That's it! The Jesus stories are most reasonably explained as myth. History makes this obvious.

by Island Man 74 Replies latest watchtower bible

  • OnTheWayOut
    OnTheWayOut

    Blind Perry has an axe to grind. He never got over his false hopes of life forever after death given by Jehovah's Witnesses and reaches out to ridiculous fundy Christian websites as links to restore his false hopes and shares his new false hopes as a way of preaching like he used to do with JW's.

    In fact, the writers of the New Testament taught that the Scripture is infallible.

    Covered excellently by Mephis.


    Even if it were true that Paul and Peter didn’t write those epistles, it is still true that whoever wrote them taught the infallibility of biblical inspiration 2,000 years ago!

    Can you even hear your own irony if you read that aloud? "If the scriptures are fakes, the forgers wrote something infallible, except for the tiny problem of their being fakes."

  • _Morpheus
    _Morpheus
    "Can you even hear your own irony if you read that aloud? "If the scriptures are fakes, the forgers wrote something infallible, except for the tiny problem of their being fakes."
    😂😂😂😂😂😂

  • Perry
    Perry
    Ehrman's point is that there are thousands of differences between manuscripts for the NT. The vast bulk of those are minor, many just scribal errors. But some are quite significant.


    Mephis,

    The minority greek texts based on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are indeed a mess. They disagree between each other 7000 times.

    However, the majority text body of manuscripts enjoys near total agreement in over 5000 manuscripts. Many millions of Christians, including myself, do not accept the minority text as authoritative when it conflicts with the majority text.

    Once I understood the differences, I realized that people like Ehrman have simply created a job for themselves. It is all much ado about nothing once you place the authority on the Majority Texts.

    You can read more about this viewpoint here, on my website if you'd like.

  • Mephis
    Mephis

    Perry, you've chosen to answer the most minor of points raised in objection to your previous post. In fact one which really doesn't need answering as you say you're in agreement with everything but Ehrman's ability to use his knowledge to get tenure. The very fact that you and millions of Christians need to make the choice over which version to accept should really demonstrate the silliness of trying to argue for the infallibility of the bible. Which bible? How did you choose? Who chose the things which went into the bible you're saying is infallible? How did they choose? Why should anyone trust their choice? What if the Gnostics were right? What if Arian was? How do you know your own texts haven't been written or edited to support a belief which wasn't what Christ taught? And so on, and so on.

    The idea of biblical infallibility seems tied up with the notion of 'one truth' waiting there to be found. One true understanding of what Jesus really said. And I'm not sure that was even true for the generation or two after Jesus was meant to have lived. The gospel writers can't even agree amongst themselves about basic facts related to his life, and there's sufficient evidence of multiple understandings happening very early on - some of those even being alluded to in what is currently in the canon.

  • Perry
    Perry
    The very fact that you and millions of Christians need to make the choice over which version to accept should really demonstrate the silliness of trying to argue for the infallibility of the bible. Which bible?

    Mephis,

    In the very beginning Satan told a lie. He misquoted God. To think that he would not continue to launch attacks on the word of God is ridiculous. That is his gig, lying and deception. Sinaiticus & Vaticanus look like chicken scratch. Everyone agrees that they were altered over and over for centuries. When you throw them out (and the 10% that are based upon them) you are left with the remaining 90% which are in virtual total agreement.

    That settled the issue for me. If you want to believe that we can't know the truth, go ahead. That is certainly your choice to make. I have no problem with that.

    However, just by studying the early church fathers and their writings (and they wrote A LOT) in just the first 3 centuries, it is easy to determine exactly what sound doctrine is, where and when heretical doctrine came in; and who was the culprit.

    The early church fathers usually wrote a letter and quoted much scripture to warn congregations about the error. To illustrate just how much the early church fathers wrote, ALL of the New Testament can be reconstructed from their writings.

    Here's an excellent book on this topic.

    Ancient Church Fathers: What the Disciples of the Apostles Taught Paperback – July 17, 2010

    by Ken Johnson (Author)


    If you took all their quotes, WHICH PREDATE SINAITICUS AND VATICANUS, what you would end up with is the Majority Text - Basically the readings in the King James Bible.


    Regarding the contradictions you claim in the New Testament, I have researched most claims and found them to be baseless. You got one you would like to discus? Open a thread, I'm game.


    BTW, the TRUTH is a person

  • Diogenesister
    Diogenesister

    Half banana8 days ago
    Bender does not tax the brain like Jesus

    Speak for yerself sir!

    Bender taxes my brain inordinately!(well, futurama does - especially the Farnsworth para box and the one with the devil in it!

