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.
To review a little, Paul developed the Gentile - friendly gospel which he nevertheless claimed to have got direct from Jesus. (36 AD) We can place Romans as his thesis after that date and Corinthians 1 and 2 between that and Paul's delivery of famine relief to the 'Poor' of Jerusalem during or after the famine of AD 45. Paul then refers to the Council of Jerusalem (c 50/51 AD) and his subsequent wrangle with Peter about withdrawing from his position of hobnobbing with the Gentile converts too much. Galatians where he shows that he is not having it all his own way with his converts.
Gal 1.6 I am amazed that you are so quickly deserting Him who called you by the grace of Christ, for a different gospel;
What 'different' gospel can this be? Whatever it is is must surely be some kind of Law- observing Gospel because the only one that wasn't was Paul's. The only question is whether this was also shared with the apostles (which if the Gospel representation of the teachings of Jesus are taken as reliable ought to be the case) or not. The pointers about about the contradictions and indications of Law - observance by James suggest that the Jerusalem church did observe the law and Paul's opponents came from them and with full authority from James and the elders despite what Luke has to tell us.
Acts 15 "24 We (says James' letter after the council of Jerusalem) have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said." Which was, to remove all doubt. "1 Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved.” And you can bet the rest of the Law was to be observed, too.
And Paul says so, too. Galatians 11. "11 And when Kephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face because he clearly was wrong. 12 For, until some people came from James, 12 he used to eat with the Gentiles; but when they came, he began to draw back and separated himself, because he was afraid of the circumcised." Whether before or after the council, the reservations and undermining of Paul's 'gospel' came from James and surely he represented the general view of the Jesus party. Paul was out on a limb. He presents his thesis again
Gal 2.15 "We, who are Jews by nature and not sinners from among the Gentiles, 16 (yet) who know that a person is not justified by works of the law but through faith in Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Christ Jesus that we may be justified by faith in Christ and not by works of the law, because by works of the law no one will be justified." This is Paul desperately lying. Pretty much all Jews other than Paul did NOT believe that the Law did not justify and that only Faith in Jesus could justify. When representatives of the apostles who has all known Jesus and heard him speak said that Paul was not telling the truth, the Law, when it was given by God became mandatory and nobody, including Paul could argue it away just to make it easy for the gentiles.
Paul is cunning, I'll give you that he belittles the authority of the apostles Gal 2. 6 "But from those who were reputed to be important (what they once were makes no difference to me)" and appeals to his own authority as the one who converted them Gal 3. 2 "This only would I learn of you, Received ye the Spirit by the works of the law, or by the hearing of faith?" and tries to frighten them off by depicting the Law as a terrible burden He claimed that he was as good as the 'Super apostles' and became quite hostile to anyone threatening to undermine his doctrine.
2. Corinthians 11.4 "For if someone comes and proclaims another Jesus than the one we proclaimed, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or if you accept a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it readily enough. 5Indeed, I consider that I am not in the least inferior to these super-apostles".
and moreover nullified faith in Jesus. Gal 5. 2 "Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. 3For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law." This is certainly shifting the goal posts since quite apart from Paul being lax about Law observance, he surely does not suggest that circumcision and obligation to observe the law somehow debars them from being saved through Faith in Jesus, because of course Paul himself is a circumcised Jew. His arguments are starting to look suspect.
Now, I know that some of Paul's epistles are considered spurious. Those I have referred to I accept as genuine and refer to as evidence. The others I find only rehearse what has gone before. Philippians sets out Paul's Jewish descent Phillippians 3. 5 circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; 6 as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for righteousness based on the law, faultless." Which doesn't agree with the heavy hint in Romans and Corinthians that he was a sinner under the law and was only too thankful to decriminalize himself by using Faith in Jesus to make it obsolete, as is the philosophy we find in the Gospels.
We find the philosophy of the spirit of God (the shekinah) incarnate in a man Philippines 2. Philippians 2. 5 "In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus: 6 Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; 7 rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. 8 And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death - even death on a cross!"
But submitting to these atoning trials rather than being driven to it, seems more in line with John's God incarnate, master of his own fate than with Mark's 'meat puppet' and forsaken crucifixion victim. And the repeating of Paul's theistic. exhortations and good advice in his subsequent letters add little to the discussion. I trust the argument is now made.
