Religion ............who is he?

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth

You said:

You need evidence that the events as described in the bible really happened -- any of them -- even just one of them!

While I understand this argument I find it very difficult, to understand how you expect me to use it in a discussion. It becomes a circular conversation of sorts. You ask me the above, "show me evidence", and I give a few examples and you in turn answer that "the Bible was written after they happened, and so they do not count".

Your conclusion that the bible is false, becomes the foundation stone of your line of argument. Please say you understand what I am getting at. This is why I said it is comparable to Fundamentalists, who use the Bible as a foundation. If they do, they are dismissed as biased and basing their arguments on a “belief in the book”. I could give you many events in the Bible that actually happened as I expect you are well aware of, but if you dismiss them, basing this dismissal on the belief that the Bible is fictional, we are talking apples and oranges.

In any case here is a quote from Josephus :

"At that time lived Jesus, a wise man, if he may be called a man; for he performed many wonderful works. He was a teacher of such men as received the truth with pleasure….And when Pilate, at the instigation of the chief men among us, had condemned him to the cross, they who before had conceived an affection for him did not cease to adhere to him. For on the third day he appeared to them alive again, the divine prophets having foretold these and many other wonderful things concerning him. And the sect of the Christians, so called from him, subsists at this time" (Antiquities, Book 18, Chapter 3, Section 1).(end quote)

However I am sure that you will say something like , he was a liar and not to be trusted, or was being politicaly correct hoping to gain favor with the powers that be.

Here is another one, by Carius Cornelius Tacitus (many of his writings were about 100 A. D.). Tacitus was a Roman historian who reportedly hated Christians. In writing about the life of Nero and the accusation that he burned the city of Rome and blamed it on the Christians, Tacitus says:
    "…Nero procured others to be accused, and inflicted exquisite punishment upon those people, who were in abhorrence for their crimes, and were commonly known by the name of Christians. They had their denomination from Christus (Christ, dm.), who in the reign of Tibertius was put to death as a criminal by the procurator Pontius Pilate….At first they were only apprehended who confessed themselves of that sect; afterwards a vast multitude discovered by them, all of which were condemned, not so much for the crime of burning the city, as for their enmity to mankind. Their executions were so contrived as to expose them to derision and contempt. Some were covered with the skins of wild beasts, and torn to pieces by dogs; some were crucified; others having been daubed over with combustible materials, were set up as lights in the night time, and thus burned to death…" (Tacitus, Annals, 15, 44).


Notice that while Tacitus had no regard for the Christians of whom he wrote, he does mention Christ as being the founder of their belief.
I expect you will dismiss this saying that the conspiracy was already at work and that and that he did not know what he was talking about.

Here is another one.

City of Tyre
The two great cities of Phoenicia were Tyre and Sidon. Ezekiel as a captive in Babylon made some very specific predictions about the seacoast metropolis of Tyre. In Ezekiel 26 and 27 the destruction of Tyre was given in detail (592-570BC)
Ezek 26:3. Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I [am] against thee, O Tyrus, and will cause many nations to come up against thee, as the sea causeth his waves to come up.
Ezek 26:4. And they shall destroy the walls of Tyrus, and break down her towers: I will also scrape her dust from her, and make her like the top of a rock.
Ezek 26:5. It shall be a place for the spreading of nets in the midst of the sea: for I have spoken [it] saith the Lord GOD: and it shall become a spoil to the nations.
Ezek 26:7. For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.
Ezek 26:12. And they shall make a spoil of thy riches, and make a prey of thy merchandise: and they shall break down thy walls, and destroy thy pleasant houses: and they shall lay thy stones and thy timber and thy dust in the midst of the water.
Ezek 26:14. And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be [a place] to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the LORD have spoken [it] saith the Lord GOD.
Nebuchadnezzar came against Tyre in 585 BC (fulfilling vs 26:7). The siege lasted until 573 BC. When he broke down the gates of the city he found most of the population had escaped by ship to a city they had built on an island about a half mile out into the sea.
Sometime after defeating the Persians in a battle in 333BC, Alexander III in a southern campaign demolished old Tyre and used the materials and dirt (fulfilling verse 26:4) to build a causeway to the new city which had been built out in the water. After a long siege, the island city was destroyed and the materials cast into the sea (fulfilling 26:12).
Eighteen years after Alexander's defeat of Tyre on the island, Antigonus laid siege to the city and again destroyed it. The Moslems were next to win and occupy it for a time but were defeated by the Roman Crusaders. Still later, the Moslems again retook and utterly destroyed the city with a vengeance, seeming to hate the very stones on which the Crusaders walked. All these "waves" of conquerors fulfilled vs 26:3.
Today, Tyre is literally a place for local fishermen to spread their nets to dry. The proud commercial seaport of ancient Tyre has never been rebuilt (fulfilling vs 26:5 and 14) 5.


