01-15-2011, 09:48 AM
Hi Again,
I'll quickly touch on some of your comments.
Diabolical mimicry: This is a defence that desperate literalist believers use (or independently develop, as I did once embarrassingly, on this very forum) to explain why Christianity has so many similarities with pagan religions that are much older (Jesus' similarities to Horus, Dionysus, Buddha, Krishna etc. and Yahweh's similarities to Baal, Zeus etc.). The theory is that Satan knew what Jesus/Yahweh would get up to, so copied these things in his Satanic religions (i.e. all non-Judeo-Christian religions...), CENTURIES earlier. This is what we call, putting the cart before the horse. The same concept applies with Marcion's NT. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that the NT Gospels or the Pauline epistles existed BEFORE Marcion. This is very serious. Because of this FACT, we cannot just assume that Marcion copied these books from other sources and edited them. It is very possible that he created those books and/or used proto-books.
Explaining why NT references appear late 2nd Century: Your theories unfortunately do not help the situation. The truth is, since they do not directly quote the NT books until the late 2nd century (note that they do quote the OT directly) we cannot take these quotes as evidence for the early existence of the NT books. It only means that SOME of the teachings existed (I say some because the basic messages of Christ appear first, then later, much later, the details of his life appear - oddly enough...). This is undisputed. Many of the Christ teachings even came before Jesus was supposedly around. Again, oddly enough...
On evidence: An atheist need not present evidence. Atheism is not an ideology. It is simply the lack of belief in any particular personal god. If a fundie wants to claim that their god exists, that's fine. If they want to kill in that god's name, change laws in that god's name, have a say on what our children get taught in science class etc., they had better prove their position. The burden of proof always lies with the believer. My point is, though I am Christian, it is up to Christians to prove their god is real, and is the true god. So far this hasn't been done.
On morals: Thank you for getting my point. We still have a problem though. Billions of people believe in a book that teaches them it is okay to kill their relatives if they stray from the faith, rape little girls, kill baby boys etc. I think it is fair that they be able to PROVE their beliefs true before they act on them. Fair enough? Or shall we let any psychopath do whatever he pleases (including raping our daughters, killing our parents, etc.) because he says god told him it pleased him? I for one would demand this person's evidence. Right after I and other just-minded people opened a can of whupass that is!
Scholars: On this we do find some agreement. Scholarly consensus can be meaningless. It is the truth that matters. And thus it is evidence that matters. If most Bible Scholars believe Jesus existed, I am not impressed. Most bible scholars are religious, and the ones that aren't, were conditioned to accept certain things as true. The fact is, whether they believe something or not, it is the evidence that matters. And the evidence is lacking for Jesus/Yahweh's existence, let alone their claims. Shall we ask what Quran scholars think of the Bible? Would we expect them to deny Allah? Bible scholarship is a joke; it shouldn't be considered a real academic field. Any fundie can study at BJU and become a "Bible scholar".
Israeli archaeology: I think you haven't really looked into this. I'm not talking about no Hittites here... I'm talking about the lack of evidence that the Israelites razed Canaanite villages and wiped them out. I'm talking the evidence that the Israelites WERE Canaanites. I'm talking the lack of evidence for Yahweh, Moses, Abraham etc. I'm talking the evidence that Yahweh was one of MANY gods, and wasn't even the highest god. I'm talking the total lack of evidence for the Exodus. Even if the Egyptians didn't want to record such embarrassing moments, do you think someone may have noticed 2 million people leaving a country of 6 million? Do you think this may have caused havoc with Egypt's economy? Do you think this would have caused massive social problems? No evidence for ANY of this. Nor is there any evidence for the 2 million people wandering around the desert for 40 years. Not even a damned chicken bone...
God's people's truth-telling: You're kidding right? I don't want to throw around racist stereotypes, but do you think Jews have never exaggerated in their holy texts??? Should we believe the Talmud when it says that the Romans killed a BILLION Jews, when there has never been a billion Jews at one time? Should we believe the Talmud, which has a version of Jesus that existed much later than ?our Jesus?? Should we believe the OT when it says that the Exodus happened, when there is no evidence for it, and evidence that this may be based on an earlier event where Semites were DRIVEN from Egypt? Should we believe the OT when it claims that Israel defeated the Assyrians due to God?s angel that slaughtered 180-odd thousand Assyrian soldiers, when history shows us that the Assyrian King withdrew due to conflicts elsewhere and the MASSIVE TRIBUTES and CONCESSIONS showered upon him by the Jewish king? Please?
The NT Church: I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible; your comments on the NT church really highlight your lack of knowledge in the subject, and echo the attitudes of the KJV-only believers. For one thing, there is no one NT. There is not a single NT canon that is agreed upon by all Christians today. Let alone thousands of years ago. Being fans of the Peshitta, this should be obvious to all of us. And of course, most early Christians didn't have the NT. Like Paul. Or Clement. Please note that the earliest Christians were around before Jesus was even said to have been born. They believed in a mythical Christ, who like Buddha and Lao Tzu, had some pretty awesome teachings. Even later Christians like Paul (if Paul even existed) and Marcion seem to refer to the teachings of Christ and don't know the details of his life (notice how Marcion's Gospel misses the first 2 chapters, just like the EARLIEST copies of Luke's gospel...). Now when the earliest Christians believed in the Christ's teachings, BEFORE the time of Christ, what does that tell you? What more does it tell you when the DETAILS of Christ's life come about more than a hundred years later? It suggests to me that this was all a myth and some people took it very seriously, and added their historical fictions over time.
Denying Christ: I'm not even really saying the earliest Christians DENIED Christ. It's like saying an atheist denies god. I'm saying the earliest Christians didn't believe in a literal Jesus. Read up on the texts of the Gnostics and the Essenes. See how a Christ like figure, teaching Christ's teachings, appears DECADES before Jesus was supposedly born.
Marcion's omissions: You claim that Marcion's omissions are clear as day. That is a horrendous claim to make. Once again, let's not put the cart before the horse. It's an unwritten rule in Biblical scholarship that the longer texts came after the shorter ones. All of Marcion's NT books are shorter than the later copies. This suggests that his works are original, or at least, "more original". This corroborates the historical timeline wherein we find no evidence for the existence of the NT books BEFORE Marcion. Upsetting as it may be to a believer, it really looks like their Bible is a heavily edited (mostly additions) version of that heretic Marcion's NT.
I encourage you. Don't just sit there at your computer, writing whatever comes to mind. Regurgitating what you read on some Christian website. Get out there and do some real research. Ask honest questions. Look at history's honest answers.
And please realise: we can all be great Christians and great people, without spreading the lie (or at best, the unjustifiable claim) that there is/was a literal Jesus/Yahweh.
To this day, there is still no evidence that Jesus (or Yahweh) even existed. Let alone, whether their supposed claims (like belief being necessary for salvation) were true.
p.s. I?ve been drawn into a rather long (and probably pointless) conversation about the existence or non-existence of Jesus and Yahweh. I was originally asked by Sean why I stopped believing as a fundie does. Did I answer your question sufficiently, Sean?
I'll quickly touch on some of your comments.
Diabolical mimicry: This is a defence that desperate literalist believers use (or independently develop, as I did once embarrassingly, on this very forum) to explain why Christianity has so many similarities with pagan religions that are much older (Jesus' similarities to Horus, Dionysus, Buddha, Krishna etc. and Yahweh's similarities to Baal, Zeus etc.). The theory is that Satan knew what Jesus/Yahweh would get up to, so copied these things in his Satanic religions (i.e. all non-Judeo-Christian religions...), CENTURIES earlier. This is what we call, putting the cart before the horse. The same concept applies with Marcion's NT. There is NO EVIDENCE whatsoever that the NT Gospels or the Pauline epistles existed BEFORE Marcion. This is very serious. Because of this FACT, we cannot just assume that Marcion copied these books from other sources and edited them. It is very possible that he created those books and/or used proto-books.
Explaining why NT references appear late 2nd Century: Your theories unfortunately do not help the situation. The truth is, since they do not directly quote the NT books until the late 2nd century (note that they do quote the OT directly) we cannot take these quotes as evidence for the early existence of the NT books. It only means that SOME of the teachings existed (I say some because the basic messages of Christ appear first, then later, much later, the details of his life appear - oddly enough...). This is undisputed. Many of the Christ teachings even came before Jesus was supposedly around. Again, oddly enough...
On evidence: An atheist need not present evidence. Atheism is not an ideology. It is simply the lack of belief in any particular personal god. If a fundie wants to claim that their god exists, that's fine. If they want to kill in that god's name, change laws in that god's name, have a say on what our children get taught in science class etc., they had better prove their position. The burden of proof always lies with the believer. My point is, though I am Christian, it is up to Christians to prove their god is real, and is the true god. So far this hasn't been done.
On morals: Thank you for getting my point. We still have a problem though. Billions of people believe in a book that teaches them it is okay to kill their relatives if they stray from the faith, rape little girls, kill baby boys etc. I think it is fair that they be able to PROVE their beliefs true before they act on them. Fair enough? Or shall we let any psychopath do whatever he pleases (including raping our daughters, killing our parents, etc.) because he says god told him it pleased him? I for one would demand this person's evidence. Right after I and other just-minded people opened a can of whupass that is!
Scholars: On this we do find some agreement. Scholarly consensus can be meaningless. It is the truth that matters. And thus it is evidence that matters. If most Bible Scholars believe Jesus existed, I am not impressed. Most bible scholars are religious, and the ones that aren't, were conditioned to accept certain things as true. The fact is, whether they believe something or not, it is the evidence that matters. And the evidence is lacking for Jesus/Yahweh's existence, let alone their claims. Shall we ask what Quran scholars think of the Bible? Would we expect them to deny Allah? Bible scholarship is a joke; it shouldn't be considered a real academic field. Any fundie can study at BJU and become a "Bible scholar".
Israeli archaeology: I think you haven't really looked into this. I'm not talking about no Hittites here... I'm talking about the lack of evidence that the Israelites razed Canaanite villages and wiped them out. I'm talking the evidence that the Israelites WERE Canaanites. I'm talking the lack of evidence for Yahweh, Moses, Abraham etc. I'm talking the evidence that Yahweh was one of MANY gods, and wasn't even the highest god. I'm talking the total lack of evidence for the Exodus. Even if the Egyptians didn't want to record such embarrassing moments, do you think someone may have noticed 2 million people leaving a country of 6 million? Do you think this may have caused havoc with Egypt's economy? Do you think this would have caused massive social problems? No evidence for ANY of this. Nor is there any evidence for the 2 million people wandering around the desert for 40 years. Not even a damned chicken bone...
God's people's truth-telling: You're kidding right? I don't want to throw around racist stereotypes, but do you think Jews have never exaggerated in their holy texts??? Should we believe the Talmud when it says that the Romans killed a BILLION Jews, when there has never been a billion Jews at one time? Should we believe the Talmud, which has a version of Jesus that existed much later than ?our Jesus?? Should we believe the OT when it says that the Exodus happened, when there is no evidence for it, and evidence that this may be based on an earlier event where Semites were DRIVEN from Egypt? Should we believe the OT when it claims that Israel defeated the Assyrians due to God?s angel that slaughtered 180-odd thousand Assyrian soldiers, when history shows us that the Assyrian King withdrew due to conflicts elsewhere and the MASSIVE TRIBUTES and CONCESSIONS showered upon him by the Jewish king? Please?
The NT Church: I'm trying to say this as nicely as possible; your comments on the NT church really highlight your lack of knowledge in the subject, and echo the attitudes of the KJV-only believers. For one thing, there is no one NT. There is not a single NT canon that is agreed upon by all Christians today. Let alone thousands of years ago. Being fans of the Peshitta, this should be obvious to all of us. And of course, most early Christians didn't have the NT. Like Paul. Or Clement. Please note that the earliest Christians were around before Jesus was even said to have been born. They believed in a mythical Christ, who like Buddha and Lao Tzu, had some pretty awesome teachings. Even later Christians like Paul (if Paul even existed) and Marcion seem to refer to the teachings of Christ and don't know the details of his life (notice how Marcion's Gospel misses the first 2 chapters, just like the EARLIEST copies of Luke's gospel...). Now when the earliest Christians believed in the Christ's teachings, BEFORE the time of Christ, what does that tell you? What more does it tell you when the DETAILS of Christ's life come about more than a hundred years later? It suggests to me that this was all a myth and some people took it very seriously, and added their historical fictions over time.
Denying Christ: I'm not even really saying the earliest Christians DENIED Christ. It's like saying an atheist denies god. I'm saying the earliest Christians didn't believe in a literal Jesus. Read up on the texts of the Gnostics and the Essenes. See how a Christ like figure, teaching Christ's teachings, appears DECADES before Jesus was supposedly born.
Marcion's omissions: You claim that Marcion's omissions are clear as day. That is a horrendous claim to make. Once again, let's not put the cart before the horse. It's an unwritten rule in Biblical scholarship that the longer texts came after the shorter ones. All of Marcion's NT books are shorter than the later copies. This suggests that his works are original, or at least, "more original". This corroborates the historical timeline wherein we find no evidence for the existence of the NT books BEFORE Marcion. Upsetting as it may be to a believer, it really looks like their Bible is a heavily edited (mostly additions) version of that heretic Marcion's NT.
I encourage you. Don't just sit there at your computer, writing whatever comes to mind. Regurgitating what you read on some Christian website. Get out there and do some real research. Ask honest questions. Look at history's honest answers.
And please realise: we can all be great Christians and great people, without spreading the lie (or at best, the unjustifiable claim) that there is/was a literal Jesus/Yahweh.
To this day, there is still no evidence that Jesus (or Yahweh) even existed. Let alone, whether their supposed claims (like belief being necessary for salvation) were true.
p.s. I?ve been drawn into a rather long (and probably pointless) conversation about the existence or non-existence of Jesus and Yahweh. I was originally asked by Sean why I stopped believing as a fundie does. Did I answer your question sufficiently, Sean?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com">http://www.AramaicPeshitta.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.RaphaelLataster.com">http://www.RaphaelLataster.com</a><!-- m -->