Columbia PhD in Ancient History destroys Christianity and Jesus

Originally posted by SuperFrog
Just to mention that link for above quote was provided already early, it is one of replies to above blog.

stupidevilbastard.com...-27306

Hmph I thought I heard a "biotchslap"...

Originally posted by adjensen
There are 869 comments on that page, and you posted the sixth one. Did it not occur to you that a number of the 862 that followed it might refute some of those points? The one you did post came from D.M. Murdoch, and if you do a little digging, you'll learn that she is not a credible source on anything (not even her own background, lol) She's a self-promoting hack who uses sources known to be complete fabrications and is dismissed by both atheists and "Christ Mythologists".

So you're suggesting a bit more digging...

I know, Wikipedia is not always the best reference, but it is a good start and can be used to find reference...

Jesus Christ in comparative mythology - Ancient Egypt

"The Egyptians of every period in which they are known to us believed that Osiris was of divine origin, that he suffered death and mutilation at the hands of the powers of evil, that after a great struggle with these powers he rose again, that he became henceforth the king of the underworld and judge of the dead, and that because he had conquered death the righteous also might conquer death...In Osiris the Christian Egyptians found the prototype of Christ, and in the pictures and statues of Isis suckling her son Horus, they perceived the prototypes of the Virgin Mary and her child."

This reminds me of another interesting fact regarding Devil, which was depicted as what god and of what religion?

Seems that all religions were borrowing similar concepts, but later one figure out how to use better those concepts...

Originally posted by SuperFrog

Originally posted by adjensen
There are 869 comments on that page, and you posted the sixth one. Did it not occur to you that a number of the 862 that followed it might refute some of those points? The one you did post came from D.M. Murdoch, and if you do a little digging, you'll learn that she is not a credible source on anything (not even her own background, lol) She's a self-promoting hack who uses sources known to be complete fabrications and is dismissed by both atheists and "Christ Mythologists".

So you're suggesting a bit more digging...

I know, Wikipedia is not always the best reference, but it is a good start and can be used to find reference...

Yes, kindly note the name "Gerald Massey" in that section. Whenever you see that name or Kersey Graves, you'll find Murdoch close behind -- they are the sources that are complete fabrications. No historian of any repute believes that Massey knew what he was talking about or accepts his conclusions. (Example)

To get things back on topic (maybe ) here's what Richard Carrier (the "Columbia PhD" in OP's video) has to say about Graves: Kersey Graves and The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors (a book that Murdoch uses extensively.)

Originally posted by adjensen

Yes, kindly note the name "Gerald Massey" in that section.

What purpose does it serve, to argue with a religious freak? it serves no purpose, if he doesn't understand that the bible (and all other religious work) is a collection of stolen artwork ... then it's his problem.

You can see the same line of arguements, between the two in the youtube movie ... on one hand, you have the reglious fanatic who denies his sense, and argues belief. A belief system is based on disgarding fact, and taking someones words as highest authority. Not based on reason, but based on status ... the other is arguing facts, to refute word of mouth ...

You might as well, bring your arguements to a block of stone ... all people of religion are the same. Whatever their religion. For them, it's comforting to have a belief, and frightening to have an endless sky above ...

Leave them to their religion, encourage their coming generations to educate themselves instead.

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by Rustami
I assure you when an invisible eternal being visits you at a NDE and says in an audible voice "I am Jesus..believe in Me and you will never perish" (obviously above all authority and immortal) all other name arguments fail.

We Buddhists have much better visions and bardo experiences even today as of 2012.

I'm not talking about a vision but reality and not sure what bardo means nor "better"? - is there someone else who rules from eternity? has more authority with regard to perishing or not? comes from heaven to save lives and makes it directly known in plain understandable communication that the scriptures overwhelmingly verify and with precision timing?

reply to post by sk0rpi0n

.... why should religious folk pay serious attention to this "Columbia PhD"???

