Why believe The Bible?

[Father Heathen]

Too bad you cannot substantiate that one bit. You can't seem to explain how people would "invent" a solitary "Egyptian-God" to spread some new religion. That makes less sense than Jesus Christ being the Son of God.

Parallels between the lives of Jesus and Horus, an Egyptian God
Links between two god-men saviors: Jesus and Krishna
YouTube - Myth of Religion; The Solar Messiahs God's Sun Christ Horus

You don't need "middlemen" and "interpreters". In fact the Bible specifically talks about the Apostasy being such beliefs in "priests". All you need is the Bible; that's it.

How can you prove that the bible is anything more than mere men putting their own words in "god's" mouth? Anyone can write a book and claim that it's the "word of god". Do you realize how many religions and holy books there are? How am I to know theirs are all false while yours just so happens to be true. Also: Skeptic's Annotated Bible / Quran / Book of Mormon

 

[Autodidact]

Jordan: Still waiting for answers to the questions I've asked, asked to have answered, and re-posted in response to your request. Thank you.

 

[Autodidact]

Did somebody say something? All I heard was preaching and proselytizing, which are not allowed on RF. Now, drs, (this hurts, at this point) to return to the subject at hand, YOU, not ME, but YOU are saying that most people who call themselves Christian are either liars or deluded, correct?

And, for the third time, that Sunday school you attended as a child, Christian, Jewish, Muslim, something else, or fake-Christian? Thanks.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Auto,

I spent the weekend in Toronto, and I am in the middle of my exam period...


I think you may have missed this statement of mine regarding others who come to affirm the faith of their childhood (I believe this is one of the questions you are still waiting on?)

Do I believe that others who have departed from their non-Christian faith, then returned, were actually convinced of the truth or merely resorting back to comforting ideas they were fed as children? I don't know. I am not equipped to make that evaluation, but I think its reasonable to assume that there are numbers in both camps. One can be convinced of religion on the part of independent analysis, seeing certain factors as a kind of data, and still be in error- myself included.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

the Jesus, Horus, Egypt thing is complete trash. At least throw Crossan or Erhman at us or something- not this Tom Harupur, Massey garbage that not even Christianity's best scholarly enemies take seriously.

 

[horizon_mj1]

Imotep (sp) would be a closer comparison to Christ. He had the ability to heal people and was said to do miracles.

 

[Halcyon]

Imotep (sp) would be a closer comparison to Christ. He had the ability to heal people and was said to do miracles.

And was a deified man.

 

[Luminous]

the Jesus, Horus, Egypt thing is complete trash. At least throw Crossan or Erhman at us or something- not this Tom Harupur, Massey garbage that not even Christianity's best scholarly enemies take seriously.

Please, do go on. why shouldn't it be taken seriously?
maybe your best scholarly enemies don't take YOU seriously.
BTW: its not jesus, horus thing; its GOD sons because of constelation mythology. This is why i tell hindus that having their mythology is a bad thing. some day it could be taken seriously.

 

[Father Heathen]

the Jesus, Horus, Egypt thing is complete trash. At least throw Crossan or Erhman at us or something- not this Tom Harupur, Massey garbage that not even Christianity's best scholarly enemies take seriously.

So am I to assume you're in same the boat with those who believe that the older pagan gods were created by Satan to imitate Christ to a 'T' before he even came about in order to deceive and confuse the masses? No amount of flailing about will make the undeniable parallels disappear from the pages of history.

 

[logician]

the Jesus, Horus, Egypt thing is complete trash. At least throw Crossan or Erhman at us or something- not this Tom Harupur, Massey garbage that not even Christianity's best scholarly enemies take seriously.

Please give one independant historian contemporary to the supposed time of Christ that even knew about such a man, whose references to him are not considered to be forgeries.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

My above statement was not in reference to the claims of Christianity regarding Jesus. The overwhelming majority of secular historians and scholars accept Jesus of Nazareth as a historical fact and develop their historical exegesis of him from there- the Gospels and the Letters of St. Paul being the first set of evidence. It is only psuedo-scholarship that has gravely twisted the content of mythological traditions to create false similarities between the accounts of Jesus' life and gods and then suggesting such a person never existed.

