following morning, I will be more able to respond at length to your post
Meanwhile, for any who think the Talmud is unclear as to whether it is addressing Jesus and His mother Mary in such a disparaging and distasteful manner check out the authors work and words at this link
As far my theories not being heard of before now.......I have appeared under the username "Livelystone" for roughly 12 years in multiple Christian forums but always with the same message of God's plan for man
Who are you?
That will be interesting. I have long been in search of anything to give real reason to believe in a historical Jesus. (So far only Tacitus seems to be convincing - if arguable) and I keep searching Josephus for signs of a Jesus MsCh. (failed) if only as a very obscure mention.
I am also interested in the Talmud as containing recollection of the gospel Jesus. The problem is that, apart from finding some of these stories very dubious (1) I am not sure they even refer to the Gospels Jesus and Mary, and even if they do, the generally hostile tone suggests they are no more than a polemic response to Christianity and its polemic against Judaism.
(1) I recall the one about a problem with temple offerings supposed to date the Crucifixion of Jesus involves a certain Simeon the righteous as I recall. In any case, a High Priest who doesn't appear in the lists and who seems to pop up everywhere - including having a chat with Alexander the great. This means that I have doubts about the tale of Rabbi Akiva seeing the doors of the temple mysterious swing open and predicting the destruction of Jerusalem. And thus all these rather odd -sounding Talmudic tales.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 11-05-2015 at 08:50 AM..
Reason: 'of course' is getting to be a very bad habit
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) and have never studied any of this. These are just my initial thoughts and questions.