  • Mephis
    Mephis
    However, just by studying the early church fathers and their writings (and they wrote A LOT) in just the first 3 centuries, it is easy to determine exactly what sound doctrine is, where and when heretical doctrine came in; and who was the culprit.

    So the bible is infallible because you decided it is infallible by deciding which writings passed around the first few centuries of Christianity you want to believe represent some form of orthodoxy - in spite of evidence to the contrary over such an orthodoxy existing (date for Easter, when Christ was scheduled to return, the lack of even factual agreement in the gospels, extent of Judaism acceptable being huge issue etc etc). That much of those writings didn't get included in the canon, that some of them seem to be very blatant forgeries well.. If it works for you, great, but you can't call out those who point out the circular logic going on there.
    Would suggest fact checking the claim that you make about re-creating the NT from quotations. It just ain't so. And the half (?) which can be re-created doesn't really help too much if the counter-argument is early C2nd forgeries seem to be present and included in the canon.
    Will have a read of your evangelical doctor by correspondence's book if it's about in my university library. The conclusion given to it on the Amazon view doesn't really fill me with great expectations of it disagreeing with the religion he joined aged 12. So fortuitous when that happens for theology students.
  • Half banana
    Half banana

    @Diogenes sister, I’m sorry that Bender makes demands on your brain but you’ve got to agree he is more fun than Jesus?

    Here’s where the trouble lies...in taking stories on board, certain people not only think they are true but make them sacred as well. This generation will know Bender is a story character but when robots become commonplace, future robots might think he really existed!

    Qualitatively, Jesus and Bender both are the product of the human imagination. What a relief it is to give up on the sacred!

    @ Perry, your very lengthy referenced material was interesting and informative. Someone here very recently said how when the WTS came up with counter arguments they found it useful as they actually made for a convincing case against the society. I honestly think you have done the same here.

    The mythicist position on Jesus is that his story, his persona, has a pagan pedigree which is, as in your proffered document, refuted mainly on the fact that he does not follow all the attributes given to earlier God-men. Of course he does not, that is the nature of story-telling when dispersed linguistically, ethnically and over time. What makes the myth stick however is that although the characters change names and appearance; their function in the mythical plot does not. For example Jesus (outside of JWism) is the son of God but himself a god. This harmonises with the myth; he is born at midwinter (not “of the Virgin” but IN the Virgin of the ancient zodiac) and dies sacrificially at the spring equinox and returns to his solar father in the heavens who is also a Sun god.

    These key attributes or tropes are found in all of the earlier sacrificial God-men saviours. The reason being that underneath the familiar story is yet an earlier and more primitive pagan acknowledgement; a universally held mythos from pre-literate, oral tradition. These are based on the meanings and cyclic nature of the constellations of stars, Sun and Moon.

    Jesus ultimately is drawn from the annual story of the birth and rising illumination of the Sun through the solar year. Solar gods must die and take the value of their life to redeem mankind by going their way to their solar father in heaven, the reason for this (from the source myth) is from the observable fact that light at the spring equinox appears suddenly to begin to shine much brighter. The explanation given was that the radiant son of the Sun God and his solar father are now ruling together from the heavens in glory.

    The Jesus story is nothing other than the solar myth vastly elaborated and dressed up for acceptability as a sacred narrative to the Levantine audience. To remain thinking that it is from God is naive.



  • Perry
    Perry

    Half-Bananna,

    I think the evidence is overwhelming in favor of genuine history, for many, many reasons. This connection you propose is popular in some dark corners of the internet, but not among reputable scholars.

    Despite having popular appeal on the Internet, the idea that the resurrection story of Jesus was borrowed from pagan mythology has been abandoned by the vast majority of critical scholars today.1 In fact, one noted resurrection expert named Gary Habermas said that he could count on one hand of the 2,000 or so publications that he surveyed from French, German, and English written during 1975 to the present of how many scholars attribute the story of the resurrection of Jesus as being borrowed from pagan mythology.2

    Article

  • Half banana
    Half banana

    There is no point arguing with a Christian apologetic who uses the traditional assertions of a human christ and his resurrection as base line facts. Let me suggest the sociological approach to interpreting what people did in the Levant two thousand years ago is outlined in "A short history of Christianity by JM Robertson."

    The real understanding of the Christ story pre-dates (as I indicated) the folk accounts of the pre-christian christs and comes from the pre-literate mnemonics of "star talk". The explanations of what the heavenly bodies were up to in their annual circumnavigation of planet earth from a pre-Copernican viewpoint.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit