The Gospels are Myths (and other obvious observations)

[Marc_Anthony]

I would encourage you to research the matter more closely, as many of your stated beliefs are demonstrably false, particularly the influence of pagan religions on Christianity. I and others touched on this before, but that is an exploded hypothesis from the early 20th century that only sees currency with ignorant youths, many of them atheists. Most of the pagan parallels are totally fabricated, and I can recommend several books on this topic if you would like.

Hellenistic Jews from the 1st century were, well, very Jewish. They would not be any more superstitious than a Jew could be, which, if you know anything about Judaism, is quite critical of superstition, hence the skepticism of the Pharisees and other 1st century Jews about Jesus. In fact, it is one of the remarkable supporting arguments for Christianity that it is so utterly unique so as to have been impossible to emerge from a Jewish milieu. There is a lot of discussion to be had on this point.

I also touched on this before, but the Gospels are works of ancient historiography. It would be a mistake to judge them as modern historical works. Ancient historians arranged and documented history along very different criteria than modern historians. Today, it is understood that history is arranged chronologically, but back then, history could be arranged thematically, etc. and historians often chose to emphasize certain things over others. For this and other reasons, the small differences between the Gospel accounts presents no problem. And we could have whole other threads dedicated to their historical accuracy, textual fidelity, etc.

Good on you that you admire and try to follow Christ, but I think even you would agree, that you’re not REALLY following Christ, but you’re own abstraction of Christ. I really hope that you think about this more and give consideration to the fuller Christ presented in the Gospel and to the Church that he founded - the Catholic Church. I hope that you seek out smart people that you can talk to, perhaps get more information so that you can at least begin to consider if you are ready to next step in your fellowship with Christ.

I just want to say that I looked at the link to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible Refuted and while an excellent resource, Catholics should use prudence and judgement when reading it, as some conclusions reached in the book that I noticed in my cursory skim through it are not Catholic (for example, they conclude that faith alone saves, not faith and works). But it does a superb job of explaining how the discrepancies between the various books aren’t discrepancies at all. They go through the Resurrection Account and completely dismantle objections odue to discrepancies between the different Gospels.

 

[Ollimac]

Windfish Is sadly misinformed about the pagan influences on Christianity. Even catholic church fathers such as Justin Martyr admit the similarities between roman and Greek sons of God and Jesus. Justin Martyr simply spins it by saying that the Jesus version is true and the previous versions.were false. Protestants who are familiar with the similarities place the blame on the demons who are trying to fool believers. All nonsense of course.

 

[Windfish]

Windfish Is sadly misinformed about the pagan influences on Christianity. Even catholic church fathers such as Justin Martyr admit the similarities between roman and Greek sons of God and Jesus. Justin Martyr simply spins it by saying that the Jesus version is true and the previous versions.were false. Protestants who are familiar with the similarities place the blame on the demons who are trying to fool believers. All nonsense of course.

I was not aware of Justin Martyr’s thoughts on this issue, but with all due respect to him, the alleged pagan influences are all bunk. I remember being very confused when I first encountered a promulgator of this myth, but when I spent my video-game money on a few scholarly books on this issue, I learned that the entire notion of pagan influences is bogus. Most of it is downright fabrication on the part of critics, most of them atheists (or, if not fabrication, ignorance). Horus, Mithra, Dionysius, etc. all bogus.

EDIT: Actually, I have to give due credit to some atheists on YouTube. A few atheists on YouTube have had the dignity to dismantle this myth themselves, knowing it to be bogus. I can refer you to the quick and dirty YouTube videos, articles, or whole books on the issue. Trust me, the whole thing is HORSE PUCKY.

 

[Windfish]

I just want to say that I looked at the link to the Skeptic’s Annotated Bible Refuted and while an excellent resource, Catholics should use prudence and judgement when reading it, as some conclusions reached in the book that I noticed in my cursory skim through it are not Catholic (for example, they conclude that faith alone saves, not faith and works). But it does a superb job of explaining how the discrepancies between the various books aren’t discrepancies at all. They go through the Resurrection Account and completely dismantle objections odue to discrepancies between the different Gospels.

I hadn’t taken a look it, but I’ll definitiely bookmark, now! Thanks for the heads-up on the possible conflicts with Catholic teachings.

 

[Ollimac]

Windfish, you are extremely sloppy in your arguments. Yes, some connections are very weak such as Horus etc. Others are very strong like Apollo, Mercury, Mithras and others.
You have mistakenly quoted some atheists as debunking all of these sons of God. Not so, they debunked some of them, not all of them. That isn’t very cool of you. I sure hope you have done this out of ignorance and not on purpose to deceive.

Check out these great unbiased articles by Dr. Richard Carrier. It set the record straight for you.

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html

 

[twb1621]

.

