Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Messiah Before Jesus « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 13



Guest
#30 : July 06, 2008, 02:21:03 PM


Well, that second myth still permeates almost every aspect of our daily life. If other people choose to continue believing the myth, I'm fine with that, it's their choice. But if they want to continue forcing that myth on everyone around them, well, I'm not fine with that.

Now that evidence to the contrary has been presented, it seems that they don't want to discuss it. It's still early though, so we'll give it some time. But the consensus that I'm getting so far, from the words of Java and Chrispy, and the silence of the rest, is that not many are really interested in the truth. That alone is worth discussing, considering that one of the mainstays of the Bible crowd around here is that people who don't share their beliefs have stopped searching for the truth. Hypocrisy like that is hard to ignore.

And as a sidenote, I'm not lumping Java in with the Bible crowd, just with those who seem to have no interest in learning the truth of this matter.

Biggs3535

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 31392
Online
#31 : July 06, 2008, 02:24:47 PM

I can see that this is a waste of time. Accuracy is not the issue. Plagiarism is.

I don't understand the issue with this story.  What is the importance of there being a stone where rising after three days was talked about before Jesus' time?  For those that believe in Jesus, why should this change their belief?

Did the Wright Brothers "plagiarize?"


ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28691
Offline
#32 : July 06, 2008, 01:51:24 PM

There is absolutely no possible way to validate the accuracy of anything scrawled on a rock from 2000 years ago regardless.

Then why are so many trying to force the morality of the Bible on their fellow citizens to this day?


I think what Java is saying is that two wrong myths don't make a right. But in this particular instance,
we're talking about about where the 2nd myth makers got their story from. And this tablet could be
the place. Or show that the myth was around a few decades before Jesus.





Guest
#33 : July 06, 2008, 01:34:59 PM

There is absolutely no possible way to validate the accuracy of anything scrawled on a rock from 2000 years ago regardless.

Then why are so many trying to force the morality of the Bible on their fellow citizens to this day?

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28691
Offline
#34 : July 06, 2008, 01:33:48 PM

And I disagree. Muhammad was a powerful man. He could afford to hire highly educated scholars to transcribe his words and take the extra step of having them etched in stone. Could a deluded idiot accomplish this? Not likely.

Just as a hypothetical, let's say your theory was plausible. Since the time period when this tablet was written has been narrowed down, what you're saying is that someone was able to plant a piece of evidence contradicting what people would believe thousands of years later about a religion that hadn't even been founded yet. If anything, that would be even more amazing.


There is absolutely no possible way to validate the accuracy of anything scrawled on a rock from 2000 years ago regardless.

I can see that this is a waste of time. Accuracy is not the issue. Plagiarism is.




Guest
#35 : July 06, 2008, 01:32:24 PM

There's a fine line between genius and insanity.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28691
Offline
#36 : July 06, 2008, 01:32:43 PM

And maybe some deluded guy changed the Jesus story to something completely different than
what really happened.

I think now you are starting to understand.    The possibilities of these stories that are over 1000 years old being accurate are about nill regardless of how much research is done.

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if the writing is accurate about anything in particular. If it DOES
say what the scholars think it says. And it IS from a few decades before Christ. Then it shows (as Illuminator
mentioned) that the rising after three days stuff was around before Jesus and not unique to Jesus. So,
anybody with an open mind would say that the rising after three days stuff probably was just added to
the Jesus story afterwards. Unless, Jesus actually did accomplish what some idiot wrote down on a
tablet a few decades before Jesus was around. Yes, that would amazing!


JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#37 : July 06, 2008, 01:25:11 PM

And I disagree. Muhammad was a powerful man. He could afford to hire highly educated scholars to transcribe his words and take the extra step of having them etched in stone. Could a deluded idiot accomplish this? Not likely.

Just as a hypothetical, let's say your theory was plausible. Since the time period when this tablet was written has been narrowed down, what you're saying is that someone was able to plant a piece of evidence contradicting what people would believe thousands of years later about a religion that hadn't even been founded yet. If anything, that would be even more amazing.


