Christ myth theory

[ThickStemz]

There's some stuff you've written that we can all agree on, like, all of the easy questions f.e.. There are other things that I feel are lacking depth of research. You point further back and say that those avatar types were all the same, like a popular story to tell those that needed comfort. There's a bigger picture around all of that, and perspective is key to seeing it. They wrote about the sun, and spoke of methods to see what was behind it. *why ask plainly when the issue is not plain at all.

Just curious, do you think science would be were it is without the efforts of some of those who were gullible enough to buy the stories? This myth is so useless that a Jesuit priest first postulated the big bang, and we've all been ignorant enough to believe him - until now i guess *shrugs*

The problem is there is only so far we can go with research. And I'm not a researcher. I don't speak greek or aramaic or anything. Im a lay man. But I've read a lot on the topic of people who do research it, and both sides, at that.

It's not a clear cut proposition. The reason I posted Mr carriers work is that it's the first myth proponent who actually passed the sniff test. I'm sure you've heard of ceases messiah? That's bullshit.

Would science be where if is without Christianity? Why don't you ask Gellaleo.

Look, undoubtedly some early scientists were christians. And many still are. What of it?

The important thing you left out about your Jesuit who postulated the big bang was that the pope offered to make it dogma for him. He has to tell the pope that it would be missing the point.

 

[eye exaggerate]

The problem is there is only so far we can go with research. And I'm not a researcher. I don't speak greek or aramaic or anything. Im a lay man. But I've read a lot on the topic of people who do research it, and both sides, at that.

It's not a clear cut proposition. The reason I posted Mr carriers work is that it's the first myth proponent who actually passed the sniff test. I'm sure you've heard of ceases messiah? That's bullshit.

Would science be where if is without Christianity? Why don't you ask Gellaleo.

Look, undoubtedly some early scientists were christians. And many still are. What of it?

The important thing you left out about your Jesuit who postulated the big bang was that the pope offered to make it dogma for him. He has to tell the pope that it would be missing the point.

Glad to hear you know of Lemaître. As for the pope, I can ask about his reasons

"What of it?" What if his faith was a part of what brought him to that understanding? Where would we be if he hadn't? There are way too many variables to be able to say that an objective view cuts out that particular enterprise of belief.

 

[ThickStemz]

Glad to hear you know of Lemaître. As for the pope, I can ask about his reasons

"What of it?" What if his faith was a part of what brought him to that understanding? Where would we be if he hadn't? There are way too many variables to be able to say that an objective view cuts out that particular enterprise of belief.

We would be in the exact same place without him.

I think the better question is what did his faith have to do with his scientific discoveries? Its doubtful it had much to do at all with it.

His faith couldn't have brought him to that understanding. His intelligence did and his willingness to look at the evidence and read it. It can only be a post hoc explanation to go from that into saying "ah, this is what it means in Genesis 1 when god said let there be light and there was light."

If it naturally flowed from his faith Thomas Aquinas or Augustine would have figured it out.

 

[Red1966]

That just isn't true. The Bible is the only place where jesus is mentioned. There are zero contemporary writings that refer to christ.

The Bible is a collection of contemporary writings by different authors from different places. Jesus is alive and resides down the street from me. Turns out he wasn't a Jew after all, he's Hispanic.

 

[Cyrus420]

There's ample evidence Jesus existed. Whether he was the son of God is a matter of opinion.

Please provide us with said evidence.

 

[ThickStemz]

The Bible is a collection of contemporary writings by different authors from different places. Jesus is alive and resides down the street from me. Turns out he wasn't a Jew after all, he's Hispanic.

Everything in the bible was written hundreds of years before, or 35/40 to 120 years after jesus.

Nothing exits that mentions jesus that is contemporary to jesus.

 

[Red1966]

Everything in the bible was written hundreds of years before, or 35/40 to 120 years after jesus.

Nothing exits that mentions jesus that is contemporary to jesus.

Weren't Peter, Paul, Mark, Luke, etc. contemporaries of Jesus?

 

[ThickStemz]

Weren't Peter, Paul, Mark, Luke, etc. contemporaries of Jesus?

Supposedly...

But... mark and Luke, while they are names of the gospels are not the authors of them. We don't know who wrote the gospels. They're anonymous. They had to call them something so they attributed those names to them.

Paul never met jesus. Remember his story was that he was a persecutor of christians and had a conversion on the road to Damascus. Important to mention he never mentions jesus as a living breathing human walking around.

Another thing about Peter and the others. They were people who should have been illiterate. Fishermen. The hook of Peter is widely regarded to be a forgery. Books rather. At most one may be authentic. But still, the new testiment is written by a highly skilled writer. Not a fisherman. No matter how much he learned later in life, no book in the new testiment could have been written by someone who spent most of their life illiterate.

