|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Bingo
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:09 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Of course he existed.  Did you even read the articles posted above? There is just about as much evidence for the existence of Jesus as there is for Thor. Ancient tales about a character that nobody met are hardly hard evidence.
And if he did exist - which is possible - it's still a massive leap of logic to believe all the faitytales written about him by a bunch of superstitious, uneducated characters two millenia ago.
Please, please remember this. The bible is a collection of historical documents written by various persons. Like any historical document it must be analysed as such. When historians look at any written document they must keep several questions in mind. These include: Who wrote this document? Did the person writing it have first hand knowledge of the events described therein? Was the document written at the time the events occured, or were they written down years or decades later? Do other writers on the same subject concur on the details? Were they also eye witnesses? These and other questions must be brought to historical analysis. On every count the bible fails as a reliable document.
I want to recommend a book to everone who is following this thread. It's even available at Kyobo bookstore. It's called Who Wrote the Bible. It deals with the OT only, but it is a terrific read by a renowned scholar of the Old Testament. After reading this book, if you can still believe what you believe about the bible I give up. Believe whatever nonsense you want.
A mind is a terrible thing to waste.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RACETRAITOR
Joined: 24 Oct 2005
Location: Seoul, South Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bingo wrote: |
And if he did exist - which is possible - it's still a massive leap of logic to believe all the faitytales written about him by a bunch of superstitious, uneducated characters two millenia ago.
|
Believing one doesn't mean believing the other. I believe L Ron Hubbard existed but I don't believe he could break through the Wall of Fire R6 implant. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Bingo
Joined: 22 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 14, 2007 6:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Please read this book. It is indispensible to any informed discussion of the bible as an historical document.
http://www99.epinions.com/Who_Wrote_the_Bible_by_Richard_Elliott_Friedman/display_~full_specs?linkin_id=3017924
It's even available at Kyobo bookstore in Gwanghwamoon. This is an important book that should be widely read. It completely destroys any notion that the OT was in any was inspired by a deity.
There's no reason not to pick up this book. Written by an internationally respected historian. Every person interested in this subject matter should have this book in their personal library. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
just alittlecrazy
Joined: 30 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Bingo wrote: |
It completely destroys any notion that the OT was in any was inspired by a deity.
|
It is only christains that claim this. jews still debate what it all means, who wrote it etc. the talmud and the mishnah are part of this debate and it still continues in synagogues and yeshivas. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cangel
Joined: 19 Jun 2003
Location: Jeonju, S. Korea
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'm not so biased against religion that I can't admit the man existed. And, I don't want to spend time on the net finding the tons of evidence supporting the life of Jesus (the mortal man). Anyway, this pretty much sums up my opinion on the matter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NwJzAwmqQh8 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xian
Joined: 08 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Please, please remember this. The bible is a collection of historical documents written by various persons. Like any historical document it must be analysed as such. When historians look at any written document they must keep several questions in mind. These include: Who wrote this document? Did the person writing it have first hand knowledge of the events described therein? Was the document written at the time the events occured, or were they written down years or decades later? Do other writers on the same subject concur on the details? Were they also eye witnesses? These and other questions must be brought to historical analysis. On every count the bible fails as a reliable document. |
I could be wrong, but I would question whether you have taken your own advice here, at least with an open mind, because I totally agree with your advice and totally disagree with your conclusion.
The Bible is by far, and I mean FAR, the most reliable documents of antiquity. Homers Iliad is second, but still doesn't compare to the New and Old Testaments (granted though, some will question some content, there is not better preserved docements than these - which have maintained accuracy of translation and integrity of content)..
Writing things that were held a while in oral tradition was common for the Jewish people.
You are right in mentioning history, but the Bible should not been seen like a normal historical book. The Bible does contain history, but it was not the authors intention to write it as history. It is recording 'salvation history' and when they are writing, they are not necessarily writing in chronological order and with blow by blow accounts of what happened. The writers had an agenda according to the audience, so they are wrote particular things and in a particular way.
| Quote: |
| I want to recommend a book to everone who is following this thread. It's even available at Kyobo bookstore. It's called Who Wrote the Bible. It deals with the OT only, but it is a terrific read by a renowned scholar of the Old Testament. After reading this book, if you can still believe what you believe about the bible I give up. Believe whatever nonsense you want. |
Its a good idea to read up on the topic, but I would suggest reading a few different books on the same topic. You language shows a heavy bias.
If people are seriously interested an open to the topic, they will look at all sides of the argument while letting go of baggage for the academic exercise.
It is a waste of time reading such things without an open mind.
There is some fantastic evidence to support the Bible and its integrity and also some great apologetical writings, but its fair enough to question things and there will always be some tough issues, like who really wrote the books of the Torah or Hebrews (really isn't a big issue, they were written). There is also an element of faith to be a believer. It is a spiritual issue.
I am so glad that my spirit isn't dead to God anymore. . . I don't care what others think about Christians and their faith in God. Any Christian should be able to say that they have gained from becoming a Christian, not lost (and that with a perspective of life on both sides of the fence). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 10:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
I'd recommend just reading the bible to conclude that.
A book full of historical and scientific inaccuracies and numerous contradictions, generally an immoral book. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 2:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xian wrote: |
| The Bible is by far, and I mean FAR, the most reliable documents of antiquity |
Who says that?
| Quote: |
| The Bible does contain history, but it was not the authors intention to write it as history. It is recording 'salvation history' and when they are writing, they are not necessarily writing in chronological order and with blow by blow accounts of what happened. |
That's a pretty sweeping generalization for all the books in the bible. How do you know the intention of each author?
All the same. I hope you're not making the argument that because the bible gets certain kings, historical events, and city locations correct then that means the miraculous events described within are as historically accurate. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xian
Joined: 08 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
[quote="mindmetoo"]
| Xian wrote: |
| The Bible is by far, and I mean FAR, the most reliable documents of antiquity |
Who says that? |
Research on the documents that maticulously go over the oldest copies of ancient texts and comparing them with newer ones and the ones that modern translation are translated from. Iliad is good, but it is just not proven as accurate. The Bible we read today is 98-99.5% accurate compared to the oldest documents. The errors are minor stylistic errors mostly. I haven't studied it extensively, but I did read up on it. Also an issue is the age difference between the actual dates of the documents and the oldest transcripts.
I have some notes about it, but I will only post them on request.
| Quote: |
| Quote: |
| The Bible does contain history, but it was not the authors intention to write it as history. It is recording 'salvation history' and when they are writing, they are not necessarily writing in chronological order and with blow by blow accounts of what happened. |
That's a pretty sweeping generalization for all the books in the bible. How do you know the intention of each author? |
I don't claim that I know it all and everyone else is wrong, I am just sharing from my perspective as someone who has spent a reasonable amount of time in studying the Bible and its history and context (and a few other things)
| Quote: |
| All the same. I hope you're not making the argument that because the bible gets certain kings, historical events, and city locations correct then that means the miraculous events described within are as historically accurate. |
Well, its no secret that I am a Christian, so I do believe that miraculous events in the Bible occured. I don't come to that assumption as a result of some historical accuracy though. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 15, 2007 6:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| Many people come with a bias towards the argument though (on both sides of the discussion), so despite evidence on both sides, the mind is really made up before they even approach the facts with an objective mind. |
And when a poster has a username like "Xian" ("Christian"), it's a pretty sure bet that he has his mind made up already. I mean, if the Bible were found to not be infallible, he'd have to change his username and all. What a bummer that would be.
| Xian wrote: |
| So what academic support does the Jesus Myth have???? I don't know any good argument for it. |
| Xian wrote: |
| I haven't read the book [The Jesus Puzzle, by Earl Doherty] ... |
*Ahem*
We could start with the lack of secular historical evidence. And don't start with Josephus, Suetonius, Tacitus, etc. I and other posters have already addressed those elsewhere.
| Quote: |
Should Paul know all of Jesus words? He was not with Jesus during Jesus' lifetime and ministry. He did encounter Him (noted in Acts), but it doesn't mean he instantly knew what Matthew and Mark would write at a later date or the exact details of every event of His life.
|
It wasn't that Paul was unaware of just one quote. Paul seems to know almost nothing of any of Jesus' saying or the events of his life. He talks about the crucification, death, resurrection, but seems totally unaware of things like the Pilate trial, the Sanhedrin conspiracy, the empty tomb story and a whole lot more detail that he should have known if Jesus had really said and done some of the things attributed to him in the canonical gospels. I only gave one very salient example. There are many other cases in the Pauline letters where some statements are begging to be backed up by the alleged "events" of Jesus life or his "sayings" yet Paul chooses to back them up with his "revelations" instead.
http://www.inu.net/skeptic/paulsig.html
| Quote: |
| Let us consider the question of Paul's ignorance, perhaps the most perplexing problem confronting the defenders of the historical Jesus. The Apostle Paul, often referred to as the real founder of Christianity, seems to have been totally unaware of any details of Jesus' life and teachings as they are presented in the New Testament gospels. Nowhere does Paul equate his hero, Jesus Christ, with a virgin born miracle worker from Nazareth recently put to death in Judea. Certainly it is not unreasonable to expect that somewhere among his extensive writings he would have betrayed some knowledge of the circumstances surrounding these most important events had they actually occurred. |
In any case, if he did exist, he probably looked more like this:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/research/1282186.html
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xian
Joined: 08 Jan 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 4:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
"Troll_Bait"
Go read a good commentary or Bible dictionary or something from the other side of the fence if you want to bring some credible discussion to the argument. What you have brought proves nothing.
Paul's writings are brilliant, but certain people obvsiously are expecting something from the writings that don't have to be there. Paul didn't write a Gospel, he wrote letters to churches addressing issues in each place. He spoke about theology and church issues and how to deal with heresy's within various churches.
I don't know what you previously said about those secular sources, but irrespective, there are good sources, both the Bible and secular ones. People can 'try' and discredit them, but it doesn't take away from the truth.
You will never get it with a closed mind. If people at least have an open mind, it can at least turn out to be an interesting discussion. You cannot fairly say that a Christian has a closed mind as no one is born a Christian. They were non-christians who made a decision to follow God. That at least gives credibility to being on your side of the fence at some point in time. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Xian wrote: |
Research on the documents that maticulously go over the oldest copies of ancient texts and comparing them with newer ones and the ones that modern translation are translated from. Iliad is good, but it is just not proven as accurate. The Bible we read today is 98-99.5% accurate compared to the oldest documents. The errors are minor stylistic errors mostly. I haven't studied it extensively, but I did read up on it. Also an issue is the age difference between the actual dates of the documents and the oldest transcripts.
I have some notes about it, but I will only post them on request. |
Do you have a source on this? Preferably an academic source (ie maybe a peer reviewed journal). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
newton kabiddles
Joined: 31 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 7:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| if you're on earth you only know what's on earth |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Cheonmunka
Joined: 04 Jun 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 1:03 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The Bible is so full of contradictions. In the Catholic bible the big one would be in Sirach and Proverbs it talks about not believing in dreams as dreams are but a realisation of sins going through your unconscious thoughts. Then at the end of the whole book, the beginning of Revelations is "I had this dream and in my dream there were seven ..." |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ED209
Joined: 17 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 16, 2007 5:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Xian wrote: |
"Troll_Bait"
Go read a good commentary or Bible dictionary or something from the other side of the fence if you want to bring some credible discussion to the argument. What you have brought proves nothing.
Paul's writings are brilliant, but certain people obvsiously are expecting something from the writings that don't have to be there. Paul didn't write a Gospel, he wrote letters to churches addressing issues in each place. He spoke about theology and church issues and how to deal with heresy's within various churches.
I don't know what you previously said about those secular sources, but irrespective, there are good sources, both the Bible and secular ones. People can 'try' and discredit them, but it doesn't take away from the truth.
You will never get it with a closed mind. If people at least have an open mind, it can at least turn out to be an interesting discussion. You cannot fairly say that a Christian has a closed mind as no one is born a Christian. They were non-christians who made a decision to follow God. That at least gives credibility to being on your side of the fence at some point in time. |
Glad you mentioned closed minded. So you accept the existence of fairies finally. Because you know everyone else here apart from you and me are too closed minded to 'see'.
Atheists don't question the fairies! You arrogant hell bound sodomites!
Why can't people just believe without question? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