There is absolutely no possible way to validate the accuracy of anything scrawled on a rock from 2000 years ago regardless.

JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#38 : July 06, 2008, 01:23:19 PM

And maybe some deluded guy changed the Jesus story to something completely different than
what really happened.

I think now you are starting to understand.    The possibilities of these stories that are over 1000 years old being accurate are about nil regardless of how much research is done.



Guest
#39 : July 06, 2008, 01:22:27 PM

And I disagree. Muhammad was a powerful man. He could afford to hire highly educated scholars to transcribe his words and take the extra step of having them etched in stone. Could a deluded idiot accomplish this? Not likely.

Just as a hypothetical, let's say your theory was plausible. Since the time period when this tablet was written has been narrowed down, what you're saying is that someone was able to plant a piece of evidence contradicting what people would believe thousands of years later about a religion that hadn't even been founded yet. If anything, that would be even more amazing.

ufojoe

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28691
Offline
#40 : July 06, 2008, 01:18:16 PM

And maybe some deluded guy changed the Jesus story to something completely different than
what really happened.

Go read about Paul and what James and the other followers of Jesus thought about him.

Here's something slightly different from James Tabor's blog. He's the author of "The Jesus Dynasty."

http://www.jesusdynasty.com/blog/2007/02/21/where-did-paul-get-his-authority-teachings

February 21st, 2007

Where Did Paul Get His Authority & Teachings?

Filed under: Biblical Expositions — James Tabor @ 12:23 am
A number of times in Paul’s letters he uses a technical term in Greek, “to receive,” which is translated from a Greek verb paralambano, which does indeed often mean to pass on something from one authority to another by tradition (i.e., literally “handed on”).

For example, in 1 Corinthians 15 one of the most important chapters for Christian faith in the entire New Testament, Paul writes that he has “received” and then “passed on” (paradidomai) the teaching of that “Christ” (notice he does not say “Jesus”) died for sins, was buried, and was raised the “third day,” and then was seen by various ones–Peter, the Twelve, 500 brothers at once, James (Jesus’ brother), and all the apostles. Most have assumed this means Paul “received” this by some kind of testimony, as if he was told it on a human level, perhaps directly by Peter, or James, or some of the Twelve. That would indeed be a natural and potentially logical reading of Paul’s claims to have “received” this “gospel.”

However, if one begins to examine more carefully just how independently Paul claims to have “received” this or that, it becomes clear that he is not in fact getting these ideas, facts, and narratives, from sources who were eyewitnesses and thus passed them on to him. Rather he makes the explicit claim that he did not get his “gospel,” which he carefully defines in 1 Cor 15:1, from men, or from any human source, but by a revelation from Jesus Christ himself (Galatians 1:11-12). In fact, he uses the very same verb in these verses, namely, paralambano as he does in 1 Corinthians 15.

So if Paul claims that his “gospel,” of the “death, burial, and resurrection” of Jesus did not come from men, does he intend to say, after all, that he talked to James or to Peter or to John and received from them these testimonies he reports?

This is a very crucial point since many conservative Christians believers base everything on 1 Corinthians 15. It has become for these folk the absolute bedrock of the faith. Most who are trained in a bit of scholarship admit that the four Gospels came later, forty to sixty years after Jesus death, but there seems to be a special triumphant delight in pointing out that Paul writes that he received these things, and that he must mean he got them from the Jerusalem “pillars” (James, Peter, John), so they must go back to very soon after Jesus death.

The problem with this is that when Paul uses this special verb “receive,” which does normally mean something handed on from teacher to student, from hand to hand, from mouth to mouth, he does not mean it on any ordinary human level. What he clearly says he means is that he gets these things directly from Christ!

