Why did Gospel writers care so little for history?

[SkinWalker]

I haven't a clue what your "Herod/Christ child" comment is about. What has either to do with an alleged original manuscript? Whether you meant creation or "origins" is irrelevant, I have not superstitions nor have you demonstrated that I do. So stand by your "comment" all you like -it isn't the first nonsensical statement you've chosen an erect posture for. And I *have* no responsibility in his claims other than to question from where he arrives at the premises that informs his conclusion. Nor should I be expected to 'research' his claim. If he doesn't produce an "original manuscript" or at least a citation that describes one, then his claims are pure and utter poppycock and he can be ignored.

 

[Myles]

Dr. Mabuse is certainly free to address me if he feels so inclined...that the bible is anti religion is self evident, no big revelation there...I have sufficient knowledge to communicate all that God intends to communicate through me to this august forum, and I will continue to communicate this knowledge as the Spirit directs me.

What you "think" bears little, if any, resemblance to reality.

In what sense is the Bible an anti-religion book ? It is not self evident to most people.

How can you be sure you have sufficient knowledge ? Might there not be others more knowledgeable than you ?

How do you know there is a spirit directing you ?

How is it that you spend so much time quoting the Bible, if it is an anti-religion book. Is it because you know the good bits ?


Can I take it you are saying that what I think bears little resemblance to YOUR reality ?

 

[Photizo]

I haven't a clue what your "Herod/Christ child" comment is about. What has either to do with an alleged original manuscript? Whether you meant creation or "origins" is irrelevant, I have not superstitions nor have you demonstrated that I do. So stand by your "comment" all you like -it isn't the first nonsensical statement you've chosen an erect posture for. And I *have* no responsibility in his claims other than to question from where he arrives at the premises that informs his conclusion. Nor should I be expected to 'research' his claim. If he doesn't produce an "original manuscript" or at least a citation that describes one, then his claims are pure and utter poppycock and he can be ignored.

You haven't a clue...and why do you think that is? Hmmm?

That you have superstitions is patently obvious.

From Wikipedia: Superstition is a belief or notion, not based on reason or knowledge, in or of the ominous significance of a particular thing, circumstance, occurrence, proceeding, or the like.

This accurately describes your notions concerning Theism in general and Christianity in particular. That these are a threat to you is patently obvious by your censoring/deletion of countless posts, along with your newest additions to the religion forum rules. It's laughable...you pose as a champion of reason while employing tactics inconsistent with reason in an irrational, prejudicial, (and ultimately futile) crusade against Him Who is Reason Personified. I am not lying when I declare you a hypocrite and a phony.

That you have superstitions concerning origins can be inferred from the facts above.

I have told you what to do in order to verify the premises of his conclusions... that you cannot discern their validity is an indication of your ignorance rather then an indictment of his logic. That you refuse to remedy this ignorance despite being given information to help you demonstrates laziness, not to mention insincerity.

The "pure and utter poppycock" you mentioned is actually your blathering about original manuscripts hoping to direct the attention of readers away from your original error of reason. Employing a red herring as a 'fig leaf' for a non-sequitur is simply further evidence of your laziness and utter hypocrisy.

 

[geeser]

laziness and utter hypocrisy.

Pot/Kettle. lol

 

[SkinWalker]

Photizo, you're off the deep end, pal. I have no superstitions and you haven't demonstrated that I have. These mysterious superstitions you accuse me of having, without saying what they are, appear to be mere projection on your part -a kind of tu quoque argument that acknowledges having superstitions is a bad thing; realizing you have them; thus projecting them on your adversary so you can say, "see? You have superstitions too!" Too bad it doesn't work that way -nor have you said what these mysterious superstitions are.

You resort to ad hominem comments like "hypocrite" and "phony" or the tu quoque of "you're superstitious too" as a way of not being able to make a reasoned and logical argument to support what is clearly a set of superstitious beliefs of your own. Superstitions I'm all too happy to list, by the way (zombie messiahs, virgin births, magic healings by a sorcerer messiah; that one must believe in this zombie sorcerer to have "ever lasting life;" etc., etc.

So, when I question the claim that 99% of all current editions of the bible are accurate to the original by asking what is the "original" document in question, you accuse me of a red herring? Not only are you ignorant and unreasonable, but you do your side of the argument an embarrassing injustice.