*Like I said, “former.” The Catholic high school I attended still has a 3’ high 1st place trophy with my name on it. I helped win that in a state-wide competition in Catholic theology. I was at that time capable of stumping priests with related questions. Up to the point of my radical insight, I could and did have answers for those.

First I thank you for your open reply, it is appreciated. As far as the trophy, I have never heard of such a thing but congratulations on the award in any case. “Former”, yes… I know, I used that term for many years just as you, I get it. Perhaps our discussions can get more directly involved with the sharing of the information of scripture and it may lead to further awareness. I also appreciate your openness in acknowledging your “radical insight” as you refer to it.

*Sometimes it is easier to point to something that is by defining what it is not. If you aren’t familiar with this idea, you are displaying a large gap. My “supporting entity,” if the phrase applies, is the same as yours: God.

Speaking in the negative can be a sign as well… I understand your position in referring to God as your supporting entity, but I am sure you also realize in the context you present your position, it is heretical according to the Inspired Word. What I find sad is that of some similarities in your position in comparison to those I once had.

*I hazard it wouldn’t matter to you, as you have not even come close to naming proponents of my standpoint. Since you don’t know them or those ideas, I wonder is it would be any use to name them. You seem a bit dismissive of ideas outside your ken.

Actually it does sincerely matter to me. These examples I have offered in some way or other, all reflect some similarity with your position. But it is certainly of interest if you care to express those that correlate. If I seemed dismissive, it was only to acknowledge what appeared to this point to be your hesitance to offer them freely and my not banging heads with you if you didn’t wish to express them.

*None of that applies to me.

Excellent, I accept your response on this, Thank you.

*It is not a proof, it is an indication. Jesus’ resurrection is in the Bible, therefore it is alleged and is a point of faith, not knowledge. And there are libraries of work relative to the doubts about Jesus’ existence and the origins of the Church, all at least as credible as any “proofs,” perhaps more so. There are also linguistic and mystical traditions congruent with the language of the Bible that would easily lend its stories an entirely different rendition in meaning. Those tend to be lost in translations in English and other Indo-European languages. As for going East, there are at least two authors who claim evidence that after Jesus rose from the dead, He traveled East with his Mother and settled in Kashmir, where the one of author, Faber-Kaiser, claims there are place names that match the “Land of Milk and Honey.” There are as well ancient places that claim to be the tomb of Mary and the place Moses died, and people who call themselves “Beni-Israeli” or “Sons of Israel.” Are they the lost tribes that Jesus was to reclaim? Beats me, but it sure is fascinating. And like I said, possible, not proved.

I see… It is all interesting yes, but so was the movie “Shreck” (one of my favorites). Libraries house what is publically acceptable regardless of fact or fiction. What is interesting has nothing to do with fact but you already know that, I recognize you are an intelligent person and do not attempt to take that away from you. But I will assure you that any information one can provide to the contrary to Christianity, there are tenfold more per issue to support it with much more credibility and certainly beyond reasonable doubt. It has gone on for 2000 years and never would have survived if fraudulent or manufactured or if those who claim to refute it, actually could. That one person who could provide credibility and support would be a famous and most likely wealthy man or women, no doubt.
continued…

 

[twb1621]

.

continued from previous…
I am aware of the many issues that attempt to refute Christianity, the life of Christ and/or Catholicism and they certainly were scrutinized appropriately as you can not take only one side without the other in seeking the truth properly, regardless of the subject. No one could serve very long as an expert witness with any credibility if they were remiss in taking all aspects at issue into account. However, many scholars in many relative fields (not just Catholic but other faiths - non-believers as well) have formed in committees at times to jointly conclude or verify their findings. This includes to the greatest part, scholars of ancient languages and civilizations. Any refutation against the interpretations of the Church’s teachings has been offered only by a small minority and offered in bias while in conflict many times with their own individual faiths (unless atheistic). When coming to findings in any investigation, frequently one has to identify the highest numbers with credible and corroborating evidence. This evidence includes the findings of historic artifacts, dating, translation and interpretation and the greatest number of credible experts in their fields of study. I agree the american language is no help to the Word of Scripture and there are others worse. One of the quickest ways to eliminate someone in their refuting Christianity is to review their findings and their support. It is very frequently those who offer refutations to Christianity have left out certain crucial factors in the complete history of Christ and Christianity which blows their theory apart if one picks up on it.

*I look to the exegesis of my own mystical experience as correlated with that of Saints and Mystics of both the Catholic and other traditions. You have access to those yourself, as you are clearly an avid researcher.

