Jesus Resurrection

[Subduction Zone]

Ill ask whats important to me. And thats that.



No, its not, not to me its not. Because i always have a reason behind my questions.



And how do you know that?

Please, you are getting overly excited and are not reasoning logically. I have to run for now so think about your errors a bit before you reply.

 

[Jollybear]

of course I have to tell you what a valid question is. My post explained why it is not honest.

Well guess what pal? I wont listen or obey your command, period. Im asking what i want. Got it?

And you need to earn respect.

At the begining of this debate, you did not have to earn mine. But you lost mine after you showed me none when i did not deserve it.

You have gone out of your way to lose it and are now complaining.

The otherway around. I wonder if youd debate like this in person? Or are you a cowarding troll?

Where? You do not appear to understand that term.

Define ad hominum.

Now you are trying to change the question. That does not change the fact that he shot the man. Not does any why change the fact that Luke made up his story.

You dont know if luke made up the story. Your infering he did. So i ask for a motive. You dont wanna be responsible for your inferences by telling what a possible motive could be.

Now it appears that you forgot how this started. Luke is not a reliable source.

You dont know that. Lots of inferences and assumptions.

How is my pointing out your errors being a hypocrite? Just because you are wrong is no excuse to get mad and call names.

Because you say im changing the topic by asking why, thats foolishness. So, i point out you truly changed it because we went from resurrection to virgin birth.

What is wrong man?

 

[joelr]

But hey, lets assume there was lots of stories just like the jesus story. Could that not mean the underlying tenents wer true, just alot of counterfiet came? Why does it mean ALL of them are myths?

There is a gigantic amount of information that suggests answers to this question. Far too much for a single post.
Carrier is the leading bible scholar, you would have to listen to a lecture to even begin to get at what historians now know.

All of the religions follow very strict mythological structure and are equally likely or unlikely.
Meaning if Christianity could be true then any other savior deity could be true.
From a myth and historical perspective we generally give a zero chance of Romulus being real. Also the times a supernatural story turned out to be true or verified is never.

We know the OT had no real concept of heaven or afterlife (except witches and a few small things like that) then they were invaded by Persia.
Persia were Zoroastrinism followers and this is the emergence of the ideas of heaven/hell, Satan vs God, God destroys the world and followers get resurrected into a better world, forgiveness of sins through a personal savior deity who battles the bad guy and wins, is resurrected, baptism, etc....

During the conquest Persia allowed Judia to still have religion and after Persia left elements of the religion started appearing in the OT.
We have already touched on the NT as that essay gives an outline of the savior god mythology which occured before Christianity. Christ was late to the emergence of savior gods.

Early Christian writers remarked on how people were not impressed by Jesus because they had heard all the stories before. So the church told people that Satan had set up history to look like Christianity was a copy-cat cult.

There is no reason to believe any supernatural tales from any culture over any other tale, Hercules, Krishna or Jesus.
But mythology is super important to cultures, that is a whole different study one would need to read Joseph Campbell's Power of Myth to understand.

But there are still many fundamentalists in many different religions.
If one wants to have faith then they should have faith. There are millions of people in India who currently believe that Sai Babba guy can actually do magic right now. Even though Indian magic tricks are well known and documented to be fraud.
His tricks are even the same old tricks?

The only thing I argue against is saying that history supports any supernatural beliefs. They do not.
Faith can be applied to any cult. Anyone can say God wanted history to look sketchy for the movement to test faith. If it helps someone get through the day and they don't want to look into history but just assume church leaders always tell accurate history then being a believer is probably a good move.
I'm not going to tell my Grandmother saints are not real.

Saints are an interesting parallel to the different deities in Hinduism. Each an aspect of God or representing an emotion and are personal deities.
Yet there is still just one supreme god in each. While Christians think Hinduism weird with all it's gods Catholics somehow think it's different yet they have all these supernatural lower-level saints floating around, each used for a different type of request? That is normal but Hindu multiple characters is weird?
Remember, the issue of some deity or God is a separate idea than human created mythology. Religion being myth doesn't mean no god.

