More from Beth today. It seems the "friendly" tone has diminished a bit, or maybe it's just my imagination, I'm not sure. At any rate, I must confess to some frustration. I am posting this in its entirety without a reply because I have a splitting all-day headache and can't muster proper answers.Does anyone have any tips for how best to tackle this? Your ideas, suggestions and replies to the below email would be greatly appreciated. I'm really not a debater. So I am putting this out to you for your input.
I will never agree with you that I am "cherry picking" as I am not. In fact I was discussing it with another person of no faith and they even wondered how you drew such a conclusion. The Bible, as I stated in earlier messages, is nothing more then a compilation of documents put together by men. As we both concurred, the Holy Book is not without fault and was subject to being edited wrongly. Therefore I turn to history and science to determine what books are authentic and which are not. I do intend to look at what you suggested. I've honestly never come across it before. It will definetely be an asset to my research.
The Jesus Myth, as it is titled, is a contention that is absurd. I told you this is not a debate, however, so I won't go into details as to why unless you really want to. I am convinced this man existed. Thus far, according to what I have studied, nothing points to this Jew not being real. I have read many arguments, most insisting that the documents that refer to him are forgery, but I have yet to see any of those claims to be backed by facts. Now, I realize that you did not just decide there was no Jesus without reason, so please, I encourage you to link me to any sources you may have that refute his living.
The plagarism argument honestly should be dead. There are so many flaws in it, such as overexagerrations that it's ridiculous people keep using it. Mithras I've heard much about. I looked that Persian God up and found that Mithraism itself, one of those called a "mystery religion", was not established until well after Jesus's death, so it had no real influence on Christianity. Osiris, another one cited for the copycat theory, has similar characterisitics to Jesus, however it's a stretch to make the connections many atheists have tried to make. His resurrection was not anything like Jesus's, in fact, it was more a zombification then anything else. While it was true he was restored by Isis, he was brought back to govern over the netherworld, not brought back to life on earth as Jesus was. Oh, and might I add this was only after his chopped up 14 body pieces were collected? Hardly sounds like he "rose from the dead" to me. I can go on about the other dieties he was compared to, but really, it seems pointless. I cannot even regard such an accusation like that as plausible anymore.
Ahh, I see, so it is speculated Jesus (THE JEW, emphasized because HAHA I KNEW THIS-okay, done acting childish now) was versed in the Old Testament writings. This is why you believe that the laws he spoke of where of those there. This is brand new information to me so I thank you for it. However, Jesus's teachings were so contradictory to the Old Testament laws that I cannot help but doubt that is the case. From my perspective, Jesus may have been taught these laws, but that does not mean he agreed with them, do you understand? If the Bible is written by man, that makes it flawed, God more then likely sent his son for clarification on what is sinful and what just. In what you quoted, he says that he has not come to abolish the old laws so assuming that what you said is true he is establishing that although he may challenge them they continue to hold authority? Since he spoke of Moses then I will agree the Ten Commandments are valid, but all else does not fit with his lessons. In that way, I believe I can still be right.
Oh, as for the wise man, it still never specifically says "THREE WISEMAN." That is what general comparison is often made and that was what I was explaining to you. The Bible never said how many attended Jesus's birth so to try and make that connection is ridiculous. That is a wrong idea that was accepted into the media and so that is why you see it in pictures, figurine scenes, etc.
Also, has her tone changed or am I just sensing something with my super psychic powers that isn't there? :P
Probably tomorrow I'll respond to her and edit this post with my response (and any help you may have given).
"I turn to history and science to determine what books are authentic and which are not"
ReplyDeleteBull. History and science dictate that none of the books are authentic. But I'll bite, which ones are?
.
"I do intend to look at what you suggested. I’ve honestly never come across it before."
Wait what? Now blatantly and purposely ignoring is not a... umm... valid debate technique. She gave you the quotes. They are right there. Flipping your book to that page to assure that it was correctly quoted takes no more than a minute max. You don't go on acting like what she said isn't valid simply because you haven't heard it before.
.
"any sources you may have that refute his living"
Umm... well, first, a bunch of arguments were supplied by Johnny's source:
http://rationalrevolution.net/articles/jesus_myth_history.htm
Also, it's rather hard to disprove something that didn't exist. Disproving negatives are hard, after all. Your supposed to supply the proof that he existed... and the Bible doesn't count. You thinking that Jesus existed exactly as said is rather absurd actually.
A "Jesus" may have existed. But "Jesus Christ" did not.
.
"Mithraism itself, one of those called a “mystery religion”, was not established until well after Jesus’s death"
This is incorrect. Mithraism started to get ATTENTION after Jesus' death. Supposedly around 60 A.D. First, it was founded before that. Second, Jesus had died what, only 25 years earlier, the Bible was not even close to being written yet. The Bible was written about 70-90 years after Jesus' death.
I guess it's time to pick something with a little more gumption. "The Epic of Gilgamesh", the oldest known writing to exist... over a thousand years before Jesus even thought of existing.
Child of god, prophet dreams, curses from god, a great flood, walking on water, and resurrection.
Jesus' birthday is obvious. The fact that the church made the birthday the same as a popular holiday should tell the world. Apply that same concept, to when they wrote that Bible. Even the symbols are copied, from the cross and on. And world to Beth, nobody is so stupid that you copy it word for word, but the Bible comes close.
.
"so contradictory to the Old Testament laws that I cannot help but doubt that is the case"
Really? No they weren't. Have you read the whole Bible? Seems doubtful. Tell me what conflicts. C'mon, tell me.
.
"Jesus may have been taught these laws, but that does not mean he agreed with them, do you understand?"
Um, bull. Jesus was god. god made those laws. In other words, Jesus made those laws. Do you understand? Your saying that god doesn't agree with god's words? Do you understand what you are saying? No, I didn't think so.
.
"Oh, as for the wise man, it still never specifically says 'THREE WISEMAN.'"
See? Cherry picking. Not much was said about the wise men, it was used as a reference point. We were talking mainly about the date of birth.
Do you even know why 3 is the number Beth? No, I didn't think so. It's because there were 3 gifts. Put two and two together, would a WISE man go to the birth of what was believed to be the messiah without a gift? No.
The point about the stories of Jesus being based on other religions is usually lost on Christians, especially those like Beth who are in denial about their cherrypicking. Like many, if not all, religions, Christianity borrows pieces of other religions, including Mithraism. Religions generally don't spring up from nowhere, and they generally don't copy another religion wholesale, but borrow pieces of other religions over time as part of their mythology. The only exception I can think of are the Cargo Cults, which sprung up overnight in the early 20th century, but even they borrowed some mythology from the existing tribal religions. To say that Jesus was nothing like Osiris because his resurrection was different is definitely cherrypicking. The similarities of the Osiris myth, along with all the other Jesus-like myths that existed long before the alleged Jesus of the bible indicate that much of the Jesus mythology is not original but borrowed in pieces from other religions. Does that prove that Jesus was not a real person? Of course not. However, since it's Christians who claim that this Jesus person existed and had magical powers, the burden of proof is on them, not on atheists.
ReplyDeleteI do not deny that Jesus Christ existed, but as a skeptic, I require compelling evidence to believe such extraordinary claims, and Christianity has failed miserably in providing even a shred of evidence other than their own holy book. And if you think that the Bible is true, I suggest you read a book or two by Bart Ehrman.
And, for the record, if you are a Christian who believes that the bible was written by men and is flawed, you are totally cherrypicking, since you cannot prove which parts are flawed. Unless there's some way to independently verify which parts are true, you're just cherrypicking the parts that agree with your personal philosophy and ignoring the rest.
Or, if the Epic of Gilgamesh isn't good enough... let's go with Horus. It's all neatly tables out too:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5b.htm
Hi Neece!
ReplyDeleteMy hat is off to you for extending your gracious internet hospitality to Beth the Christian. You have far more patience than I. It has long been my habit to avoid any discussion of religion with religious people or the mentally ill, which are often one and the same. It is a pet peeve of mine to read anything that hasn't been spell-checked, and the use of non-words, such as "overexagerrations" is nothing short of annoying. It would be hard for me to take anything this woman says seriously, and I think it really speaks to your wonderful temperament and open-mindedness that you have suffered this fool so gladly.
Wrote this as I read the article, before reading replies. GMN covers most of it nicely and Antimattr has some good additions too. But since I already typed this I refused to let it go to waste.
ReplyDelete+++++ +++++ +++++ +++++ +++++
In response to her first paragraph, the obvious would be to ask her to provide sources where history and science have corroborated any of the books in the Bible.
For the Jesus Myth paragraph, what historical documents, actual source documents does she know of that mention Jesus.
The plagiarism argument is not dead; even theist scholars concede the similarities. Early Christian propagators even claimed those previous deities were sent by the devil, and they emulated things the devil knew Jesus would do eventually. So right at the rise of Christianity people recognized the copy-catting. Additionally Mithra worship did predate Jesus; it gained its greatest following after Jesus.
So the ten commandments are still good, but all the other old testament laws are out the window because Jesus mentions Moses? Wasn't Moses around and involved when most of those other laws were put into place too? If those other laws are out, why do so many Christians oppose homosexuality? If those laws are still in, why do so many Christians eat shellfish? Why would he say "one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law" if he did not intend for EVERY law to be kept?
As for Christ's message being so drastically different from the old testament... First, none of the gospels that quote him were written by firsthand witnesses. Second, many of the quotes attributed to him were added to the gospels many years after the original authors had penned them. Bart Ehrman points out that many of the quotes that appear in the later versions and are not in early versions, are precisely the quotes people cite when pointing out how different Christ's message was from the old testament. The editors of the Bible soften his message.
On the "wise men" she is right, it doesn't say three. However the fact remains that the text states there were multiple wise men, and that they delivered THREE gifts. There are several other deities that share this conglomerate: wise men or three wise men, following a star or sign, coming to worship, and delivering gifts or three gifts. Just because it doesn't say three doesn't mean it can be dismissed as one of the many plagiarisms.
Her tone does seem a tad more tense, or maybe defensive.
Thank you all of you! I was going to edit this post, but I think I'll make a fresh post incorporating the great points you all made here. You guys are awesome and I really appreciate you very much. Thank you!
ReplyDelete