Referring back to the discussion (in the long - ago original post) on the gospels, I argued that Matthew and Luke elaborated this 'proto - Matthew' or Ur -synoptic gospel with their own often contradictory additions intended to prove Jesus' messiahship by lacing his life with bits of OT scripture presented as prophecy fulfillment, notably the one about being born in Bethlehem, which Jesus wasn't and even Jesus predicting (after the event) the Jewish war and destruction of the temple., and of course supplying contradictory accounts of a badly needed actual appearance of a risen Jesus still with the marks of crucifixion on. These, together with the similar 'Passion' gospels of John. Peter, Nicodemus and Bartholemew were just some of the gospels circulating as the Gentile - friendly Paulinist Christianity grew and attracted converts in all levels of roman society - after all many slaves learned how to make money and earned their freedom and citizenship,too. Despite persecutions, mainly under Domitian since it was not a continual priority to stamp out Christianity, When Constantine made his bid for power, he was minded to enfranchise Christianity, not only because his mother was a Christian but because it was better to jin with them than fight them. Though his own liking was for Sun - worship he made Christianity the official religion since Christianity could not compromise. He engineered a political solution to the doctrinal rift between Roman Christianity and the more Egyptian dualist theology. After Constantine's death the Bishops of Rome began on a programme of coercing the emperors into more and more measures to suppress paganism. The rest is history.
Let us in the name of reason, give up this silly pretence that the Gospels are a reliable record of Jesus' sayings, teachings and deeds, much less those of eyewitness.
The old excuses will not do - written from a different point of view, not a biography or history, witnesses don't always agree, the Big Picture. Those are all pretexts for avoiding the conclusions that the genuine Big picture view of the Gospels tells us - they were written bu Pauline Christians to put Pauline theology into Jesus mouth, prove he was the risen Messiah and to do down the Pharisees, Sadducees, Herodians and for that matter, John's followers, any who have not accepted the new faith.
I suggest the way the evidence points is that Jesus was real person - a Galilean
He and his disciples went to be baptized by John and John's baptism was a messianic movement.
Antipas, concerned that this might play into the and of Aretas as well as annoyed by John's denunciations, arrested John
Jesus then took over the messianic mantle of John. The assembly of 5,000 men at Bethsaida was for the purpose of announcing his messianic intentions.
At Tabernacles, he gathered his followers in Peraea and they made their way to Jerusalem.
They enter the temple in the form of a tabernacles procession and take the place over.
Eventually they leave and Jesus is arrested, Pilate crucifies him
That seems to be the failure of the messianic bid, but the disciples - perhaps Peter as the first get the idea that Jesus has gone in the spirit to heaven and will come again soon to finish his work.
Under the leadership of James, the closest relative to Jesus, the Nazorenes wait for this event despite attacks by the Roman administration - Procurator and High priest.
Paul is at first opposed to the Nazorenes but at some point, is converted.
Paul, however. sees that the idea of the new covenant forged through Jesus' death can include even his fellow citizens of the Roman empire - if they believe in Jesus as the risen Messiah.
This brings Paul into conflict with those of the 'circumcision'. This, I strongly suggest is generally all of the Nazorenes since they are all observing Pharisee Jews as the majority of Jews were.
Under the lax rule of Nero, the extortions of subordinates provokes two major revolts - Boadicea's in Britain and the Jewish revolt in Judea and Galilee. Both are eventually put down
But the Pauline take on Jewish Nazorene messianism attracts many adherents amongst the Roman population, mainly the slaves who found little comfort in Roman religion.
After the Jewish war, the story of Jesus was circulated in a form expounding Paul's ideas about Jesus' messiahship. arguments against the Jewish law put into Jesus' mouth but going even further with rejection of the Jewish observances, verbal attacks on Pharisee Jews and blaming the Jews for Jesus death, Jesus is seen as being aware of his own necessary death at which time the spirit left the body it had occupied. But the story also had the element of the empty tomb.
My conclusion, therefore is that the internal evidence of the Gospels shows that Jesus was a Galilean, not born in Bethlehem. Doubtfully of the Davidic line, though Paul says so, there is so much effort in establishing his Davidic credentials by miraculous means and through the conflicting genealogies. Baptized and therefore recruited - together with his disciples - by John, who never recognized him as messiah, let alone divine at the time. Jesus already had his main followers and if they saw him as their leader, it was not John who suggested they follow him and Jesus never 'called' them at Capernaum, at least not after the baptism.