Richard Carrier, who apparently you mean by this "Columbia PhD", has a main thesis in this debate, even though he admits it was not a topic that Craig had agreed to debate, which is: The Gospels record myth, not history.
He says that since it is not an official topic, he can only give a few examples, otherwise he could cite a lot more. I would be interested to know how to find those other examples, maybe in one of the books he contributed to?
The first example he does use in this debate is Barabbas (from Mark), which he says is a name given to show a connection with Jesus as they are both the "Son of the Father". He goes on to say there is no way the Romans would release a criminal guilty of murder and treason, though there may be a case of a lesser criminal being released by the request of the people in a historical setting.
The next point is that there was no such custom of a prisoner being released on Passover, but there is something similar in the celebration of another Jewish holiday, Yom Kippur. Apparently to Carrier, this has the Gospel having Jesus and Barabbas serving to fill the roles of the two goats, where one is killed and the other is the scapegoat which is released and taken by the devil (or whatever, according to Carrier).
This supposedly makes his point that this is obviously not historically accurate but something added as myth in order to make a point of how Jesus atoned for the sins as an anti-type of Old Testament religious practices.
The second example is the story (in Luke) of Cleopas which name means "tell all" (or "proclaim", according to Carrier). He is traveling after the body of Jesus had vanished. Jesus appears to him and reveals the secret of the kingdom, then vanishes. Then he goes on to proclaim what he had been told. This is similar to a story celebrated by Rome, of Romulus and Proculus which the Luke story emulates and inverts. Proculus (whose name also means "proclaim) is traveling from Alba Longa to Rome after Romulus' body vanishes, Romulus instructs Proculus to tell the Romans they will achieve a great empire if they are virtuous.
Using these names as search terms in Google, I found the article in The Secular Web where you can scroll down to Notes and read #12, instead of me typing it all out. The point Carrier was making was that this was added not as historical trivia but was written in such a way as to make use of already well know myth, to make a comparison between the Roman and Christian ideals, where Jesus was teaching humility rather than the type of glory the Romans were seeking.
Another indication of the presence of myth according to Carrier is the reification of imaginary people into real people, giving the example of a fictional person in a parable in Luke become a character in John who is a real person being raised from the dead, with the intention of contradicting the message in the parable that raising people from the dead would not help people believe (according to Carrier).
His next indication of myth is the contradictory nature of the Gospels as being intentional to bring out symbolic meanings.
Then he says that the improbability of events is another method of showing in the Gospels that they were supposed to be understood symbolically (as myth, again according to his thesis).
Carrier asserts that the author of Mark needs to have female characters in order to have someone parallel the Genesis story where you have the woman ask "who will roll away the stone" at Jacob's well. Also to have the irony of beginning with the necessity of proclaiming the coming, and ending with people being astonished to where they are unable to say anything.
The naked boy in Mark, he says represents death where the white linen represents the body of flesh and talks about the Christian's experience in death, and compares it to initiatory ceremony in mystery religions, then having the young man seen in the empty tomb representing more from the pagan cults of what a person experiences beyond death, and how to keep going to find the water of life.
I think I remember him talking about the story of Simon of Cyrene but I am not finding it in the video right now, but I think it had something to do with traveling across Egypt and that is supposed to represent death (again, according to Carrier).
So to answer your question of why Christians should care what Carrier has to say, these are things, what I mentioned here, that are of interest to Christian scholars and something people who are serious about the New Testament should be considering, even if you are only an amateur scholar like myself. I was looking at a Christian book on Amazon yesterday called, Testimony of the Beloved Disciple: Narrative, History, and Theology in the Gospel of John by Richard Bauckham, where it is a collection of essays by the author, one of which is titled, The Bethany Family in John 11-12; History or Fiction?

Looking at this book I mentioned at the end of my last post, that I was reading the preview of yesterday, on Amazon, in the introduction, the author is going on and on about this term that was being thrown around from both sides of the debate in the OP's embedded video, which is historiography.
Craig, I think is so heavily invested in the position of the Gospels as historiography, that he can not even engage Carrier in the discussion of the role of myth in the Gospels. His background plays a part in this, that he was mentored and groomed from an early stage for the part he is in, which is arguing for the historical accuracy of the New Testament.
I think he is like a covert agent of the Vatican to make sure people take all this as literally as possible. He may be stuck with that for professional reasons but the ordinary believer is not locked into such a contract and are free to see how the themes in the Gospels are more important than a dry factual account. We need lessons for life and those books were written for the spiritual edification of the congregation and not so people can have a historical recitation which is of no value other than having a bunch of miscellaneous factoids in their head.
It would be great for a debater to answer, "And so what?" So there is myth, guess what, that was perfectly normal for that time. The myth was this Medieval concept that Christianity is the only "historical" religion.

Originally posted by jmdewey60
Craig, I think is so heavily invested in the position of the Gospels as historiography, that he can not even engage Carrier in the discussion of the role of myth in the Gospels.

The root of the problem, as I see it, is evident in that debate, and I've seen both Carrier and Ehrman use it. Here's how it goes (roughly)

... "so we have an event that couldn't have happened historically, to a man with a fake name" ...

(later in debate)

... "since we have seen that the Gospels cannot be trusted" ...

and the argument continues presupposing that nothing in the Bible can be considered true.

They're not the only ones who do it, of course, but once you let them start down the path, you've already lost massive ground, and it is patently dishonest for Carrier to have inserted this "evidence" in a debate after admitting that it wasn't the subject and that Craig had specifically declined to change the debate to include it. But Carrier did it for a reason -- as you have said, it's suddenly on his opponent to refute something he didn't prepare for, and the rest of his points can be peppered with "the Gospels cannot be trusted."

Originally posted by Rustami

Originally posted by NotReallyASecret

Originally posted by Rustami
I assure you when an invisible eternal being visits you at a NDE and says in an audible voice "I am Jesus..believe in Me and you will never perish" (obviously above all authority and immortal) all other name arguments fail.

We Buddhists have much better visions and bardo experiences even today as of 2012.

I'm not talking about a vision but reality and not sure what bardo means nor "better"? - is there someone else who rules from eternity? has more authority with regard to perishing or not? comes from heaven to save lives and makes it directly known in plain understandable communication that the scriptures overwhelmingly verify and with precision timing?

edit on 12-7-2012 by Rustami because: (no reason given)

We have several guys like that, yes.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Indeed the gospels were written as apocrypha, which means to both hide and reveal at the same time. There were not intended to be read in a purely literal fashion, that said, they do contain imbedded within them a prophetic frame of reference, even based on celestial events which have been proven accurate, and the places are also accurate, and while there would have been some myth layered on, in some cases perhaps to hide rather unpleasant truths, the bulk of the Gospels holds water and there is most assuredly a historical Jesus present in the midst of it all, it's unmistakable.

It's the septics and the atheists who seem to be approaching the whole issue with an already well established and very hardened contemptuous bias, prior to investigation in the final analysis.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

. . . the bulk of the Gospels holds water and there is most assuredly a historical Jesus present in the midst of it all, it's unmistakable.

Paul said Jesus was resurrected, and that is the main thing and different Gospel writers can describe what they think happened when that fact was discovered and I don't think it is so defeating to their integrity that they don't match up. It could be there was an inclination to add some profundity to the telling that kind of goes over our heads today, not being in the same sort of cultural milieu as they were.
I think it is helpful to me to know that there are little hidden messages built in and to be open to finding them. I have been reading a couple authors who have spotted those things and I seek those out (in addition to the more mainstream sort of interpreters of course).

reply to post by adjensen

. . . and it is patently dishonest for Carrier to have inserted this "evidence" in a debate after admitting that it wasn't the subject . . .

That is not so apparent at first but after listening to it three times I realized how much of a factor that was, to make it look like Carrier was "winning".
He had some good points but then he went on and on like you say repeating the same theme about hallucinations and the discrediting the Gospels for the mythic content, and another thing to me is his blowing off of Paul's testimony as being of no value whatsoever.

reply to post by jmdewey60

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

. . . the bulk of the Gospels holds water and there is most assuredly a historical Jesus present in the midst of it all, it's unmistakable.

Paul said Jesus was resurrected, and that is the main thing and different Gospel writers can describe what they think happened when that fact was discovered and I don't think it is so defeating to their integrity that they don't match up. It could be there was an inclination to add some profundity to the telling that kind of goes over our heads today, not being in the same sort of cultural milieu as they were.
I think it is helpful to me to know that there are little hidden messages built in and to be open to finding them. I have been reading a couple authors who have spotted those things and I seek those out (in addition to the more mainstream sort of interpreters of course).

What, you don't think Jesus completed the whole ritual and finished what he started? Don't be absurd, it's no FUN without the resurrection, and it means everything. Did he totally die DIE? I don't care, all I know in examining the whole thing is that it was meaningful and that he knew what he was doing, and that he was obediant unto death. If his resurrection was "seeded" into the minds of people like Nocodemus and Joseph of Aramathea, or even a certain Roman soldier, that they came to recognize and understanding what he was doing, made it possible, makes no difference if Jesus was himself double-blind going into the ordeal, and suffer grievously he certainly did either way. I think he made it through by a mere thread, but that's just me. Nevertheless, the whole ritual as an enactment of an eternal evolutionary process of death and resurrection still functions, within the entire frame of prophecy, to a t (literally) That it was done in conjuction with the natural order also of the clockwork and the prophetic, communicative movement of the moon, the sun and the starry skies, well, let's just say it's the whole work, whether Jesus completely and utterly DIED and came back to life, or not!