So while you accuse me of logical fallacies that don't appear to exist -you can only resort to out-right lies and ad hominem statements to make your point. It seems very clear to the rest of the readers of this thread that it would probably be safe to question just about any opinion you might have from this point forward.

With regard to your deleted posts and those that are being "censored," preaching and giving warnings about your superstitions and personal delusions of how the universe works is against the rules. If you can't make your point without them or flaming others, you won't be allowed to post. If you don't like the rules -tough. Go find a forum on the internet with rules more to your liking. The next ban you get for preaching will be a 14-day ban, so it might be an opportunity get to know one.

 

[Myles]

irrational, prejudicial, (and ultimately futile) crusade against Him Who is Reason Personified. I am not lying when I declare you a hypocrite and a phony.


The more of your posts I read , the more confused I become. You write " .....Him Who is Reason Personified ". How can a spirit personify anything ?

One other little point which you appear not to understand. If I say there are frogs on mars, you are entitled to ask me how I know. If I reply that I read about it, you are entitled to ask where, so that you can check my claim for yourself. If I refuse to tell you my source you can reasonably believe that I am not to be believed. You are not expected to go hunting for information on frogs on mars. Why should you ? Yet you, who talk a lot about logic and reason , don't seem to understand this simple, widely accepted principle.

 

[Photizo]

Photizo, you're off the deep end, pal. I have no superstitions and you haven't demonstrated that I have. These mysterious superstitions you accuse me of having, without saying what they are, appear to be mere projection on your part -a kind of tu quoque argument that acknowledges having superstitions is a bad thing; realizing you have them; thus projecting them on your adversary so you can say, "see? You have superstitions too!" Too bad it doesn't work that way -nor have you said what these mysterious superstitions are.

You resort to ad hominem comments like "hypocrite" and "phony" or the tu quoque of "you're superstitious too" as a way of not being able to make a reasoned and logical argument to support what is clearly a set of superstitious beliefs of your own. Superstitions I'm all too happy to list, by the way (zombie messiahs, virgin births, magic healings by a sorcerer messiah; that one must believe in this zombie sorcerer to have "ever lasting life;" etc., etc.

The definition of superstition hinges upon a key word: Ominous i.e. "having a menacing or threatening aspect... ominous implies having a menacing, alarming character foreshadowing evil or disaster". Accordingly, my faith in The Word of God Incarnate/Written along with making Him/It known in this forum does not constitute superstition, rather your attitude and behavior with respect to it constitutes superstition.

There is nothing threatening about the Messiah, His Birth, Life, Death and Resurrection, nevertheless you are threatened by Him. Accordingly, and consistent with the definitions, it is you who hold the superstitions and you've "happily" listed them above. These are your own words revealing your own attitudes/superstitions, not my projections.

So, when I question the claim that 99% of all current editions of the bible are accurate to the original by asking what is the "original" document in question, you accuse me of a red herring? Not only are you ignorant and unreasonable, but you do your side of the argument an embarrassing injustice.

Questioning his claim is legitimate. Your claim that not a single shred of what he's said has merit unless he can produce an original manuscript is not.

So while you accuse me of logical fallacies that don't appear to exist

I accuse you of nothing. The facts concerning you are evident within this exchange and speak for themselves.

With regard to your deleted posts and those that are being "censored," preaching and giving warnings about your superstitions and personal delusions of how the universe works is against the rules. If you can't make your point without them or flaming others, you won't be allowed to post. If you don't like the rules -tough. Go find a forum on the internet with rules more to your liking. The next ban you get for preaching will be a 14-day ban, so it might be an opportunity get to know one.

With every post you delete and/or censor I know you've read it--and once more I've struck that superstitious nerve of yours. That you would feel it necessary to ban me demonstrates just how ominous He is to you--and how superstitious you really are.

 

[Photizo]

The more of your posts I read , the more confused I become. You write " .....Him Who is Reason Personified ". How can a spirit personify anything ?

I'm referring to Jesus Christ, The LOGOS of God. Still confused?