Though he took on the messianic mission after the arrest of John, he never announced himself in the Nazareth synagogue as the assassination idea is incredible and ther probably wasn't any sizeable 'Nazareth' anyway and Jesus' 'own city' was Capernaum - as Matthew says (9.1). The debates with the Pharisees are no more credible than they are sound. There were no such debates or hostility and as a nazorene, Jesus and his followers were in the ambit of the Pharisee movement, the popular movement at the time. He never advocated sabbath - breaking or eating unclean food. If he offended anyone, it was the Romans and their Sanhedrin quizling administration, especially by his disruption of the temple trade.and threat of civil disturbance. That was why Pilate executed Jesus. There was no need for the Sanhedrin to coerce him.
The resurrection claims are not credible. If Jesus was thought to have risen, it was in the spirit. His body lay where it had been placed. Paul and perhaps the apostles, too, came to explained the apparent failure of the messianic mission by seeing Jesus' death as atonement for Adam's disobedience. He indeed sat (in the spirit) at the right hand of God and would return in another suitable body to complete his work. That is what the apostles and the Ebionite community (the meek) were waiting to happen, while many of them were still alive. That much is found n Paul's own words and in the gospels.
Paul, as a Rroman citizen, was originally opposed to the Nazorenes/Ebionites - not because they opposed Judaism, but because they opposed Rome. How could God redeem Israel when it was ruled by heathens?
He became converted or persuaded, at least, but had a 'revelation' that the 'promise of Abraham' extended to all who were faithful, Jew or gentile. This led inevitably to replacing Torah observance as Faith to belief in Jesus' redeeming blood as Faith, leading to friction with the rest of the Nazorenes - those who followed the Jewish law those 'of the circumcision'. The evidence for how he argued this and the antagonism that led to is to be found in his letter and in Acts (written by Luke) The conclusion will deal with that.
While it is not certain that Paul was actually telling Jews to give up the law, (though he clearly believed that it wouldn't jeopardize their chance of salvation if they did, provided they believed in Jesus) it is likely that he didn't himself observe the law and there are indication that he criticized Peter (Cephas) for being cautious about breaking the law.
It is without doubt that he told his Gentile converts that they didn't need to observe the Mosaic Law and indeed he strongly argues against those 'of the circumcision' who argued that they should.
It is also pretty well established (and I shall rehearse this evidence) that James, the elect/saints/Nazorenes also observed the law and were all of the circumcision and undoubtedly within the Pharisee ambit.
Thus we can take it that they all observed the Sabbath, kosher laws and the other Mosaic observances and therefore, Jesus did not tell them otherwise. Thus Jesus and his followers were all observing Jews and not hostile to the Jewish law as Paul was.
Thus Paul was the first Jew to argue that the law was not necessary for believers in God and Jesus. And, since he was tolerant of Jewish converts who still observed the Laws on clean food and looking at the long, involved and suspect argument, it is clear that (even if he believed that the Jesus in his head - since he never spoke to Jesus in the flesh) he laboriously worked out the theory of Law obsolescence by himself.
This underlines his disinterest in Jesus in the flesh who of course did not argue against the Jewish law and his disregard for the apostles who had known Jesus in the flesh and who also did not argue against the Jewish Law.
It hardly needs to be said that my conclusion that the Gospels, and Acts, with their faulty reasoning, history, contradictions and text - fiddling are not the work of Jewish followers of Jesus, but the work of Pauline Christians, putting Paul's views into the mouths of Jesus and his disciples - views which they never ever endorsed.
Perhaps but I think Paul was a very strong, egotistical individual. Without a doubt he was avery storong psychologically in his mission. This no doubt overwhelmed Peter and the other Apostles. He actually believed everything he was doing came from a 'revelation' from Christ. I guess in those early days there was no time for being diplomatic when it came to 'missions'. A mission he thought for himself that was a special one..to preach among the non-Jews.
Consider why these events do not happen with such authority in the 21st century as they did in the time of Rome. One big piece of the puzzle is superstition. People sought a spiritual/supernatural explanation for everything that they did not understand.
Now some will see it is because "god" no longer works in the world. that being said, if I fell down and saw a bright light and heard the voice of god talking to me, I'd be asking to be taken to the best emergency room. But that is because I have medical training. Paul however, was a product of a system that lacked medical and scientific explanations for hallucinations and seizures. Paul heard Jesus talking to him and believed it was Jesus talking to him. That was the normal response for Paul's time.
However, I will not discount Richard's response. Paul hated Christians. He persecuted them, and never, even after his conversion, is believed to have ever apologized or offered amends for this activity. He went on liffe egotistically saying "To be a real Christian, you must do this...." Kind of like fundamentalist Christians today. And we know how healthy that is.