 

[joelr]

You dont know if luke made up the story. Your infering he did. So i ask for a motive. You dont wanna be responsible for your inferences by telling what a possible motive could be.

The motive is the same as any scripture from Hercules to Shakti.
Carrier calls it fan-fiction, it is that but myth crafting is the way cultures impart wisdom to the next generation.

Really talented writers in 1 A.D. didn't write Star Wars novels. They wrote really creative stories of popular gods. Luke is really good.

In current times we have stuff like the Matrix. Even Neo is a savior deity, he was killed, resurrected by love and born again into his transcendent body where he had super miracle powers. He is "the one".

If you don't recognize the heavy mythology in Matrix see this:

Coronas Hide » The Matrix: Revolutions, Explained

I can't find the original movie essay just the essay on 2 and 3??
It used to be there? It's really good. I have it.

 

[Jollybear]

The motive is the same as any scripture from Hercules to Shakti.
Carrier calls it fan-fiction, it is that but myth crafting is the way cultures impart wisdom to the next generation.

Really talented writers in 1 A.D. didn't write Star Wars novels. They wrote really creative stories of popular gods. Luke is really good.

In current times we have stuff like the Matrix. Even Neo is a savior deity, he was killed, resurrected by love and born again into his transcendent body where he had super miracle powers. He is "the one".

If you don't recognize the heavy mythology in Matrix see this:

Coronas Hide » The Matrix: Revolutions, Explained

I can't find the original movie essay just the essay on 2 and 3??
It used to be there? It's really good. I have it.

The problem with the fan-fiction motive is it creates a conspiracy. A giant one.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Oh my, he did not take my advice.

Well guess what pal? I wont listen or obey your command, period. Im asking what i want. Got it?

I am only trying to keep you from looking even worse. Asking foolish questions does not help you at all.

At the begining of this debate, you did not have to earn mine. But you lost mine after you showed me none when i did not deserve it.

And I gave you respect at the start. It took you no time at all to go out of your way to lose it.

The otherway around. I wonder if youd debate like this in person? Or are you a cowarding troll?

Now now, just because you are losing terribly is no excuse to break the rules. And as usual you are projecting your flaws upon others. I am not the one that has gotten excited here.

Define ad hominum.

Let me get this straight, you have been falsely accusing me of a term that you did not even understand?

You dont know if luke made up the story. Your infering he did. So i ask for a motive. You dont wanna be responsible for your inferences by telling what a possible motive could be.

Yes, I do. Or at the very least we know that this story is false. Asking for a motive is pointless. None is needed to know that this story does not hold any water. But I will grant you that the author of Luke, probably not Luke the physician of Paul as has been explained to you, probably made it up since the story is unique to his narrative. At any rate it is a moot point. We know that it is false for a multitude of reasons.

You dont know that. Lots of inferences and assumptions.

No, I have explained time and time again how we know his story to be false. No assumptions. Once again you are projecting your flaws. Please don't do that.

Because you say im changing the topic by asking why, thats foolishness. So, i point out you truly changed it because we went from resurrection to virgin birth.

Wrong again, that is a favorite tactic of yours when you realize that you are wrong. I barely mentioned this obvious false claim in the gospels and instead of admitting the obvious you went off on this detour. All you needed to do was to admit to the fact that the nativity tales are made up. and we can get back to our previous discussion.

What is wrong man?

An ability to admit when you are wrong would help a lot.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The problem with the fan-fiction motive is it creates a conspiracy. A giant one.

Not necessarily. No "conspiracy" needed. That was just the way that stories were told back then.

 

[joelr]

The problem with the fan-fiction motive is it creates a conspiracy. A giant one.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean? A conspiracy then or now?

People have been writing scripture and gospels in all cultures and religions. Right before Rome switched to Christianity there were libraries of scripture of their earlier state religions, Mars and his son Romulus. Jupiter was a really big god, the highest god like Allah.

So of course we know now that those scriptures were just made up. Same with Greek gods. But both cultures had very prolific writers who wrote lots of gospel. Most was destroyed in later centuries by the Roman Catholic church. The Greek library was burned by Rome.

Early Christian gospels which was 50% Gnostic and always had a very different Jesus. The Adoptionist portrayed Jesus as a man. The 1st gospel ever, the Marconite gospel was different also.
So even modern Christians assume early Gnostic writers were just making stuff up.
The Lost Gospels by Elaine Pagels shows why the 4 canoical gospels were chosen by Bishops who wanted a power structure of only people in the supposed bloodline, church leaders who were the only people allowed to teach and interpret the gospels, no women in power, selective membership etc...
The Gnostics were more like hippies, anyone could teach. Bishop Ignatious I think, was fighting for power to control church members.

The Nag Hammandi teaches about early Gnostics. Was still all made up stuff. Religious gospel isn't about what's true. In OT times people didn't even write history like we think of it.

William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible — NOVA | PBS

Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.

he Bible chronology puts Moses much later in time, around 1450 B.C.E. Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?
We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.


Since this interview Thomas Thompson's book on Moses and similar has been accepted as accurately describing why it's myth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure I understand what you mean? A conspiracy then or now?

People have been writing scripture and gospels in all cultures and religions. Right before Rome switched to Christianity there were libraries of scripture of their earlier state religions, Mars and his son Romulus. Jupiter was a really big god, the highest god like Allah.

So of course we know now that those scriptures were just made up. Same with Greek gods. But both cultures had very prolific writers who wrote lots of gospel. Most was destroyed in later centuries by the Roman Catholic church. The Greek library was burned by Rome.

Early Christian gospels which was 50% Gnostic and always had a very different Jesus. The Adoptionist portrayed Jesus as a man. The 1st gospel ever, the Marconite gospel was different also.
So even modern Christians assume early Gnostic writers were just making stuff up.
The Lost Gospels by Elaine Pagels shows why the 4 canoical gospels were chosen by Bishops who wanted a power structure of only people in the supposed bloodline, church leaders who were the only people allowed to teach and interpret the gospels, no women in power, selective membership etc...
The Gnostics were more like hippies, anyone could teach. Bishop Ignatious I think, was fighting for power to control church members.

The Nag Hammandi teaches about early Gnostics. Was still all made up stuff. Religious gospel isn't about what's true. In OT times people didn't even write history like we think of it.

William Dever, Professor Emeritus at the University of Arizona
Archeology of the Hebrew Bible — NOVA | PBS

Yet many people want to know whether the events of the Bible are real, historic events.
We want to make the Bible history. Many people think it has to be history or nothing. But there is no word for history in the Hebrew Bible. In other words, what did the biblical writers think they were doing? Writing objective history? No. That's a modern discipline. They were telling stories. They wanted you to know what these purported events mean.

The Bible is didactic literature; it wants to teach, not just to describe. We try to make the Bible something it is not, and that's doing an injustice to the biblical writers. They were good historians, and they could tell it the way it was when they wanted to, but their objective was always something far beyond that.

he Bible chronology puts Moses much later in time, around 1450 B.C.E. Is there archeological evidence for Moses and the mass exodus of hundreds of thousands of Israelites described in the Bible?
We have no direct archeological evidence. "Moses" is an Egyptian name. Some of the other names in the narratives are Egyptian, and there are genuine Egyptian elements. But no one has found a text or an artifact in Egypt itself or even in the Sinai that has any direct connection. That doesn't mean it didn't happen. But I think it does mean what happened was rather more modest. And the biblical writers have enlarged the story.


Since this interview Thomas Thompson's book on Moses and similar has been accepted as accurately describing why it's myth.

I am not even sure if Moses had an Egyptian name. By his name there are several different Egyptian possible etymologies, but as this article points out that it would be rather strange for an Egyptian woman to use Hebraic etymology, which is what the story in the Bible tells us, for an Egyptian name:

https://thetorah.com/did-pharaohs-daughter-name-moses-in-hebrew/

"
שמות ב:י וַיִגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת פַּרְעֹה וַיְהִי לָהּ לְבֵן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מֹשֶׁה וַתֹּאמֶר כִּי מִן הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ.
Exod 2:10 When the child grew up, she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, who made him her son. She named him Moshe (Moses), explaining, “I drew him (me****ihu) out of the water.”
This verse suggests that Pharaoh’s daughter names Moses—oddly enough, using a Hebrew etymology. This interpretation goes back as far as the Second Temple period. For example, in a second century B.C.E. Greek play, Exagoge, written by a Greek Jewish dramatist from Alexandria, Ezekiel the Tragedian, Moses tells about his birth and how his sister brought his mother to be his nursemaid when Pharaoh’s daughter found him:

Mariam went to fetch our mother who presently appeared and took me in her arms. The princess said to her, “Woman, nurse this child and I shall pay your wages.” She then named me Moses, because she had taken me from the watery river-bank.[1]"

 

[joelr]

I am not even sure if Moses had an Egyptian name. By his name there are several different Egyptian possible etymologies, but as this article points out that it would be rather strange for an Egyptian woman to use Hebraic etymology, which is what the story in the Bible tells us, for an Egyptian name:

https://thetorah.com/did-pharaohs-daughter-name-moses-in-hebrew/

"
שמות ב:י וַיִגְדַּל הַיֶּלֶד וַתְּבִאֵהוּ לְבַת פַּרְעֹה וַיְהִי לָהּ לְבֵן וַתִּקְרָא שְׁמוֹ מֹשֶׁה וַתֹּאמֶר כִּי מִן הַמַּיִם מְשִׁיתִהוּ.
Exod 2:10 When the child grew up, she brought him to Pharaoh’s daughter, who made him her son. She named him Moshe (Moses), explaining, “I drew him (me****ihu) out of the water.”
This verse suggests that Pharaoh’s daughter names Moses—oddly enough, using a Hebrew etymology. This interpretation goes back as far as the Second Temple period. For example, in a second century B.C.E. Greek play, Exagoge, written by a Greek Jewish dramatist from Alexandria, Ezekiel the Tragedian, Moses tells about his birth and how his sister brought his mother to be his nursemaid when Pharaoh’s daughter found him:

Mariam went to fetch our mother who presently appeared and took me in her arms. The princess said to her, “Woman, nurse this child and I shall pay your wages.” She then named me Moses, because she had taken me from the watery river-bank.[1]"

This work is now peer reviewed and accepted as fact:

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives - Wikipedia

 

[Subduction Zone]

This work is now peer reviewed and accepted as fact:

The Historicity of the Patriarchal Narratives - Wikipedia

A book is rarely "peer reviewed" though it may be based upon peer reviewed concepts. And it seems that it is saying that the stories appeared in the second century BC, but that there is no evidence for the patriarchs themselves.

 

[Jollybear]

Oh my, he did not take my advice.



I am only trying to keep you from looking even worse. Asking foolish questions does not help you at all.

And ill be the decider on what helps me. Thank you very much.

And I gave you respect at the start. It took you no time at all to go out of your way to lose it.

Goes both ways now.

Now now, just because you are losing terribly is no excuse to break the rules. And as usual you are projecting your flaws upon others. I am not the one that has gotten excited here.

I broke the rules? So it dont break the rules to call me dishonest?

Let me get this straight, you have been falsely accusing me of a term that you did not even understand?

No, i dont ask because i dont know, i ask because you say i dont know. So, educate me and tell me what add hominum means.

Yes, I do. Or at the very least we know that this story is false. Asking for a motive is pointless.

Asking for a motive is pointless, this is laughable. Every murder case asks for a motive. If you accusse luke of making stuff up, then you need a motive. Lies come with a motive, not a vacume.

None is needed to know that this story does not hold any water. But I will grant you that the author of Luke, probably not Luke the physician of Paul as has been explained to you, probably made it up since the story is unique to his narrative. At any rate it is a moot point. We know that it is false for a multitude of reasons.

"Multiple" reasons huh?

No, I have explained time and time again how we know his story to be false. No assumptions. Once again you are projecting your flaws. Please don't do that.

Yea, you sure "proved" how you "know". Suuure ya did.

Wrong again, that is a favorite tactic of yours when you realize that you are wrong. I barely mentioned this obvious false claim in the gospels and instead of admitting the obvious you went off on this detour. All you needed to do was to admit to the fact that the nativity tales are made up. and we can get back to our previous discussion.

Your too dogmatic, too manipulative and demand we agree with you.

Well, NO. Make me.

An ability to admit when you are wrong would help a lot.

Cant admit what i dont see. That would be dishonest if i admitted a wrong i did not truly see as wrong.

 

[Jollybear]

The motive is the same as any scripture from Hercules to Shakti.
Carrier calls it fan-fiction, it is that but myth crafting is the way cultures impart wisdom to the next generation.

Really talented writers in 1 A.D. didn't write Star Wars novels. They wrote really creative stories of popular gods. Luke is really good.

In current times we have stuff like the Matrix. Even Neo is a savior deity, he was killed, resurrected by love and born again into his transcendent body where he had super miracle powers. He is "the one".

If you don't recognize the heavy mythology in Matrix see this:

Coronas Hide » The Matrix: Revolutions, Explained

I can't find the original movie essay just the essay on 2 and 3??
It used to be there? It's really good. I have it.

What i mean by conspiracy is that what goes with the Jesus story are persecutions and myrters and claims to witnesses. No sources saying there wer no persecutions.

Conspiracy.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And ill be the decider on what helps me. Thank you very much.

then don't **** and moan about respect.

To do so would be hypocritical.

Goes both ways now.

Always has. Unlike you I have not gone out of my way to lose it.

I broke the rules? So it dont break the rules to call me dishonest?

I pointed out when you were being dishonest and how. That is different from a blanket statement that you are dishonest. I kept pointing our that your fears that you are wrong (the one consistent trait of yours) was likely the cause.

No, i dont ask because i dont know, i ask because you say i dont know. So, educate me and tell me what add hominum means.

It is very clear that you do not know how to use the phrase correctly. Of course the honest policy would have for you to say what you meant by your improper use of the phrase, instead you use this improper tactic. At any rate what most people, and I know that you are not most people but definitions are based upon usage and that is what I have to go by for a definition, mean by that phrase is a shortcut for argumentum ad hominem. That is an argument where you attack a person's character and claim that is why they are wrong. I have never done that. I have explained time and again why and how you are wrong and then analyzed why am otherwise honorable person would behave in such a way. This may help or there are countless other sources on the internet that I could link for you:

Ad hominem - Wikipedia

To give you a "for dummies" version. Saying:

" You are wrong because you are stupid"

would be an ad hominem argument.

Saying:

"I have shown that you are wrong and that means you are stupid"

would not be. The second case does not try to refute an argument based upon a statement about the person. It makes a statement about the person based upon how he was wrong.

Do you understand the difference? It is quite a significant one.

Asking for a motive is pointless, this is laughable. Every murder case asks for a motive. If you accusse luke of making stuff up, then you need a motive. Lies come with a motive, not a vacume.

Nope. Again you are not reasoning logically. Going back to the video of one person shooting another, the question was not whether he had a valid reason (self defense) whether to do so or not. The only question was whether he shot someone or not. Now you are looking for excuses and that is improper. If the story was false, and it obviously was, is all that matters.

"Multiple" reasons huh?

People getting their rear end handed to them should not try to use facepalms. Copying others that have defeated you in the past is not a winning strategy. I explained why and how several times. Again cognitive dissonance was the only explanation I could think of for your failure to understand a simple concept.

Yea, you sure "proved" how you "know". Suuure ya did.

Of course I did. And once again you appear to be lying with this attitude. And any time that you ask me properly and politely I will gladly do so again. Of course that means you cannot ask as part of a Gish Gallop. That is another improper technique that you tend to use when you are wrong.

Your too dogmatic, too manipulative and demand we agree with you.

Well, NO. Make me

Projection again. No dogma on my part. You are trying to defend dogma.

And I cannot make you behave in a mature manner, I can only point out how your behavior harms your cause.

Cant admit what i dont see. That would be dishonest if i admitted a wrong i did not truly see as wrong.

And as I have pointed out your fear is likely the cause of that. Knowing that you are wrong and being afraid of that is likely the cause of your bad behavior here.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

transportation was rather difficult then.

A three hour tour is a problem if you're on the SS Minnow. The bible also acts like going to Egypt is a problem, but it's a walk of less than a week or two on your own two feet.

 

[Prometheus85]

So thats how you justify your ad hominum attacks huh? Just say you showed us we are wrong?

When reality is, no you havent.

Jollybear what your doing now is called red herring. A deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

 

[Jollybear]

Jollybear what your doing now is called red herring. A deliberate diversion of attention with the intention of trying to abandon the original argument.

Thats mumbo jumbo. Theres no red herring. Its all imagined in your mind.

 

[Prometheus85]

Thats mumbo jumbo. Theres no red herring. Its all imagined in your mind.

If it’s not red herring why are u throwing all these baseless accusations at subductionzone?

 

[joelr]

What i mean by conspiracy is that what goes with the Jesus story are persecutions and myrters and claims to witnesses. No sources saying there wer no persecutions.

Conspiracy.

There is no historical writer who wrote of any of the NT events, none.
But all of the Christian gospels that told different stories of Christ were destroyed. The fragments from the Nag Hamandi revealed much about the Gnostic Christians, some sects did not believe in the resurrection, or some believed Jesus was a man. So did the Adoptionists.

All those gospels were heresy and destroyed by Rome once they picked out which gospels to keep. Especially after the Catholic church was formed.
They destroyed any reference to any other historical data.

The conspiracy is that modern Christianity is nothing like what was going on in the 1st several hundred years. Catholicism started so certain church leaders could gain control over people. Original Christianity was nothing like it is now.
After the Lost Gospels were found the church came out with a statement saying the text helped back up Catholicism, a total lie from the Pope. It was a media spin.

-from Wiki, note the mention of Elaine Pagels and Bishop Irenaeus whom I mentioned.


"The Christian heresiologists, most notably Irenaeus, regarded Gnosticism as a Christian heresy. Modern scholarship notes that early Christianity was very diverse, and Christian orthodoxy only settled in the 4th century, when the Roman Empire declined and Gnosticism lost its influence.[66][64][67][65] Gnostics and proto-orthodox Christians shared some terminology. Initially, they were hard to distinguish from each other.[68]

According to Walter Bauer, "heresies" may well have been the original form of Christianity in many regions.[69] This theme was further developed by Elaine Pagels,[70] who argues that "the proto-orthodox church found itself in debates with gnostic Christians that helped them to stabilize their own beliefs."[65] According to Gilles Quispel, Catholicism arose in response to Gnosticism, establishing safeguards in the form of the monarchic episcopate, the creed, and the canon of holy books."

""heresies" may well have been the original form of Christianity in many regions."

They are being subtle here to not upset religious folks. Christianity was different for ~300 years!? Gnosticism is very Budhhist and Hindu like. Many believed the resurrection was metaphorical.

 

[Jollybear]

If it’s not red herring why are u throwing all these baseless accusations at subductionzone?

I never changed the subject. I did no red herring. And subduction is accusing me of dishonesty without proof, thats trolling, which is not baseless.

And further, im done dialoging with him, so, dont bring him up no more.