Respectfully, I do not know what you experienced. I have no need to question it, nor to describe mine. All I will say is, through inspiration I have committed devoutly to utilizing my life’s experiences (good and bad) and gifts to find my way back from ignorance, reconvert and offer myself to God in His service until He determines I have completed my time. Lets just say I got hit with a 2 X 4…. The saints and mystics do not question the life of Christ and who He is. At least not once converted to their devotions. Of course there were those who did prior to their devotions. This is not to say they never had times of weakness or doubts, that is human for all of us and no different for the saints.

 

[twb1621]

.

Hopefully you will accept this without insult but how does one such as you have acknowledged in your header, claim themself to be a “liberal Christian” or “Liberal Protestant”?

The teachings of Christ are not flexible. Liberal in beliefs and or practices is based on strength or weakness of faith In His teachings. This includes those who claim to be “liberal Catholics” as well.

 

[Ollimac]

Read the book entitled “Jesus For the Non-Religious” by Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Bishop Spong was priest and bishop for 45 years. He was also a visiting lecturer at Harvard U.

www.johnshelbyspong.com/hsf

I have to warn you that traditional Christians who still cling to dated concepts of the past will not be comfortable with this book.

Bishop Spong goes on to say that we are witnessing the death of traditional Christianity, as it has been historically understood.

 

[humble_catholic]

This Bishop Sponge sounds like he has created his own religion and picks and chooses verses about what he believes in. The fact that he supports premarital sex tells me alot. He also claims that Saint Paul was a closet homosexual yet has no evidence for this at all.

leaderu.com/orgs/probe/docs/spong.html

"Since he denies any notion of original sin, whatever we desire becomes a good thing as long as it allows everybody to do their thing.{7} Although he admits that the Bible is full of statements about sexual virtue, including prohibitions against premarital sex, adultery, and homosexuality, the authors of the Bible were hopelessly uninformed, lacking the benefits of modern research. One author in particular, the Apostle Paul, may have been driven by an inner struggle with his sexual identity. "

This guy really is on the fringe. He claims that whatever we find desirable we should do and not feel guilty about it. Sounds alot like what Satan wants us to do doesnt it?

 

[Ollimac]

“This guy really is on the fringe”

Maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t. Doesn’t that remind you of an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus of Nazareth? The Jews thought that he was crazy.

He is right about one thing. We are witnessing the death of Western Christianity. I just read that Ireland only has 16 men in the seminary right now. Ireland? Europe has been relying on Ireland for surplus priests. No more.

 

[humble_catholic]

“This guy really is on the fringe”

Maybe he is. Maybe he isn’t. Doesn’t that remind you of an apocalyptic preacher named Jesus of Nazareth? The Jews thought that he was crazy.

He is right about one thing. We are witnessing the death of Western Christianity. I just read that Ireland only has 16 men in the seminary right now. Ireland? Europe has been relying on Ireland for surplus priests. No more.

Actually no it doesnt remind me of Jesus at all, since Bishop Sponge has never claimned to have divine knowledge or authority to translate the bible. He is basically making up his own religion. In case you dont know, Jesus fulfilled many messianic prophesies on top of that. I dont see Sponge fullfilling any prophecies except to try to formulate his own opinions that arent based on anything else but his opinion. He is just one of many quacks that came and will go. If you recall the johovas witnesses had a camp in the 19th century where one guy just decided that he would prophesize gods coming. They waited a heck of a long time but nothing happened.

I think your basically looking at stats to favor your biased opinion . In fact American seminary applications are growing.

cathnews.com/article.aspx?aeid=15659

Sydney seminaries are full for the first time in 10 years, as 60 men prepare for the priesthood, three times as many as there were in 2000, the Sunday Telegraph reported.

calcatholic.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?id=69241ab7-9100-40ac-9069-d68745a73c02

“In the coming academic year, St. Patrick’s is expected to have more than 100 seminarians, after a steady rise since 2006 when it served 88 students,” said the newspaper. “The projected enrollment includes 34 new students, according to the school.”

“We haven’t seen that in many years,” Fr. McKearney told the Times. “It’s an exciting time.”

“There was a sharp decline in men going into the priesthood 15 years ago,” McKnight said. “That seems to be coming back.”

According to a report from the Center for Applied Research in the Apostolate in Washington, D.C., the enrollment at college seminaries numbered 1,443 in 2009-10 — up from a low of 1,248 in 2004-05.

jknirp.com/enroll.htm

Read more: kansas.com/2010/08/13/1445979/more-heeding-the-call-to-priesthood.html#ixzz0xwAwU3B5

 

[Windfish]

Windfish, you are extremely sloppy in your arguments. Yes, some connections are very weak such as Horus etc. Others are very strong like Apollo, Mercury, Mithras and others.
You have mistakenly quoted some atheists as debunking all of these sons of God. Not so, they debunked some of them, not all of them. That isn’t very cool of you. I sure hope you have done this out of ignorance and not on purpose to deceive.

Check out these great unbiased articles by Dr. Richard Carrier. It set the record straight for you.