Plenty of sources on this.

 

[Red1966]

You don't know that a fisherman would of necessity be illiterate. Nor that one could not be educated later in life. Even Muslims recognize Jesus as a real person. Your statement "they are names of the gospels are not the authors of them. We don't know who wrote the gospels" is contradictory. They story of Jesus, if you disregard the divinity and miracle portions, is completely believable. Jesus is not unique among men who caused great changes in human society. Mohamed, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Confucius, Jung, among others, cause millions to change their whole way of life. It is entirely plausible a charismatic man could have this influence 2000 years ago. It has happened in the much more recent past.

 

[eye exaggerate]

We would be in the exact same place without him.

I think the better question is what did his faith have to do with his scientific discoveries? Its doubtful it had much to do at all with it.

His faith couldn't have brought him to that understanding. His intelligence did and his willingness to look at the evidence and read it. It can only be a post hoc explanation to go from that into saying "ah, this is what it means in Genesis 1 when god said let there be light and there was light."

If it naturally flowed from his faith Thomas Aquinas or Augustine would have figured it out.

There's more of a progression to it than what your last point assumes. We would not be where we are without all of the discoveries that were made. There's an amalgam, again, based on perspective. His "faith" was a part of his entire worldview, a worldview from which his discoveries were made possible.

Ever heard of Ben Pandira?

 

[ThickStemz]

There's more of a progression to it than what your last point assumes. We would not be where we are without all of the discoveries that were made. There's an amalgam, again, based on perspective. His "faith" was a part of his entire worldview, a worldview from which his discoveries were made possible.

Ever heard of Ben Pandira?

The name sounds familiar but doesn't bring anything up. I've not searched on Google but they're is a chance I've heard of and do know of him. Just can't recall the name.

Ones world view is irrelevant. The world view of a christian an atheist a muslim and a Hindu are a lot different.

But they can cooperate and be on the same page on a research team. As long as one doesn't take the notion that they're not allowed to learn anything contradictory to their faith then it will be separate in their mind.

Reminds me of how the Germans in the 1930s thought there was "Jewish physics and Aryan physics."

 

[ThickStemz]

You don't know that a fisherman would of necessity be illiterate. Nor that one could not be educated later in life. Even Muslims recognize Jesus as a real person. Your statement "they are names of the gospels are not the authors of them. We don't know who wrote the gospels" is contradictory. They story of Jesus, if you disregard the divinity and miracle portions, is completely believable. Jesus is not unique among men who caused great changes in human society. Mohamed, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Confucius, Jung, among others, cause millions to change their whole way of life. It is entirely plausible a charismatic man could have this influence 2000 years ago. It has happened in the much more recent past.

The author of the book of Matthew could well have been named Matthew, but we know it was not the Matthew that followed jesus. That's what I meant.

We know that becuase it was written too far after. Jesus supposedly died in 30 ish ad. The earliest fragment we have surviving of any of the gospels is from close to 200 years after that.

The books are far far too late to be written by a contemporary of jesus.

There is zero evidence of his life from that time. None.

But we're perfectly aware and have independent verification of much less famous prophetic figures.

 

[eye exaggerate]

The name sounds familiar but doesn't bring anything up. I've not searched on Google but they're is a chance I've heard of and do know of him. Just can't recall the name.

Ones world view is irrelevant. The world view of a christian an atheist a muslim and a Hindu are a lot different.

But they can cooperate and be on the same page on a research team. As long as one doesn't take the notion that they're not allowed to learn anything contradictory to their faith then it will be separate in their mind.

Reminds me of how the Germans in the 1930s thought there was "Jewish physics and Aryan physics."

Now hold on a minute tharrrr, Babalouie, one's worldview is irrelevant? Please explain

 

[ThickStemz]

You don't know that a fisherman would of necessity be illiterate. Nor that one could not be educated later in life. Even Muslims recognize Jesus as a real person. Your statement "they are names of the gospels are not the authors of them. We don't know who wrote the gospels" is contradictory. They story of Jesus, if you disregard the divinity and miracle portions, is completely believable. Jesus is not unique among men who caused great changes in human society. Mohamed, Hitler, Pol Pot, Mao, Confucius, Jung, among others, cause millions to change their whole way of life. It is entirely plausible a charismatic man could have this influence 2000 years ago. It has happened in the much more recent past.

The methodology of history is tried and true. When it's turned onto the bible this is what is found.

Here is a blog on the anonymity of the gospels by one of the world's leading expert on the bible. He went to Billy Graham's scool. Grew up in the faith.

http://ehrmanblog.org/why-are-the-gospels-anonymous/

 

[ThickStemz]

Now hold on a minute tharrrr, Babalouie, one's worldview is irrelevant? Please explain

My world view is irrelevant if I'm doing science. Unless it drives me to alter my evidence or lie about my results.