Paul might have had an ulterior motive to discredit and destroy Christianity from the inside. But again that should have no bearing on 21st century life. Paul's philosophy may or may not have been something good for ancient Rome, and to some people, Jesus likewise must have had some groundbreaking philosophies and ideas. But we can do so much better now. And that better comes from science, from psychology, not from ancient religions. We also have philosophers, volumes of them, who offer and teach a healthier and more successful way to enjoy life than Paul ever could.
My advice to people is Do Not let Paul ruin your life with his writings, with his ideas. This is the 21st century, we do not need Paul, and we really should not try to, giving the egotism and shallowness of his teachings.
I try my best and am open to input. I know this is not mainline thought and I only post it because nobody else seems to be thinking along these lines and maybe for good reasons. It seems to be that I am coming to conclusions based on the internal evidence and seeming to pull together and reconcile all the apparent contradictions in the accounts, but it may only seem to be uncovering a correct account; I may be fooling myself. Discussion - if the ideas put here get to be discussed - will show whether my theories, evidence -based or pet theories - stand up or not.
BTW. I don't mind at all if people cut those monster post of mine when responding.
Oh, and welcome back, Eusebius old mate. We missed you. Your discussions on my theories on Gospels and Paul were always challenging and made me think quite a bit.
P.s KingKat. While Paul makes a proclamation about having persecuted 'the Church of God' Gal 1.13 rather than Christians (just how 'Christian' these Antioch messianists were is open to debate). He only 'fesses up in the fourth epistle and apparently prompted by reports of his original persecutions. He seems rather to glory in his conversion to Faith than apologize for this persecution.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-07-2013 at 05:16 PM..
I try my best and am open to input. I know this is not mainline thought and I only post it because nobody else seems to be thinking along these lines and maybe for good reasons. It seems to be that I am coming to conclusions based on the internal evidence and seeming to pull together and reconcile all the apparent contradictions in the accounts, but it may only seem to be uncovering a correct account; I may be fooling myself. Discussion - if the ideas put here get to be discussed - will show whether my theories, evidence -based or pet theories - stand up or not.
BTW. I don't mind at all if people cut those monster post of mine when responding.
Oh, and welcome back, Eusebius old mate. We missed you. Your discussions on my theories on Gospels and Paul were always challenging and made me think quite a bit.
P.s KingKat. While Paul makes a proclamation about having persecuted 'the Church of God' Gal 1.13 rather than Christians (just how 'Christian' these Antioch messianists were is open to debate). He only 'fesses up in the fourth epistle and apparently prompted by reports of his original persecutions. He seems rather to glory in his conversion to Faith than apologize for this persecution.
Well, I place great reliance on the findings of science and mental tools of logic. Is that relevant to topic? I am not going to be drawn into defending science and logic. Anyone who does not accept the validity of checked science data or the logical rules has conceded any claim to a scientifically or logically valid arguemnt.
Well, I place great reliance on the findings of science and mental tools of logic. Is that relevant to topic? I am not going to be drawn into defending science and logic. Anyone who does not accept the validity of checked science data or the logical rules has conceded any claim to a scientifically or logically valid arguemnt.
I was just curious about where you are coming from...You seem to have lucid arguments...
I was just curious about where you are coming from...You seem to have lucid arguments...
Why thank you and I apologize if I took your comment as sarcasm. I don't want to post my autobiography (1) as well as my Doctorate thesis, but I have always had an interest in disputed claims - who won the battle of Waterloo (amazing how many French insist they really won but woz robbed), who was really to blame for the Bounty mutiny, Was Rama IV really like in 'Anna and the King of Siam'? what about this whole UFO thing? And of course, just who was Jesus and what did he really do?
I read a lot of attempts to recover the life of Jesus and all with some agenda or rather an original idea - a Hasmonean insurrectionist, a Jewish reformer, an orthodox Jew whose Hillaic pronouncements were overlaid with a Christian slant.
It was clear from the beginning that a lot was regarded as unhistorical and there was an element of cherry -picking Gospel -quotes to fit the thesis. I was in the position of being persuaded by the last book I read and ended up not knowing what to think. Well, it was thirty years ago (yep, lock the doors until I'm finished) that I learned how to assess data (part of my job) and avoid partial reasoning - part of a couple of years' study on Cliff Walker's 'positive atheism' site.
I had already done a handy study on the 100 days campaign thanks to a colleague with an interest in military history and, after another colleague challenged me to 'Really read the Bible' I applied the same method.