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/graves.html

infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/jesuspuzzle.html

When I have more time, I’ll debunk them. I have just given them a quick skim, and they’re pretty much what I have encountered before - all of them bogus.

 

[humble_catholic]

Richard Carrier is another one of those militant atheists. Unbiased???
Doctor Craig took care of him many times.
There is absolutely nothing unbiased about him, plus he is sympathetic to the Jesus Myther crowds . Need we say more?

 

[Tuno]

It’s mostly pretty simple on here, ollimac. With few exceptions, staunchly and rigidly for the Church = good, wonderful, and approved. Inquisitive, impartial, indifferent, other tracked, or against = spawn of the Devil even if valid scholarship. I grant sincerity and fortitude to by far most on here, and there are those I differ with even greatly whom I admire and respect. But there are habituated religionists and atheists carrying emotional loads on here you may not wish to deal with. But hey, we are all here together, whether we talk to one another or not.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

Although the two word finale to my post might have sounded flippant towards AntiTheist (and let me apologize if it did), my post was intended to question the premise which underlies both (i) AntiTheist’s attack, and (ii) the defenses offered by Catholics in this thread.

I noticed that we seem to have found something about which AntiTheist and most Catholics here agree: the Gospels were intended to be “convincing evidence” (as opposed to teaching aides for the ready convinced, or at least for those already inclined towards belief).

We can see this in the many attempts by Catholics in this thread rushing to challenge AntiTheist’s conclusion. But our attitudes notwithstanding, I’m not sure that is a battle we will win (at least, certainly not to AntiTheist’s satisfaction–and let’s face it, is it really all that unreasonable to be at least initially skeptical about 2000 year old hearsay written in a time when accuracy in historical writings was not the highest priority?–after all, I don’t think we believe the Gospels because of the writings themselves; rather, I think we believe them because we acknowledge the authority of the organization that wrote them and compiled them in the 4th century).

I am suggesting that we need not fight Anti-Theist’s conclusion, because we need not accept his premise that the Gospels were intended to be conclusive evidence, in and of themselves.

My “Thoughts?” question at the end of my post was as much directed at the other Catholics in this thread as it was at Anti-theist. I sense that at least some Catholics here might disagree with me (thereby agreeing with AntiTheist on this point).

I think you make a very good point here. And you are in good company too. For it was St. Augustine who wrote: “If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6).

 

[Luke_K]

I think you make a very good point here. And you are in good company too. For it was St. Augustine who wrote: “If you should find someone who does not yet believe in the gospel, what would you [Mani] answer him when he says, ‘I do not believe’? Indeed, I would not believe in the gospel myself if the authority of the Catholic Church did not move me to do so” (Against the Letter of Mani Called ‘The Foundation’ 5:6).

The Catholic Church only has the authority to tell us what writings are inspired, not how historically accurate they are. It’s a subtle distinction though, as I’m pretty sure historicity was a criterion for choosing which books were inspired.

 

[LongJohnSilver]

The Catholic Church only has the authority to tell us what writings are inspired, not how historically accurate they are.

I know, but did you read Walter Maxey’s point? I am replying to his specific point.

 

[Ollimac]

I think Tuno is bang on. The majority of posters on this site are very uncritical in their thinking.

I saw the Carrier-Lane debate. Lane spews nothing but nonsense garbed in impressive sounding language. His debating style is designed to appeal to those who already believe. It is meant to keep believers in the fold. When I listen to him speak, I just have to shake my head. Carrier is a real scholar who is very, very fair. His review of the Kersey Graves book on The 16 Crucified Saviors is proof of his non-biased work.

The writers of the gospels simply fit their Jesus character to the OT and twisted many things around to fit what they wanted to write. There are no “prophecies fulfilled”. I find it amazing that most conservative Christians can’t understand this.

Granted, there may be a few pockets of growth in seminary registrations. Unfortunately for the church, in the 1st world it is in free fall. No denying this.

“Militant atheists”? So, when someone who pushes back against your ideology (abortion, condoms etc) they are to be called “militant” as some sort of insult? What does that make conservative Christians?

Richard Carrier is a very good historian. I seriously doubt that you will be able to refute him. Oh well, maybe in your mind only!

Keep on deluding yourself.

 

[buffalo]

Read the book entitled “Jesus For the Non-Religious” by Bishop John Shelby Spong.

Bishop Spong was priest and bishop for 45 years. He was also a visiting lecturer at Harvard U.

www.johnshelbyspong.com/hsf

I have to warn you that traditional Christians who still cling to dated concepts of the past will not be comfortable with this book.

Bishop Spong goes on to say that we are witnessing the death of traditional Christianity, as it has been historically understood.

Seems like man wants to fashion religion in his own image, not God’s.