Whatever my beliefs, if I'm observing I see what I see. It doesn't matter what religion I am, my eyes ears and all the senses work the same.

 

[eye exaggerate]

My world view is irrelevant if I'm doing science. Unless it drives me to alter my evidence or lie about my results.

Whatever my beliefs, if I'm observing I see what I see. It doesn't matter what religion I am, my eyes ears and all the senses work the same.

But there's the rub, you cannot alter your conscience such as to remove all of your accumulated noise, elsewise you'd be incapable of performing any scientific work. Anyway, that's semantics. You can do your best to remove the bias, but it is a part of everything you do, why else have peer review? It seems to me a filter to get to an elegant solution. You know, that's great for scientific work, but we don't science more than we live our lives, and living is psychological.

 

[eye exaggerate]

I can't remember the last time I heard someone say "I can't wait to retire so I can spend the rest of my science rocking on the porch."

 

[ThickStemz]

But there's the rub, you cannot alter your conscience such as to remove all of your accumulated noise, elsewise you'd be incapable of performing any scientific work. Anyway, that's semantics. You can do your best to remove the bias, but it is a part of everything you do, why else have peer review? It seems to me a filter to get to an elegant solution. You know, that's great for scientific work, but we don't science more than we live our lives, and living is psychological.

I can see your point, I just don't see what it has to do with science. Yes different perspectives can and do lead to looking at things differently.

And since no one likes to have their work torn apart, those scientists make damn sure they can eliminate their prejudices from influencing their results.

You can see the distinction when looking at a man like Francis Collins, director of the human genome project, maybe former director of, idk... but anyway, he does world class work and is a deeply believing Christian.

Compare to him someone like Kent Hovind, Dr. DINO. LOL. Hovind has his final answer in mind and simply finds and alters data to fit what he wants, or he ignores it.

Collins is a real scientist and I've seen those like him talk about this. They check their faith at the door when they start their work. These are highly disciplined minds and they're capable of doing this Mon through Fri and believing a few Latin words turns a cracker into jesus on Sunday.

Stephen Gould said that faith and science are "non overlapping magisteria."

 

[Red1966]

The author of the book of Matthew could well have been named Matthew, but we know it was not the Matthew that followed jesus. That's what I meant.

We know that becuase it was written too far after. Jesus supposedly died in 30 ish ad. The earliest fragment we have surviving of any of the gospels is from close to 200 years after that.

The books are far far too late to be written by a contemporary of jesus.

There is zero evidence of his life from that time. None.

But we're perfectly aware and have independent verification of much less famous prophetic figures.

Actually, "zero evidence" is contrary to everything you've cited. You have spoken throughout this thread of the Bible, which is evidence of his existence. The fact that literally several billion, possibly even a hundred billion, or even more, believe he existed, including Christians, Jews, and Muslims, is quite a massive endorsement. To claim he was not a deity is quite reasonable, to claim he never even existed is putting your own religious beliefs above logic.The very "crime" you accuse the devout of.

 

[Red1966]

I can see your point, I just don't see what it has to do with science. Yes different perspectives can and do lead to looking at things differently.

And since no one likes to have their work torn apart, those scientists make damn sure they can eliminate their prejudices from influencing their results.

You can see the distinction when looking at a man like Francis Collins, director of the human genome project, maybe former director of, idk... but anyway, he does world class work and is a deeply believing Christian.

Compare to him someone like Kent Hovind, Dr. DINO. LOL. Hovind has his final answer in mind and simply finds and alters data to fit what he wants, or he ignores it.

Collins is a real scientist and I've seen those like him talk about this. They check their faith at the door when they start their work. These are highly disciplined minds and they're capable of doing this Mon through Fri and believing a few Latin words turns a cracker into jesus on Sunday.

Stephen Gould said that faith and science are "non overlapping magisteria."

I work with scientists on a professional basis. My experience is that scientist often aren't even aware of their prejudices. I have seen many experiments fail because of wrong assumptions, or assuming some vender knew the equipment they sold better than the people who actually use the equipment. Basically, they assume a degree makes one smarter than one without a degree. After 7 years of watching the same device fail at the same point, I modified the device without permission and increased the strength of the device three-fold. The scientist assumed it was "accidental", because he could not admit that a layman could do what hundreds engineers could not. I should apply for a patent.
"Stephen Gould said that faith and science are "non overlapping magisteria" Wrong. Faith is often a rudimentary way to explain things we don't understand. The "Big Bang" theory is as close to creationism as one can get.