Now, these are not just general “impressions” or inspirational ideas. Paul actually claims to get sustained narrative accounts and specific information directly from Jesus. Notice his language in 1 Corinthians 11:23 when he says how he “received” (same Greek verb paralambano) his account of the Last Supper where Jesus told his disciples to drink his blood and eat his body through symbols of wine and bread! Where did he get such a shocking and totally non-Jewish idea? Eating human flesh and drinking human blood–even as a symbol? It is totally unknown in Jewish culture but well known in Greek magical rites. Notice, in his own words, he tells us. It was not from James, or Peter, or John, or from any of the Twelve where were there at the Last Supper–but he says very plainly: I received from the Lord that which I also delivered to you…

As I see it these are the most telling twelve words in the history of Western ideas.

Think of it. Paul’s essential vision of things was taken up by Augustine and others and literally became Christianity, which then, combined with Plato, became the foundation of Western civilization.

But where did Paul, who never knew Jesus, get what he says he got? He tells us here–”from the Lord.” But since Jesus is long dead, he must be getting this from clairvoyant voices and visions and revelations, of which he says he has had many! (2 Corinthians 12). That he would even claim to get this kind of narrative material from “the Lord,” that is a detailed account of what happened at the Last Supper, should give anyone pause. He is not here passing on what he got from those who were there, but he is saying he got it from “the Lord,” in heaven by supernatural revelation.

Given that language, this must also be what he means in 1 Corinthians 15 when he reports these “resurrection” sightings. Notice carefully, he uses the same precise language when he tells his followers at Thessalonica how the events at the appearance of Christ (2nd coming) will unfold. What he says is, “This I tell you by the word of the Lord...” (1 Thess 4:15). He then gives details of just how things will unfold, far beyond what anyone could ascertain from texts of the Hebrew Prophets. So how would he know such things? He tells you plainly–the Lord told him!

What people need to realize is that if one bases faith on what Paul taught, which all Christians do, then that basis is not coming from those who were with Jesus (whom Paul sarcastically calls the “so-called pillars of the church”), but upon voices and visions and revelations that Paul is “hearing” and “seeing.” For some that is a strong foundation. For many, including I think most historians, it is really something that one must question in terms of accurate and reliable historical information. Can Paul really know what went on at the Last Supper when he was not there? Can he really know how the events of the end will unfold?

I am working on a book about Paul and this central problem, long ago noted by Paul’s oppoments, later labeled as “Ebionites,” is central to my thesis. I am continually amazed at how much is build upon Paul and how little on Jesus. Paul perfers the words Lord and Christ. The name “Jesus” suggests to him something too close to what he calls negatively “Christ after the flesh.” Paul is all for “Christ,” but cares little for Jesus as he was on earth as a human being who lived and died. He minimizes those who knew Jesus and those whom Jesus personally chose to represent him. All now comes from “the Lord,” but he means by this a heavenly glorified being who in his fantasy sits above all powers and realities of the entire universe but speaks directly to Paul, his special chosen one, with direct voice contact and information. If Paul is right, then so be it. But if he is wrong, then what a left turn was taken away from the historical Jesus. I say reader beware.


JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#41 : July 06, 2008, 01:14:32 PM

I didnt say Muhammed was a deluded idiot.   I said he couldnt write.   Who knows if he was deluded, a genius, or average?   My point is that anyone, including a deluded idiot could get someone to write anything they wanted if they paid them.   



Guest
#42 : July 06, 2008, 12:15:16 PM


Some people are more interested in the truth than they are in preserving myths.



Guest
#43 : July 06, 2008, 01:10:11 PM


So, to clarify, you're saying that Muhammad was a deluded idiot? I find it interesting that you would disparage and discredit one religion, while still being willing to give another belief system that is very similar in nature the benefit of the doubt.

JavaBuc

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 28661
Offline
#44 : July 06, 2008, 01:04:44 PM

Deluded idiots of that age couldn't write.

Muhammed couldn't write either.   But that didn't stop him from dictating to others to write down what he said.   Maybe some deluded idiot dictated to someone who could write.
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 ... 13
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  Pirate's Cove (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: The Messiah Before Jesus « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools