Indoctrination & Mental Gymnastics

[The Grand Nudger]

Except for the episcopalians, who officially espouse the doctrine of the Trinity as far as I can tell, I definitely feel that these denominations embrace an incorrect understanding of the nature of Christ.

Not -your- version of the trinity....even "the trinity" has many interpretations, and they don't require that anyone even hold -that- position (they're comfortable with anyone who professes faith in jesus christ - the rest creates useless division, to their "official" minds). I'm glad you finally saw the light, though. Now if only the rest of you would.

Those non-trinitarians, btw, will point to scripture all...day...long (trinitarianism doesn't come from the bible, it comes from christian culture). Many of them feel that you are a pagan. You'd balk at such an implication, I'm sure (and not without justification). In the spirit of christian brotherhood, I think that you should all recognize that your positions are on equal ground. I see no reason for you to include Episcolpalians (horseshoes and hand grenades) but exclude Unitarians (these guys are just non-literalists...you don't have a problem with that, right?), LDS (nutballs, admittedly, but christian nutballs nonetheless) or Witnesses(their organization is pure cult...but you won't find an un-biblical bone in it's body), for example. Quakers....anybody who won't tent up with a quaker is bad news....even I like quakers...lol. Within the trinatarian sub-tent...you'll actually find that there are still differences and nuance in various sects christology, btw, and all of this is ignoring the fact that individual believers don't always believe everything exactly as the boss tells it, eh?

(I'm sitting here reading all the shitty things that CARM has to say about Witnesses, for example, thinking to myself...."doesn't this fucker realize that all of his criticism of them apply equally to any denomination - including his own? -I'd be a good CARM writer....it would seem, and that's telling)

[Lek]

Philo of Alexandria
The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.

You're just typed 10,000 words, none of which show conclusive evidence that the biblical writings are untrue. Sure you've stated opinions of qualified historians and scholars and then passed them off as demonstrating that your assertions are true. You've attempted to qualify your supposition that christian writers were biased, and therefore lying, and the same for oral tradition, but again what proof do you have of this? Are the teams of qualified historians and bible scholars, who disagree with your assumptions, that have written the commentaries in the numerous modern day bibles biased liars also? I'm just taking one example from your post. Philo lived in Alexandria all of his life. He did mention in his writings that he visited Jerusalem, but never stated how long he spent there or the specific time frame. In fact, we know almost nothing of the details of his life. Show the words from Philo's writings that state that he was present in Jerusalem during the crucifixion, resurrection, etc., especially when we're not even sure of the dates?

[goodwithoutgod]

Philo of Alexandria
The early years of the Roman Republic is one of the most historically documented times in history. One of the writers alive during the time of Jesus was Philo-Judaeus (sometimes known as Philo of Alexandria).
Philo was born before the beginning of the Christian era, and lived until long after the reputed death of Christ. He wrote an account of the Jews covering the entire time that Christ is said to have existed on earth. He was living in or near Jerusalem when Christ’s miraculous birth and the Herodian massacre occurred. He was there when Christ made his triumphal entry into Jerusalem. He was there when the crucifixion happened with its attendant earthquake, supernatural darkness and resurrection of the dead took place – when Christ himself rose from the dead and in the presence of many witnesses ascended into heaven. These amazing marvelous events which must have filled the world with amazement, had they really occurred, were all unknown to him. It was Philo who developed the doctrine of the Logos, or Word, and although this Word incarnate dwelt in that very land and in the presence of multitudes revealed himself and demonstrated his divine powers, Philo saw it not.
Philo might be considered the investigative reporter of his day. He was there on location during the early first century, talking with people who should have remembered or at least heard the stories, observed, taking notes, documenting. He reported nothing about Jesus.

You're just typed 10,000 words, none of which show conclusive evidence that the biblical writings are untrue. Sure you've stated opinions of qualified historians and scholars and then passed them off as demonstrating that your assertions are true. You've attempted to qualify your supposition that christian writers were biased, and therefore lying, and the same for oral tradition, but again what proof do you have of this? Are the teams of qualified historians and bible scholars, who disagree with your assumptions, that have written the commentaries in the numerous modern day bibles biased liars also? I'm just taking one example from your post. Philo lived in Alexandria all of his life. He did mention in his writings that he visited Jerusalem, but never stated how long he spent there or the specific time frame. In fact, we know almost nothing of the details of his life. Show the words from Philo's writings that state that he was present in Jerusalem during the crucifixion, resurrection, etc., especially when we're not even sure of the dates?

That is why they were cited, do some reading, some research. Biblical scholars have known these facts for a long time, they just don't advertise them. My favorite communication from the REL 450 Christian History christian professor with a doctorates in philosophy and theology, "why would you post that information? Are you trying to shake people's faith? The information is true, but you miss the point, it isn't the authenticity that matters, but the message...the belief in a transcendental world, beyond man's physical one which people need in their lives" ....lol yes professor, let's not, "shake up their faith with inconvenient facts that dispell the myth and lies"...anything but that.

Only american evangelical delusional ministers believe the fairy tale as written and peddled, those who actually have studied the history, the majority of which happen to be christians, know the authors for example of the gospels were anonymous, and written much later then "tradition" says. Of Paul's books, he only authored 8 of the 13, this isn't earthshaking to a biblical historian, these are known facts, that the vast majority accept, because it is irrefutable when analyzed. Read the books, do the research, I have, that is why I cite my papers. Anyone can have an opinion. Dr Carrier's "historicity of jesus, why we might have reason to doubt" has 86 pages of citations, traceable back to validate each and everything he asserts...that is substantially more relevant then what rev johnson told you at church.

Heck if you dont want to read, google authorship of (fill in the blank), click wiki, (no, that isnt my point), scroll down to the bottom to the blue hyperlinked SOURCES, read and validate those, chase the trail of information, I have done so for many years, and finally went and obtained a degree in religious studies from saint leo university...and in every class challenged the instructor on the validity of the information, and in every circumstance, they would defer to "the message", the "importance of belief in a better world, a transcendental world"...while confirming facts like, well yes, John didn't write that and we don't know who did, but it was "passed down via oral tradition"...mhmmm. cause that's valid. I have hundreds of books on the subject, the vast majority of which are christian textbooks, scholarly articles, biblical historical studies...the information is there, it is just the....inconvenient truth.

As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judaea and the Jewish diaspora in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD).

Philo was an old man when he led an embassy from the Jews to the court of Emperor Gaius Caligula. The year was 39-40 AD. Philo clearly, then, lived at precisely the time that "Jesus of Nazareth" supposedly entered the world to a chorus of angels, enthralled the multitudes by performing miracles, and got himself crucified.

Philo was also in the right place to give testimony of a messianic contender. A Jewish aristocrat and leader of the large Jewish community of Alexandria, we know that Philo spent time in Jerusalem (On Providence) where he had intimate connections with the royal house of Judaea. His brother, Alexander the "alabarch" (chief tax official), was one of the richest men in the east, in charge of collecting levies on imports into Roman Egypt. Alexander's great wealth financed the silver and gold sheathing which adorned the doors of the Temple (Josephus, War 5.205). Alexander also loaned a fortune to Herod Agrippa I (Antiquities 18).

One of Alexander's sons, and Philo's nephews, Marcus, was married to Berenice, daughter of Herod Agrippa, tetrarch of Galilee and Peraea, 39-40. After the exile of Herod Antipas – villain of the Jesus saga – he ruled as King of the Jews, 41-44 AD. Another nephew was the "apostate" Julius Alexander Tiberius, Prefect of Egypt and also Procurator of Judaea itself (46-48 AD).

Much as Josephus would, a half century later, Philo wrote extensive apologetics on the Jewish religion and commentaries on contemporary politics. About thirty manuscripts and at least 850,000 words are extant. Philo offers commentary on all the major characters of the Pentateuch and, as we might expect, mentions Moses more than a thousand times.

Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus, Christianity nor any of the events described in the New Testament. In all this work, Philo makes not a single reference to his alleged contemporary "Jesus Christ", the godman who supposedly was perambulating up and down the Levant, exorcising demons, raising the dead and causing earthquake and darkness at his death.

With Philo's close connection to the house of Herod, one might reasonably expect that the miraculous escape from a royal prison of a gang of apostles (Acts 5.18,40), or the second, angel-assisted, flight of Peter, even though chained between soldiers and guarded by four squads of troops (Acts 12.2,7) might have occasioned the odd footnote. But not a murmur. Nothing of Agrippa "vexing certain of the church" or killing "James brother of John" with the sword (Acts 12.1,2).

Strange, but only if we believe Jesus and his merry men existed and that they established the church. If we recognize that the Christian fable was still at an early stage of development when Philo was pondering the relationship of god and man, there is nothing strange here at all.

What is very significant, however, is that Philo's theological speculations helped the Christians fabricate their own notions of a godman.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/philo/ - of special note: "He may have influenced Paul, his contemporary, and perhaps the authors of the Gospel of John (C. H. Dodd) and the Epistle to the Hebrews (R. Williamson and H. W. Attridge). In the process, he laid the foundations for the development of Christianity in the West and in the East, as we know it today. Philo's primary importance is in the development of the philosophical and theological foundations of Christianity."

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topi...lo-Judaeus - of special note: "A number of works ascribed to Philo are almost certainly spurious. Most important of these is Biblical Antiquities, an imaginative reconstruction of Jewish history from Adam to the death of Saul, the first king of Israel. Philo’s works are rambling, having little sense of form; repetitious; artificially rhetorical; and almost devoid of a sense of humour. His style is generally involved, allusive, strongly tinged with mysticism, and often obscure; this may be a result of a deliberate attempt on his part to discourage all but the initiated few."

A thinking person would presume a noted historian of his experience and caliber, would certainly have heard of the amazing miracles of this mythical jesus who walked on water and healed the sick and blind....nope, not a word. How about these events, since they occurred right in the region ..

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately for believers, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 min max, so it wasn’t that, and there were two renowned historians who recorded each and every eclipse, as well as any other astronomical oddity....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;

52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,

53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

nothing? Not a word? one would think the earth going dark, (philo was on earth we think anyway right?) and zombies wandering around town after jesus 's execution would cause quite a stir...nope, not a word.

NEVER HAPPENED.

[robvalue]

Lek: Choosing to believe something you read is true, without justification other than "you can't prove it's not true" is the logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. You can equally well apply it to any fictional book you like. I could say, "Can you prove these characters don't exist and the events didn't happen?" The honest answer will be no, because proving a negative is usually impossible. So by your reasoning, it's just as valid to believe every work of fiction is in fact true, regardless of whether the author admits this.

[dyresand]

Lek: Choosing to believe something you read is true, without justification other than "you can't prove it's not true" is the logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. You can equally well apply it to any fictional book you like. I could say, "Can you prove these characters don't exist and the events didn't happen?" The honest answer will be no, because proving a negative is usually impossible. So by your reasoning, it's just as valid to believe every work of fiction is in fact true, regardless of whether the author admits this.

Its like....


The hole real life.
The square all theistic world views.

[goodwithoutgod]

Lek: Choosing to believe something you read is true, without justification other than "you can't prove it's not true" is the logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. You can equally well apply it to any fictional book you like. I could say, "Can you prove these characters don't exist and the events didn't happen?" The honest answer will be no, because proving a negative is usually impossible. So by your reasoning, it's just as valid to believe every work of fiction is in fact true, regardless of whether the author admits this.

I know right? I love that approach, here let me try:

Actually you have to trace life back to Uranus...you see, Uranus is hollow, and full of little purple men who ride unicorns. They feed these unicorns magic beans, so that the unicorns fart fairy dust. This fairy dust is collected and boiled in the great sky cauldron...then bottled in invisible bottle rockets that are catapulted through space to earth...and these bottles shatter upon entering the earth's atmosphere and upon a human's birth, form its soul. Can you disprove this? No? That is because it must be true!

[robvalue]

I can't disprove it man. Good job.

[Lek]

Lek: Choosing to believe something you read is true, without justification other than "you can't prove it's not true" is the logical fallacy called an argument from ignorance. You can equally well apply it to any fictional book you like. I could say, "Can you prove these characters don't exist and the events didn't happen?" The honest answer will be no, because proving a negative is usually impossible. So by your reasoning, it's just as valid to believe every work of fiction is in fact true, regardless of whether the author admits this.

Yes. But also referencing a bunch of controversial findings, and forming an opinion based on that evidence, is conjecture. You can say that "based on the following evidence, I believe that the gospels are fiction." But if there are many other experts in the field that disagree and your evidence is not conclusive, then I object to you presenting your opinion as if it is fact. I always say "I believe in God or I believe in Jesus." I believe it's true, but I can't presume it's true for arguments sake, because there is also evidence used to refute it.

[goodwithoutgod]

Well I tried providing cited sources that say this same information, maybe he will believe it if it is on wiki Lets review

First gospel was mark, in which matthew and luke used as a base for their musings..

The Gospel According to Mark (Greek: τὸ κατὰ Μᾶρκον εὐαγγέλιον, to kata Markon euangelion), the second book of the New Testament, is one of the four canonical gospels and the three synoptic gospels. It was traditionally thought to be an epitome (summary) of Matthew, which accounts for its place as the second gospel in the Bible, but most contemporary scholars now regard it as the earliest of the gospels.[1][2] Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative.

Composition

The two-source hypothesis: Most scholars agree that Mark was the first of the gospels to be composed, and that the authors of Matthew and Luke used it plus a second document called the Q source when composing their own gospels.

The Gospel of Mark is anonymous.[5] A persistent tradition which begins in the early 2nd century with bishop Papias (c.125 CE) ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, a companion and interpreter of the apostle Peter, but most modern scholars do not accept Papias' claim.[6] The book was probably written c.66–70 CE, during Nero's persecution of the Christians in Rome or the Jewish revolt, as suggested by internal references to war in Judea and to persecution.[7] The author used a variety of sources derived from accounts predating the gospel's composition, such as conflict stories (Mark 2:1-3:6), apocalyptic discourse (4:1-35), and collections of sayings (although not the Gospel of Thomas and probably not the Q source).[8]

Mark was written in Greek, for a gentile audience (that they were gentiles is shown by the author's need to explain Jewish traditions and translate Aramaic terms) of Greek-speaking Christians, probably in Rome (Mark uses a number of Latin terms), although Galilee, Antioch (third-largest city in the Roman Empire, located in northern Syria), and southern Syria have all been offered as alternatives.[9] The author may have been influenced by Greco-Roman biographies and rhetorical forms, popular novels and romances, and the Homeric epics; nevertheless, he mentions almost no public figures, makes no allusions to Greek or Roman literature, and takes all his references from the Jewish scriptures, mostly in their Greek versions.[10] His book is not history in the modern sense, or even in the sense of classical Greek and Roman historians, but "history in an eschatological or apocalyptic sense," depicting Jesus caught up in events at the end of time.[11]

The synoptic problem and the historicity of Mark
The gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke bear a striking resemblance to each other, so much so that their contents can easily be set side by side in parallel columns. Their close relationship is termed the synoptic problem, and has led to a number of hypotheses explaining their interdependence. The oldest hypothesis, based on Church tradition, is that Matthew was written first, then Luke, and that Mark was a summary based on both Matthew and Luke. The most widely accepted hypothesis today, however, is that Mark was the first gospel and was used as a source by both Matthew and Luke, together with considerable additional material. The strongest argument for this is the fact that Matthew and Luke only agree with each other in their sequence of stories and events when they also agree with Mark. It was once thought that this area of agreement represented the historical course of events, but early in the 20th century William Wrede argued that Mark's sequence is in fact an artificial and theological construct bearing little relationship to the actual ministry of Jesus.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Mark

gee, this all sounds familiar...almost like I said it...

lets move on

Most scholars believe the Gospel of Matthew was composed between 80 and 90 CE;[2] a pre-70 date remains a minority view.[3] The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle.[4] According to the majority of modern scholars, the author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source..

wow, that sounds familiar too...interesting.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew

lets move on..

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view.

you don't say, lets read some more..

Anonymous non-eyewitness: the view that both works (Luke and Acts) were written by an anonymous writer who was not an eyewitness of any of the events he described, and who had no eyewitness sources. Or Redaction authorship: the view that Acts in particular was written (either by an anonymous writer or the traditional Luke), using existing written sources such as a travelogue by an eyewitness.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Authorship_...%80%93Acts

is that easier for you? I offered you cited work, recommended multiple christian sourced scholarly books that say the SAME thing. I don't use wiki, unless it puts into short layman terms a point I am trying to make, rather than regurgitating and typing up an exhaustive book review, or the hundreds of pages of notes I have on this subject. Point is, they were not written when or by whom people think, and very few scholars say otherwise...are there naysayers? of course, Ken Ham is one, people blindly believe in all sorts of nonsense, but that doesn't discredit the forensic analysis of the historicity of the bible, or the copious amount of holes within the story, the book itself, and the plethora of anonymous after the fact hearsay based authors.

[robvalue]

Lek, what opinion am I stating as fact? You just literally repeated your argument from ignorance. You choose to believe it, and no one can prove it false. There is no evidence for it, just a lack of evidence against it.