I had already read some suggestions that the Real Jesus' life cannot be recovered. Well, Wellington said the same about his battle, but that was only because he feared that, if it was it would look like the Prussians won it for him. I am suspicious of wanting to be beaten before one starts. A comparison of the gospels using the redaction -criticism method showed up some staggering discrepancies so huge that 'witnesses don't always agree' cannot credibly account for it. On the other hand, when it was pared down to the basic story, John actually agreed very well with the synoptics.
To cut it short, that is where I came from and where I ended up was having to conclude that the writers were not eyewitness disciples, but early Christians with their own adaptations of an original Gospel (proto - Matthew) which itself was a Christian interpretation of a real Jesus who was (as tacitus says) crucified by Pilate. And I suggest, for the one reason that was not even suggested at hearing, Sanhedrin stitch -up or Pilate's trial - sedition made manifest in an occupation of the temple or at least of the Market in the Stoa alongside the south wall.
In discussion here on the forum, progress has been made, notably in realizing that Mark's ending was not lost - there never was one and the three resurrections had to be invented, which is why they contradict - just as the nativity does.
This of course (getting back on -topic) raised the question of 'why would the apostles die for lie' incorporating 'the disciples could not have faked Jesus' death'. I have to say that Schoenfield's 'Pentecost revolution' gave me a clue. His idea of a sort of mistral causing a sort of apostolic ecstasy leading them to believe they had seen the spirit Jesus frankly did not convince and it is the old story to trying to make the Bible miracles look feasible in some rationally understandable way. The fact that it was just some tall story made up by Luke never is suggested.
I can understand that just saying 'it's all made up' leaves the writer with nothing to write about, but assuming (as a given) that it's true reporting is wrong and that's why no writer on Jesus has ever been able to get to the bottom of it - because they stopped far short of the bottom.
Where was I ..?..yes, by all means serve coffee and biscuits... assuming Jesus was dead, there had to be some reason why Paul had the idea that Jesus was in heaven and had appeared to various disciples. It was clear even from Luke's account that the Jesus he had met was a spiritual (e.g in his head) Jesus and Paul's mention makes it seem like a vision. That suggested that the disciples had had a vision, rather like Schoenfield's suggestion, and that Peter had it first gives the link between the dead messiah and the Apostolic waiting for Jesus' return from heaven, which is what we get from Paul.
While this may be an ingenious but false construct on my part it all fits together very nicely, explains problems that were either ignored or skipped over with very glib (not to say dishonest) explanations and I do believe (since you ask about my faith) that I have indeed cracked the gospel problem.
I think with some help we did pretty well for Exodus too. ...yes. yes, you can let em out, now.
1) The 'Wonderful story of my fantastic Life' will be on the shelves as soon as 'False Witnesses' has made my name.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 09-09-2013 at 07:31 AM..
Reason: Usual need for a tidy -up
Why thank you and I apologize if I took your comment as sarcasm. I don't want to post my autobiography (1) as well as my Doctorate thesis, but I have always had an interest in disputed claims - who won the battle of Waterloo (amazing how many French insist they really won but woz robbed), who was really to blame for the Bounty mutiny, Was Rama IV really like in 'Anna and the King of Siam'? what about this whole UFO thing? And of course, just who was Jesus and what did he really do?
I read a lot of attempts to recover the life of Jesus and all with some agenda or rather an original idea - a Hasmonean insurrectionist, a Jewish reformer, an orthodox Jew whose Hillaic pronouncements were overlaid with a Christian slant.
It was clear from the beginning that a lot was regarded as unhistorical and there was an element of cherry -picking Gospel -quotes to fit the thesis. I was in the position of being persuaded by the last book I read and ended up not knowing what to think. Well, it was thirty years ago (yep, lock the doors until I'm finished) that I learned how to assess data (part of my job) and avoid partial reasoning - part of a couple of years' study on Cliff Walker's 'positive atheism' site.
I had already done a handy study on the 100 days campaign thanks to a colleague with an interest in military history and, after another colleague challenged me to 'Really read the Bible' I applied the same method.
I had already read some suggestions that the Real Jesus' life cannot be recovered. Well, Wellington said the same about his battle, but that was only because he feared that, if it was it would look like the Prussians won it for him. I am suspicious of wanting to be beaten before one starts. A comparison of the gospels using the redaction -criticism method showed up some staggering discrepancies so huge that 'witnesses don't always agree' cannot credibly account for it. On the other hand, when it was pared down to the basic story, John actually agreed very well with the synoptics.