To begin with, a historical Jesus is the only way we can account for the conviction of St. Paul and the early Christian community- which certainly believed it was talking about a historical person who had himself transcended history.

 

[Father Heathen]

The overwhelming majority of secular historians and scholars accept Jesus of Nazareth as a historical fact

Citations, please.

 

[Autodidact]

My understanding, FH, is that the majority (I wouldn't necessarily say overwhelming majority) of historians in the field would agree that there was once an itinerant preacher in Palestine, around O C.E., who was executed by the Romans, and who may have been named Yeshua. So there is a kernel of truth in what Jordan is saying. Of course, when Christians say "Jesus of Nazareth," they don't just mean a preacher, they mean the Son of God, and approximately zero historians assert that there is significant historical evidence for anything of the sort.

That doesn't respond to the question, however, which was a request for contemporary historical writings. There aren't any. Those who adhere to the historical Jesus theory do so in spite of the lack of contemporary historical writings, not because of it.

My main point is the existence of an historical Jesus is entirely consistent with the hypothesis that Jesus Christ is largely based on previously existing pagan myths.

 

[Autodidact]

Jordan: Should I give up on you answering the questions I asked you?

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Auto, which one's are you still looking for?

As far as I know you might still be waiting on my thoughts on Taoism.... (which I won't give because of insufficient contact)

I did answer what I think of people of non-Christian faith who return to their religion of their birth.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Scholars have attempted for decades to reconstruct the historcial Jesus from the Gospels. Heard fo the Quest for the Historcial Jesus? The Gospels are historical artifacts which give reasonable evidence of his existence.

Many scholars accept the mention in Josephus, but believe it was modified at a later date by Christians who felt it did not adaquately describe Jesus.

And which pagan myths fit Jesus "to a T"?- though we are all in agreement that there are some similarities, I have yet to see someone actually cite these claims beyond the pseduo mythologists of the late 19th century.

 

[Autodidact]

Auto, which one's are you still looking for?

As far as I know you might still be waiting on my thoughts on Taoism.... (which I won't give because of insufficient contact)

I did answer what I think of people of non-Christian faith who return to their religion of their birth.

Jesus, Jordan, this is really annoying. First I post the questions. Then I ask you to answer them. Then you don't, and ask me to re-post them, so I take the trouble to go back through the thread and repeat them. Then I ask you to answer them. Now you want me to go back again, find them, and post them again?! Could you be less considerate if you tried?!? O.K., I'll do it, if you'll actually answer. By this point I've almost lost interest.

 

[Autodidact]

Scholars have attempted for decades to reconstruct the historcial Jesus from the Gospels. Heard fo the Quest for the Historcial Jesus? The Gospels are historical artifacts which give reasonable evidence of his existence.

Well, if you consider an oral tradition among his followers, finally recorded for the first time decades later, to be reasonable evidence. Is that the same standard that you apply to other historical issues?

Many scholars accept the mention in Josephus, but believe it was modified at a later date by Christians who felt it did not adaquately describe Jesus.

Yeah, aka forgery.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

Yeah, aka forgery.

Do you know the exact passage I'm referencing?

It seems very odd that Christians would feel the need to substantiate the historical existence of Jesus by penning him into the histories of Josephus. Christians then were not asking the same historical-critical questions we are asking today. There was no fear that one day a future generation would come to doubt that Jesus ever walked the earth- they were quite certain he did- there's little reason to invent historical proofs.

The more probable explaination, many experts agree, is that a Christian redactor of Josephus' works came across his small mention of Jesus, decided it did not fittingly describe his Lord, and so modified the mention according to Christian beliefs.

 

[Jordan St. Francis]

I've already answered why I believe I have arrived at my beliefs from an "independent analysis" (in a substantial post which recieved little engagement) , (I'm not going to answer stupid questions pointedly, like "why do you think you are exceptional") I have said what I think of others who make the same claim, what the general relationship between being raised in a religion is and the odds of practicing it later in life, and I have made observations relating to religious identification, its role in cultural membership both broadly speaking and sub-culturally, familial membership, agency and identity- all of which I suggeted are factors why people might remain in a given religion throughout their life.