One other little point which you appear not to understand. If I say there are frogs on mars, you are entitled to ask me how I know. If I reply that I read about it, you are entitled to ask where, so that you can check my claim for yourself. If I refuse to tell you my source you can reasonably believe that I am not to be believed. You are not expected to go hunting for information on frogs on mars. Why should you ? Yet you, who talk a lot about logic and reason , don't seem to understand this simple, widely accepted principle.

If someone tells me something I owe it to myself to investigate the claims to determine whether or not the claims are true. To sit back and dismiss them on the basis of my limited/incomplete knowledge is not only unwise but unreasonable by definition.

 

[SkinWalker]

The definition of superstition hinges upon a key word: Ominous [...] There is nothing threatening about the Messiah,

Nor have I said there is; nor do I use a definition of superstitious that "hinges on the word ominous" capitalized or not; nor would I.

As is the case with any English word, its easy to score dictionaries until you find the definition that suits your needs, whereas most common use of the word "superstition" is simply a habit or belief wrought out of fear or ignorance and you, no doubt, realize that this colloquial definition is the one I intend. Your vain attempt to apply it to a rationalist point of view that doesn't accept or include your religious habits and beliefs -your superstitions is an obvious and pathetic attempt to continue employing the tu quoque form of ad hominem. At least you offer tacit acknowledgment that having superstitious beliefs is a bad thing.

Just to be clear, the definition of superstition that I use hasn't the necessity of "ominous" in it's product. Nor do I have any superstitions about things that don't appear to exist. The Oxford English Dictionary (2nd ed, 1989) works for me well enough:

Superstition - Unreasoning awe or fear of something unknown, mysterious, or imaginary, esp. in connexion with religion; religious belief or practice founded upon fear or ignorance; in particularized sense: An irrational religious belief or practice; a tenet, scruple, habit, etc. founded on fear or ignorance.

 

[Myles]

I'm referring to Jesus Christ, The LOGOS of God. Still confused?



If someone tells me something I owe it to myself to investigate the claims to determine whether or not the claims are true. To sit back and dismiss them on the basis of my limited/incomplete knowledge is not only unwise but unreasonable by definition.

If this is your attitude, you are in a club of one. What is wrong with expecting the person making a claim to tell you the source ? It's accepted practice for the good reason that it saves us wasting time trying to verify false claims. You are ready to quote scripture to support your utterances, so why not quote other sources to support a claim ?

Nobody was talking of sitting back and dismissing the claim. There was simply a request for a source as a starting point for investigation.

 

[Myles]

Photizo,
Can youplease answer my post no. 102
Thanks.

Myles

 

[Medicine*Woman]

I'm referring to Jesus Christ, The LOGOS of God. Still confused?

If someone tells me something I owe it to myself to investigate the claims to determine whether or not the claims are true. To sit back and dismiss them on the basis of my limited/incomplete knowledge is not only unwise but unreasonable by definition.

*************
M*W: It appears Photizo that you are the one who is confused. I know this is going to fall on your deaf xian ears, but perhaps there are others on board who will understand. You said:

I'm referring to Jesus Christ, The LOGOS of God. Still confused?

*************
M*W: The "logos" or "word" was a title of earlier sun gods than Jesus. Several sun god myths were around a long time before the creation of the Jesus myth. For example, there are at leasttt 36 sun god myths before the alleged time of Jesus--too long to list here, but I'll cite a few of the bigger ones who were named "the Logos." Jesus definitely wasn't the only one.

Prometheus of Greece - The Greek god Prometheus (figure out the etymology yourself). He descended from heaven as God incarnate to save mankind. He has a "especially professed" friend, "Petraeus (Peter), the fisherman, who deserted him. He was crucified, suffered and rose from the dead. He was called the Logos or Word. ~ T.W. Doane, Bible Myths and Their Parallels in Other Religions, Health Research, 1985. The buzz word here is "myths."

Mithra of Persia - He was born of a virgin on December 25 in a cave. He was a great traveling teacher and master. He had 12 companions traveling with him. (The buzz word here is "traveling" as in traveling planet in orbit or a "wandering star." That's astro-theology, so I won't try to spell it out for you).

Believers in Mithra were promised immortality. He performed miracles as "the great bull of the sun (Taurus) who sacrificed himself for world peace (in the Age of Taurus).