To cut it short, that is where I came from and where I ended up was having to conclude that the writers were not eyewitness disciples, but early Christians with their own adaptations of an original Gospel (proto - Matthew) which itself was a Christian interpretation of a real Jesus who was (as tacitus says) crucified by Pilate. And I suggest, for the one reason that was not even suggested at hearing, Sanhedrin stitch -up or Pilate's trial - sedition made manifest in an occupation of the temple or at least of the Market in the Stoa alongside the south wall.
In discussion here on the forum, progress has been made, notably in realizing that Mark's ending was not lost - there never was one and the three resurrections had to be invented, which is why they contradict - just as the nativity does.
This of course (getting back on -topic) raised the question of 'why would the apostles die for lie' incorporating 'the disciples could not have faked Jesus' death'. I have to say that Schoenfield's 'Pentecost revolution' gave me a clue. His idea of a sort of mistral causing a sort of apostolic ecstasy leading them to believe they had seen the spirit Jesus frankly did not convince and it is the old story to trying to make the Bible miracles look feasible in some rationally understandable way. The fact that it was just some tall story made up by Luke never is suggested.
I can understand that just saying 'it's all made up' leaves the writer with nothing to write about, but assuming (as a given) that it's true reporting is wrong and that's why no writer on Jesus has ever been able to get to the bottom of it - because they stopped far short of the bottom.
Where was I ..?..yes, by all means serve coffee and biscuits... assuming Jesus was dead, there had to be some reason why Paul had the idea that Jesus was in heaven and had appeared to various disciples. It was clear even from Luke's account that the Jesus he had met was a spiritual (e.g in his head) Jesus and Paul's mention makes it seem like a vision. That suggested that the disciples had had a vision, rather like Schoenfield's suggestion, and that Peter had it first gives the link between the dead messiah and the Apostolic waiting for Jesus' return from heaven, which is what we get from Paul.
While this may be an ingenious but false construct on my part it all fits together very nicely, explains problems that were either ignored or skipped over with very glib (not to say dishonest) explanations and I do believe (since you ask about my faith) that I have indeed cracked the gospel problem.
I think with some help we did pretty well for Exodus too. ...yes. yes, you can let em out, now.
1) The 'Wonderful story of my fantastic Life' will be on the shelves as soon as 'False Witnesses' has made my name.
Interesting...Are you agnostic or atheist?...My take on the bible is most uncommon as compared with most Christians...My reasoning is 'if religion will lie and manufacture, why can it not be suspected that science would also?'...I have come to the point in my life that I hold everyone suspect that says, 'Ahah, I have found the answer, trust me'....When I read ancient manuscripts I question why would this person write this was he crazy or did these things truly occur?...What could have possibly been his agenda to waste his time if there were no truth to what he was writing?....Unlike most Christians I do not see the NT as scripture but rather commentaries pointing one to The Scriptures...Commentaries written by fallible humans....
My reasoning is 'if religion will lie and manufacture, why can it not be suspected that science would also?'...I have come to the point in my life that I hold everyone suspect that says, 'Ahah, I have found the answer, trust me'....When I read ancient manuscripts I question why would this person write this was he crazy or did these things truly occur?...What could have possibly been his agenda to waste his time if there were no truth to what he was writing?....Unlike most Christians I do not see the NT as scripture but rather commentaries pointing one to The Scriptures...Commentaries written by fallible humans....
Science cannot really make stuff up. The discipline is too, well, disciplined for that. Any new discovery needs peer review before being published as a theory and/or fact. Divergence from previous held theories will of course undergo the same rigorous Q&A before they adapt or introduce new findings. The scientific method of enquiry is pretty much universal in its acceptance and cross continents, it is applied the same way. They cannot simply say, "take my word for it".
Science can be used to disprove religion but it does not work in reverse.
IMO science is the natural progression from archaic religious beliefs and explanations. Religious folk are only selective when they reject some science and not others.
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 am open to input. I know this is not mainline thought and I only post it because nobody else seems to be thinking along these lines and maybe for good reasons. It seems to be that I am coming to conclusions based on the internal evidence and seeming to pull together and reconcile all the apparent contradictions in the accounts, but it may only seem to be uncovering a correct account; I may be fooling myself. Discussion - if the ideas put here get to be discussed - will show whether my theories, evidence -based or pet theories - stand up or not. 
and ended up not knowing what to think. Well, it was thirty years ago (yep, lock the doors until I'm finished) that I learned how to assess data (part of my job) and avoid partial reasoning - part of a couple of years' study on Cliff Walker's 'positive atheism' site.
