Story of Jesus Christ was 'fabricated to pacify the poor', claims Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill

lfd0311 said:
Bad post is bad. This is going to turn into one of those "I didn't really mean that" posts just like that reply to painislife, right?
Click to expand...
Exactly, just like that post where again you showed how dim witted you are.
 
Grenz said:
Where might one access the 'original versions'?
Click to expand...
Let me clarify. Copies of the Original.
The origins no longer exist, but they have to be properly translated from Greek or Hebrew or you get wacky shit from wacky people claiming the Earth is only 6,000 years old.
 
ShadBo said:
This would be news to me.

I know that a lot of the archeological 'evidence' for things in the bible turn out to be a thing being found and attributed to something vaguely similar in the bible without much effort to verify if it is actually that biblical thing.

For so long the bible was seen as recorded history and every time something new was discovered, there was a tendency to look through the bible to see what it 'could' be.
Click to expand...

You clearly don't pay attention then. This is the whole point of the thread, and why we're still here after Sawlty Fawlty's shit "all scholars I know of" post. Because he obviously doesn't know very many. The problem with people like you is you can't separate history from it proving some sort of supernatural world exists, and that's why you got so butt hurt when I pointed this out to you.
 
lfd0311 said:
You clearly don't pay attention then. This is the whole point of the thread, and why we're still here after Sawlty Fawlty's shit "all scholars I know of" post. Because he obviously doesn't know very many. The problem with people like you is you can't separate history from it proving some sort of supernatural world exists, and that's why you got so butt hurt when I pointed this out to you.
Click to expand...

I read your post several times.

Slowly.

I am unable to determine what the fuck you are talking about.

Please try again.
 
DeJulez said:
Looks up The Codexs. There are two of them.
Click to expand...

C'mon bro, I'm not going to go down some deep google rabbit hole just because you said so. Sum up the main points: how is the original version of Genesis accurate in context of what we know to be true about the natural world?
 
ShadBo said:
I read your post several times.

Slowly.

I am unable to determine what the fuck you are talking about.

Please try again.
Click to expand...

"Reckt", ring a bell? There are two main points of contention between scholars. The Theologians who debate that the archaeological evidence for events surrounding the Jesus story "prove" the existence of God, and the secular historians that say it simply proves he was a man who more than likely wasn't anything like the dude who is portrayed in the bible, plus a third, smaller group who don't even think he was a real person, who are mainly driven by their own agenda (see, unsuprisingly most of the young Leftists in this thread, like you for example.) None of that work is actually based on any real history whatsoever, and people from that school of thought, like you @Fawlty and others who seem to think it's "edgy" to follow along with some new, anti Christian position that's put foward for no other reason than because it's anti Christian without actually examining the information behind it, all while talking mindless shit like "this would be news to me" like you're some sort of expert. You're not. You don't know anything. Here is clearly ultra right wing, pro christian rag National Geographic's take on the issue, with some actual Arcaeologists in the region:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/

“I don’t know any mainstream scholar who doubts the historicity of Jesus,” said Eric Meyers, an archaeologist and emeritus professor in Judaic studies at Duke University. “The details have been debated for centuries, but no one who is serious doubts that he’s a historical figure.”

I heard much the same from Byron McCane, an archaeologist and history professor at Florida Atlantic University. “I can think of no other example who fits into their time and place so well but people say doesn’t exist,” he said.

Even John Dominic Crossan, a former priest and co-chair of the Jesus Seminar, a controversial scholarly forum, believes the radical skeptics go too far. Granted, stories of Christ’s miraculous deeds—healing the sick with his words, feeding a multitude with a few morsels of bread and fish, even restoring life to a corpse four days dead—are hard for modern minds to embrace. But that’s no reason to conclude that Jesus of Nazareth was a religious fable.

“Now, you can say he walks on water and nobody can do that, so therefore he doesn’t exist. Well, that’s something else,” Crossan told me when we spoke by phone. “The general fact that he did certain things in Galilee, that he did certain things in Jerusalem, that he got himself executed—all of that, I think, fits perfectly into a certain scenario.”
Click to expand...

Pretty clearly not a consensus amongst actual experts that he was a real person or anything. I wonder what goofs you guys are reading. P.S., even many Theology classes you can take at the University level will teach you that the miracles attributed to Jesus are simply part of the mythology of the religion, something that is a part of all religions in human history, and not to be taken at face value.
 
Grenz said:
C'mon bro, I'm not going to go down some deep google rabbit hole just because you said so. Sum up the main points: how is the original version of Genesis accurate in context of what we know to be true about the natural world?
Click to expand...
The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.

One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...t-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,275,150
Messages
57,971,360
Members
175,886
Latest member
Dagestanaev

Share this page

Back
Top