Don't you see the marvel in it, in what he did, and why?

Read the passage involving the Road to Emmeus, and note how the resurrected Jesus, while still bearing physical wounds (now well on the mend), talked with his friends and explained everything to them, while employing the art of disguise, even asking for food when he was hungry, and you'll see. He made it! He went thorugh the eye of the needle, a "camel" or water bearer, across the desert of human history!

But he didn't know precisely HOW it was going to happen, until it happened, until he woke up naked, or bandaged, in that tomb, enough water to go three days, not even knowing until it happened how or who orchestrated it ie: he left it in God's hands. Mind you, upon awakening and realizing what happened, I'm sure he danced around in that tomb while praising God and shouted out, NICODEMUS! And laughing his ass off no doubt too!

And note the men in dazzling white, who the women encountered when they went to the tomb to treat the body as per custom, and what they said (no doubt there again either) with a very big smile..

When you consider the principal at the heart of it, it doesn't matter if there ARE any bones, because it's the kind of thing you just can't make any bones about!



P.S. I realize I misinterpreted precisely what you said, which was that the fact was spun in different directions, but I'm not about to edit or mess with what I just wrote so I therefore wan't to communicate this little P.S. here, so that you'll know I know we're both on the same page. Cheers, NAM

reply to post by jmdewey60


Like I said earlier, there's something about William Lane Craig that bugs me (I think it's his incredulity that his points are being ignored... he seems kind of goofy there, I'd nail 'em to the wall for it,) but I've yet to see a debate with him where he doesn't mop the floor with the other guy.

I think the reason for that is pretty obvious. Who is Craig? A professor of religion and philosophy. Who are his opponents? Biologists, neurologists, physicists, historians and the like. Richard Dawkins might be a fine evolutionary biologist, but as a philosopher or theologian, he's terrible. No wonder Dawkins avoids Craig like the plague... Richard Dawkins accused of cowardice for refusing to debate existence of God

But here's another one, Sam Harris vs. William Lane Craig at Notre Dame. It's pretty much the same thing, though -- Craig came to debate on the subject matter, while Harris presents his best case for "Why Sam Harris isn't a Christian". Sadly, the biggest points scored on Craig are by the students during the Q&A at the end.

Mods please allow this little re-quote here, for the good-natured, good-willed humor of it, thanks.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by jmdewey60

 

Originally posted by jmdewey60
reply to post by NewAgeMan

 

. . . the bulk of the Gospels holds water and there is most assuredly a historical Jesus present in the midst of it all, it's unmistakable.

Paul said Jesus was resurrected, and that is the main thing and different Gospel writers can describe what they think happened when that fact was discovered and I don't think it is so defeating to their integrity that they don't match up. It could be there was an inclination to add some profundity to the telling that kind of goes over our heads today, not being in the same sort of cultural milieu as they were.
I think it is helpful to me to know that there are little hidden messages built in and to be open to finding them. I have been reading a couple authors who have spotted those things and I seek those out (in addition to the more mainstream sort of interpreters of course).

What, you don't think Jesus completed the whole ritual and finished what he started? Don't be absurd, it's no FUN without the resurrection, and it means everything. Did he totally die DIE? I don't care, all I know in examining the whole thing is that it was meaningful and that he knew what he was doing, and that he was obediant unto death. If his resurrection was "seeded" into the minds of people like Nocodemus and Joseph of Aramathea, or even a certain Roman soldier, that they came to recognize and understanding what he was doing, made it possible, makes no difference if Jesus was himself double-blind going into the ordeal, and suffer grievously he certainly did either way. I think he made it through by a mere thread, but that's just me. Nevertheless, the whole ritual as an enactment of an eternal evolutionary process of death and resurrection still functions, within the entire frame of prophecy, to a t (literally) That it was done in conjuction with the natural order also of the clockwork and the prophetic, communicative movement of the moon, the sun and the starry skies, well, let's just say it's the whole work, whether Jesus completely and utterly DIED and came back to life, or not!

Don't you see the marvel in it, in what he did, and why?

Read the passage involving the Road to Emmeus, and note how the resurrected Jesus, while still bearing physical wounds (now well on the mend), talked with his friends and explained everything to them, while employing the art of disguise, even asking for food when he was hungry, and you'll see. He made it! He went thorugh the eye of the needle, a "camel" or water bearer, across the desert of human history!