Also buried in a tomb and rising three days later, his resurrection was celebrated every year during its time in the Sign of the Zodiac. Mithra was called "the Way, the Truth and the Light," and was also known to his believers as the "Logos, Redeemer, Savior and Messiah." Sunday is the day to celebrate the "Lord's Day," centuries before Jesus." By the way, Mithra's "tomb" is located deep under the Vatican, and xianity took over for Mithraism, but only the name changed. It was still purely and simply sun worship. ~ Acharya S., The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold, Adventures Unlimimted, 1999.

Zoroaster/Zarathustra - Although Zoroaster wasn't technically called the "Logos," he was dubbed as the "Word made flesh." Same thing, though. He was also born of a virgin and "immaculate conception." ~ Kersey Graves, The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors, University Books, 1971.

He was baptized in water. He astounded wise men (astrologers, who read the stars). He was tempted by the devil. He began his ministry at age 30 (as in 30 days in a month or sign). Zoroaster even promised his believers to await a "second coming." I could go on, and I will.

"All these divine and "revealed" doctrines of the Christian faith we have seen to be originally heathen Zoroastrian mythology, taken over first by the Jews, then boldly plagarized by the Ex-Pagan Christians." ~ Joseph Wheless, Forgery in Christianity, Health Research, 1990.

Wheless further states that Jesus was also called the "Logos" or "Word." It is a common word in the Greek language which means "word," "speech," "rumor," and "reason." It is a primitive concept represents the creation of the world through speech. The "Logos" concept is not new to Christianity but is applied to a number of more ancient mythologies.

Wheless goes on to say: "As there can be no more positive and convincing proof that the Christ was and is a Pagan Myth--the old Greek "Logos" of Heraclitus and the Philosophers revamped by the Greek priest who wrote the first chapter of the "Gospel accouding to St. John" and worked up into the "Incarnate Son" of the old Hebrew God for Christian consumption as the most sacred Article of the Christian Faith and Theology. . . Thus confessedly [in the Catholic Encyclopedia] is the Divine Revelation of the "Word made flesh" a Pagan-Jewish Myth, and the very Pagan Demiurge is the Christian Christ--"Very God"--and the "Second Person of the Blessed Trinity."

Another scholar of ancient religions is quoted to state:

"The hypothesis that Joshua is the original Jesus--the origin of the myths which blended in a composite pattern mistaken for real history--solves many problems. . . The association of Joshua with conceptions of Logos, Son of God, and Messiah is present in the Pentateuch. ~ J.M. Robertson, Pagan Christs, Dorset, 1966.

Wheless, quoting Cardinal Newman. . . says that "the doctine of the Logos in Platonic in origin.

I especially like the citation that goes:

"The Word is also found in the Phoenician Creed. As in all those of Asia, a Word of God, written in starry characters, by the planetary divinities, and communicated by the Demi-Gods, as a profound mystery, to the higher classes of the human race, to be communicated by them to mankind, created the world." ~ Albert Pike, The Morals and Dogma of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, L.H. Jenkins, 1928.

In a nutshell, the "Logos" is simply the study of the sun as god, and it's all myth. I won't elaborate on the second part of your post, but are you not aware that atheists know more about your religion than you do?

I have several more references on the "Logos," but I think you get my drift.

 

[kaneda]

Yes, like Herod wanted to know the whereabouts of the Christ Child that he might worship him along with the Magi.

Strange that Jew, Josephus who wrote on all things Jewish, including much inconsequential stuff, did not think it worth writing about Herod slaughtering thousands of Jewish children. Anyone would think it never happened.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

Strange that Jew, Josephus who wrote on all things Jewish, including much inconsequential stuff, did not think it worth writing about Herod slaughtering thousands of Jewish children. Anyone would think it never happened.

*************
M*W: I'm with you kaneda. That was a story to incite fear. It's symbolic. I'll explain it astro-theologically. Herod feared the birth of the sun, or more likely the rebirth of the setting sun. Herod may have been a historical person, but the story involving him doesn't mean it's true. I watched a remake of the nativity story the other day, and Herod was depicted as a bull worshipper (the Sign of Taurus), which alludes to the particular time of the year, the coming springtime when rebirth comes to the sun's light and growth of crops. I cannot interpret what the baby boys under two years means, but "two years" may have a significance to something, since the whole bible seems to be about times and seasons, etc.. I think somehow Herod represents something astrological, since his step-daughter, Salome, "beheads" JtB. Astro-theologically, "beheading" is a reference to one planet moving in front of another as if it beheads it. My interpretation of JtB's beheading is that another planet or astronomical body crossed over the Constellation of Aquarius as if it had beheaded JtB. That's my interpretation.

I think everyone who sets out to read the bible should first read Josephus: The Complete Works, translated by William Whitson, A.M., Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1998. It is definitely required reading for theists and atheists.

*************
M*W's Friendly Atheist Quote of the Day:

"A myth is a religion in which no one any longer believes." ~ James K. Feibleman

 

[Dr Mabuse]

Criticizing the bible is an implied criticism of those who have the need to propogate it. If my ctiticizm gives only a few people pause for thought, it's worth the effort.

while i can appreciate you are making attempts at logic, and a clever response... if you don't see the fundamental problem with your words above... you wouldn't understand if i explained it to you...

Now you are doing what you accuse others of doing. You are condemning books without having read and studied them thoroughly. You are clearly no Shirley Maclaine scholar in the sense you would have those who criticize the Bible be. I assume this is because you know the Bible is all that's needed. Perhaps you might find the truth in Shirley's books if you devoted more time to their study.

again this a good attempt at 'turning the tables'... but i am familiar with her works and ideas... and no i wasn't "condemning books without having read and studied them thoroughly"... i guess you didn't understand... i was saying since i found them to be nonsense i wouldn't mount any sort of attack on them, or defense of them... i wouldn't invest any time or energy in that way... but it was a decent debate tactic i suppose, and worth some merit on those grounds alone...

i am also familiar with Chuang Tzu, Dr. Richard Alpert, Dogen, Siddhārtha Gautama, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Akhenaton, the Bardo Thodul, Lao Tzu, Socrates and his students, Yasutani Roshi, portions of the Mahabharata Epic, including the most well known portion relating to Arjuna i have read many times in several translations, the Upanishads, Shunryu Suzuki, the Shobogenzo Zuimonki, etc. etc. etc... hell even Dr. Wayne Dyer... lol... i've looked into these things rather at depth... as well as the Bible...

It's a political action based on the certainy of blind faith , which is beyond rational discussion. How, for example. can one have a rational discussion on the teaching of evolutionary theory in schools, when its opponents use arguments which are based on a total misunderstanding of the subject. Are you aware that most Americans are scientifically illiterate ? A survey carried out in 2001 by the National Science Foundation found, for example, that 50% could not be certain that the earth orbits the sun and takes one year to do it.

you avoided my point, and an answer to it... political action... no matter the motivation... necessitates only political action to counter it... no forays into theological discussion... but you have fully neglected the point and question at hand... i won't wait any further on a reply that is on topic and pertinent...

You are assumimg that I an others like me have no understanding of the Bible.
In my case you are completely wrong. I have said I was brought up a Christian and remained one until I began to question the Bible. I concluded it was mythology and that was an informed decision

no i did not assume... any one, in any area of life, who knows a subject, what ever subject, well and thoroughly... can easily tell another who is knowledgeable from one who claims to be...

You make the above statement and then take offence when I suggest you are one of the elect, i.e., one of the 1%. I don't know the source of your data , but I believe Photizo would be pleased if you explained why the Bible is an anti-religion book

i didn't take personal offense... i called you on such an illogical leap into nonsense... avoiding a response to a question you simply couldn't answer, by projecting nonsensical meaning into my words... instead of honestly admitting you had no answer, or even making an attempt to respond...

I am not wasting further time studying the Bible but I will continue to oppose those who would have others believe it. That is my motivation for posting . I don't see it as a waste of time. As I said earlier , if I can give just a few people pause for thought before accepting your blinkered view of the world, it will be time well spent.

if you yourself can't describe the problem with these words above... you wouldn't understand if i explained it to you...

"your blinkered view of the world" what view of mine have you just made up now?... you failed to even clearly state what you were projecting into my words in this case...

You spoke of circular logic and, in so doing , you have fouled your own nest. Let's put your argument this way:

Those who criticize the Bible are largely ignorant of it
They have not read the Bible sufficiently to qualify them as critics
When they do read the Bible thoroughly they will not criticize it because they will know that it is true

as much as you leapt boldly into off topic and wholly illogical nonsense with the 'elect' assertion...

this rather tops it...

you add on the "When they do read the Bible thoroughly they will not criticize it because they will know that it is true"...

i never even came close to that thought, or idea, any where in my words... there was not even a hint of that idea, or even a smack of that sentiment in any post i have made... this is a miserably poor attempt at a clever response in fact... a poor effort... and complete nonsense...

you can make another 'long post' if you like... one that you think appears to be a thorough response... but you don't directly, or even indirectly, address my questions because you either don't understand them, or lack the ability to respond...

i at least paid you the respect only reading your words... not reading my own ideas into them... i addressed your words directly... asking pointed questions... and not making up unrelated nonsense, and attempting to assign the nonsense of my own creation to your words and their meanings... you haven't returned the same respect to me...

 

[Myles]

while i can appreciate you are making attempts at logic, and a clever response... if you don't see the fundamental problem with your words above... you wouldn't understand if i explained it to you...



again this a good attempt at 'turning the tables'... but i am familiar with her works and ideas... and no i wasn't "condemning books without having read and studied them thoroughly"... i guess you didn't understand... i was saying since i found them to be nonsense i wouldn't mount any sort of attack on them, or defense of them... i wouldn't invest any time or energy in that way... but it was a decent debate tactic i suppose, and worth some merit on those grounds alone...

i am also familiar with Chuang Tzu, Dr. Richard Alpert, Dogen, Siddhārtha Gautama, Epictetus, Marcus Aurelius, Jiddu Krishnamurti, Akhenaton, the Bardo Thodul, Lao Tzu, Socrates and his students, Yasutani Roshi, portions of the Mahabharata Epic, including the most well known portion relating to Arjuna i have read many times in several translations, the Upanishads, Shunryu Suzuki, the Shobogenzo Zuimonki, etc. etc. etc... hell even Dr. Wayne Dyer... lol... i've looked into these things rather at depth... as well as the Bible...




you avoided my point, and an answer to it... political action... no matter the motivation... necessitates only political action to counter it... no forays into theological discussion... but you have fully neglected the point and question at hand... i won't wait any further on a reply that is on topic and pertinent...




no i did not assume... any one, in any area of life, who knows a subject, what ever subject, well and thoroughly... can easily tell another who is knowledgeable from one who claims to be...




i didn't take personal offense... i called you on such an illogical leap into nonsense... avoiding a response to a question you simply couldn't answer, by projecting nonsensical meaning into my words... instead of honestly admitting you had no answer, or even making an attempt to respond...




if you yourself can't describe the problem with these words above... you wouldn't understand if i explained it to you...

"your blinkered view of the world" what view of mine have you just made up now?... you failed to even clearly state what you were projecting into my words in this case...




as much as you leapt boldly into off topic and wholly illogical nonsense with the 'elect' assertion...

this rather tops it...

you add on the "When they do read the Bible thoroughly they will not criticize it because they will know that it is true"...

i never even came close to that thought, or idea, any where in my words... there was not even a hint of that idea, or even a smack of that sentiment in any post i have made... this is a miserably poor attempt at a clever response in fact... a poor effort... and complete nonsense...

you can make another 'long post' if you like... one that you think appears to be a thorough response... but you don't directly, or even indirectly, address my questions because you either don't understand them, or lack the ability to respond...

i at least paid you the respect only reading your words... not reading my own ideas into them... i addressed your words directly... asking pointed questions... and not making up unrelated nonsense, and attempting to assign the nonsense of my own creation to your words and their meanings... you haven't returned the same respect to me...

I concede defeat. I cannot possibly compete with someone who can deduce that I know little about the Bible without my having told him to what extent I have studied it. That takes real genius.

I cannot see why you provided us with all the other works you have studied in addition to the Bible. You have certainly frightened me with your scholarship and left me no choice but to draw the line under our dialogue. I do not wish to waste any more of your time as I'm sure you are anxious to catch up on your reading. If , as I imagine, you are working through the alphabet, you have a long way to go before you get to Zoroastrianism.