But he didn't know precisely HOW it was going to happen, until it happened, until he woke up naked, or bandaged, in that tomb, enough water to go three days, not even knowing until it happened how or who orchestrated it ie: he left it in God's hands. Mind you, upon awakening and realizing what happened, I'm sure he danced around in that tomb while praising God and shouted out, NICODEMUS! And laughing his ass off no doubt too!

And note the men in dazzling white, who the women encountered when they went to the tomb to treat the body as per custom, and what they said (no doubt there again either) with a very big smile..

When you consider the principal at the heart of it, it doesn't matter if there ARE any bones, because it's the kind of thing you just can't make any bones about!

P.S. I realize I misinterpreted precisely what you said, which was that the fact was spun in different directions, but I'm not about to edit or mess with what I just wrote so I therefore wan't to communicate this little P.S. here, so that you'll know I know we're both on the same page. Cheers, NAM

This makes my hair stand on end! Oh so funny our Lord is let me tell you!


Dance then wherever you may be, I am the lord of the dance said he, and I lead you all wherever you may be and I lead you all in the dance said he!

RICH!

God bless whoever can laugh along with Christ and share in the love of God, or, who is at last able to undergo the required paradigm shift that would enable them to laugh and smile at the absurdity of what used to operate in the realm of an unknown unknown. God both likes to suprise us and be surprised by our response, and this is why he did everything he did, but it's only today, these days, from then, that we are beginning to come into an increasing understanding of what it was all about, and what for, and what was really intended to be both communicated and discovered when we also draw near in recognizing a sign of geniun authenticity in the actual and very real historical person of Jesus, who cannot be missed if we are but willing to make an open and honest re-assessment and reinvestigation, and then there it is, the ah HA moment, and we slap our knees and laugh at just who we thought we were and what we presumed to know, it's like being turned inside out only to discover in our true selves, this same fundamental familial love that we all seek, in him and through him, unconditionally. It doesn't go away that kind of love, and here we all still are, yet with the brotherhood of man wounded and people who cannot and will not make it through and into the kingdom life, ever, so for God's sake, for the love of God, while we're still free, let us attain to the absolute liberation that Jesus was offering, that we might also come to freely love as we are loved. Absent that we're screwed. Let it, therefore, the proposition become and the gesture become so inviting, in spite of being "all or nothing" and let us become so one in our growing love for one another, that we'll have the courage to accept it, and not reject it, if only out of rebellion and a sence of self determination, when all the while the very gift is our truest self as we were created and are intended to be, and to become as children of a loving God, the highest frame of reference being one heavenly household. Everything else separates. There is only one unifying principal, and that is the very same one that Jesus was all about, and there is no amount of Christ capable of ruining a personality! Ha, now that's funny! We all need this, I need it, so do you, and so does everyone. Let us not turn away, and become heard-hearted towards the endless love of the eternal Godhead. We must therefore evolve, there's no other way, because the status quo as it is just aint cutting it, no God has something better in store for humanity, and he's already made it known, in full. But it's an invitation only type of thing, not a forced coercion under threat of hell, no hell is the willfull choice to completely reject the love of God. It's a choice. It's a matter of the heart and the soul, you either love love, or you don't, you're either alive, or dead already. Choose life. Choose love. Choose laughter (of the best kind)!


Best Regards,

NAM

reply to post by NewAgeMan


Thanks, NewAgeMan... after an evening of watching Richard Dawkins (for something else) that was the perfect prescription to counter that nonsense

I think I'll listen to Lockridge's "That's My King" (with thanks to NOTurTYPICAL for always bringing that to my mind) to finish off the night.

reply to post by adjensen


Thank you too! At first I wasn't sure, though the folksy black minister of the south might have been putting one over on me, but then it continued.... and now here I am in tears, look what you've done to me!

And it's true.

Thank God or we'd all be totally screwed, but gratitude and joy, not fear is the real response. He's the courage, on the other side of fear (said like a black preacher!)

Nighty night.

Love to all, in Christ, the everlasting happiness... etc etc.,

NAM

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by adjensen

 

Thank you too! At first I wasn't sure, though the folksy black minister of the south might have been putting one over on me, but then it continued.... and now here I am in tears, look what you've done to me!

Yeah, I don't know what it is, but there's something about that particular sermon that is just... intense. I never ran across it until NOTurTYPICAL had it in his signature a year or so ago, but it's never failed to move me.

reply to post by adjensen


I see.

Thank you for info.

It is still puzzling me, and I might do a bit of research once back from vacation in a week.