This even happened before Christ meaning that your conspiracy must have been in existence for a long time, a very long time indeed. I expect you to say that the Bible is more recent and again use the argument that it is a Historical narrative, included to deceive the masses to believe the entire content

As you see my question is, are you working backward from a attitude of disbelief, ending up where you do, and I look forward to hearing your take on the article, as it covers this issue a bit as well.

Regards Mustardseed

PS my apologies for assuming what your reasoning is. I did not do it a mean sort of way Beth, I hope you understand that. We all may or may not have our reasons to do the things we do, but you are right to call me on it, as it is not my place to draw your motives into question.. as you rightly pointed out it is besides the point.

[Mustardseed]

I just read this interesting article, and have cut and pasted a part. My point is this Beth. The issue we are debating is being debated by people in many fora, It is a controversial issue and seeing it is being debated for and against by very knowledgeable people I would not consider either side conclusive. All I have is the Internet. You have your considerable knowledge and I am forced to debate with various articles. I am still trying to read it all but it is time consuming and as I said there is soo much written on either side. .

.......... considerable disagreement exists among archaeologists on how to interpret many recent finds. And the new theories about ancient Israel are emerging against the backdrop of a raging dispute over the biblical "minimalists," a group of scholars who argue that biblical accounts of early Israel, including the stories of David and Solomon, have little, if any, basis in history.

(This debate was recently fought out in a lively issue of the Biblical Archeology Review, a bimonthly magazine published in Washington, in which one of the minimalists, the British scholar Philip Davies, wrote that biblical accounts of early Israel were purely theological, not historical. In response, a major critic of the minimalists, the American archaeologist William Dever, wrote that ample physical evidence pointed to early Israelites living in the region's highlands 3,200 years ago, two centuries before the time of David and Solomon.)

But if many archaeologists are far less interested in trying to corroborate the exact biblical accounts than in how the area's ancient history fits into the larger picture of the Middle East, that change of perspective, Marcus said, reflects an intellectual shift among the people doing the digging.

Many current archaeologists, she said, were born in modern Israel and don't need a link to the biblical King David to think of themselves as part of the Israeli nation: "They see themselves as part of the broader Middle East."

Yet while archaeology is challenging some of the biblical narrative, it is also adding to it. At Megiddo, Finkelstein said, he found that the period 2,900 years ago -- the century following the rule of Solomon -- was a far more interesting and powerful time for the Kingdom of Israel than the Bible says.

Another tantalizing discovery, in 1993, turned up a stele with an inscription referring to the "House of David," the first real evidence that refers to the biblical king. Still other recent excavations have provided compelling new evidence about the lives of the residents of Jerusalem 2,600 years ago, when they were besieged by the Babylonian army, and about the nearby people of ancient Judah who did not go into exile in Babylon.

Marcus said that such discoveries illustrate how archaeology can restore information "left on the cutting room floor," as it were, by those who compiled the biblical narrative. "Archaeology is giving you back all this history," she said. "So archaeology doesn't just deconstruct the Bible, but reconstructs it."

It is such a vast and very complex issue, and I remain undecided, I listen to you but I do not think I need to decide either way. As you suggested I will just keep on doing what I do.

Regards Mustardseed

[Beth]

Mustardseed,

Good day to you!

Your conclusion that the bible is false, becomes the foundation stone of your line of argument. Please say you understand what I am getting at.

Yes. I understand exactly what you are getting at. However, this is not what I am doing. This is actually what you are doing, i.e. the bible is true and this is why. I come at this whole issue from a very different direction.

So, now let me beseech you to say you understand something as well. Okay?

I did not start out to 'prove that the bible was fiction' David.  I did not wake up one day and decide 'to bring down Christianity' because I did not like Christians, or some Christians, or had been abused at an early age by a Christian.

Yes, I did have questions within my Christian faith, so I invested the time (years of time) and money (lots and lots of money) to educate myself in the history of Christianity. I invested the time to learn the ancient languages of the bible -- and this was not easy for me at all!  Moreover, I was majoring in religion at a Christian university. So, I did all of these things not to prove that the bible is 'false' but to try and understand the bible in order for my faith to grow stronger.

I look back now, and truly, the thought would never have entered my mind ten years ago, that I would one day take such a position as I do now and be able to stand my ground in my conclusions. I still have to pinch myself some days to make sure that I am not having a very long lucid dream...

In the fall of 2000, I started out researching a concept in the bible for my Master's Thesis-- the Greek concept of the LOGOS--the WORD--as used by John in the Prologue to his gospel. "In the beginning was the Logos..."

At the time, I may have been personally searching for spiritual answers for my life, but -- academically/spiritually/intellectually -- I was still working from the premise that the bible was true, that Jesus had really lived, taught, died, and ascended.  I would not have gone so far as to say that Moses literally parted the Red Sea, but I still believed -- like you -- that Jesus was a real man and that the disciples and Paul were who the bible said they were.

Granted, I knew that something was not quite right about the way Christianity taught the bible as being a literal accounting, for I could logically see where narratives written decades after the fact could not possibly quote verbatim what actually was said and happened decades earlier. Nevertheless, I still believed that "it" did happen in some way or another. This is where I was -- spiritually and intellectually – and this is where I was when all of the sudden, my research started to prove ME wrong!

And it tore me apart David.  I felt like I was dying.

I cannot possibly put into words what it did to me, except to say that the realization hit me 3 weeks before 9-11. I was already numb from feeling like I had personally been hit by a spiritual bomb when I then watched on TV very real airplanes exploding into those twin towers. That whole summer of 2001 was an experience I will never forget, but will never adequately be able to put into words.

So, even though it was tearing me apart, I could not ignore what I was finding David, any more than I could ignore the God within me that was leading me to my conclusions.

I have done everything within my power to work with known facts, outside of any personal feelings I may have had for the topic at hand. In other words, this topic was near and dear to my heart from the very beginning, but I had to put my faith aside and take a look at the FACTS.

Over time, the facts continued to contradict all belief that I had in the bible as a literal history of anything. The facts just did not bear out my faith, and over time my faith in the bible and Christianity lessened more and more until I am where I am today.

So David, you are so very wrong to accuse me of being biased. Truth be told, I have spent more time than you could ever imagine, looking for data that would support your faith. If such evidence ever becomes available I will be the first to say I have been wrong. But until then, I stand firm on the foundation of not just my research, but the research of others working in this field of study. Moreover, I will continue till my last breath is taken to do what I can to help others liberate themselves from the misuses of the bible and to help them if I can with the spiritual crisis that no doubt follows an acceptance of the truth of the matter. I do not take any of this lightly...

In any case here is a quote from Josephus ... However I am sure that you will say something like , he was a liar and not to be trusted, or was being politicaly correct hoping to gain favor with the powers that be.

You are right, I lend no credence whatsoever to Josephus. He is not a credible source, and I personally do not care what his motives for writing were.

Notice that while Tacitus had no regard for the Christians of whom he wrote, he does mention Christ as being the founder of their belief.
I expect you will dismiss this saying that the conspiracy was already at work and that and that he did not know what he was talking about.

Nope, no conspiracy here at all. I have no doubt that “Christ” – “as a concept of anointing salvation” was very real. Further, he is talking about the persecution of Christians – not of Jesus. There is no doubt that the earliest Christians were indeed persecuted. This does not prove the bible to be a historical document. It only proves that Christians existed, and I have never argued against that FACT.

City of Tyre
The two great cities of Phoenicia were Tyre and Sidon. Ezekiel as a captive in Babylon made some very specific predictions about the seacoast metropolis of Tyre. In Ezekiel 26 and 27 the destruction of Tyre was given in detail (592-570BC)

First of all, there is absolutely no evidence to support the claim that Ezekiel was written in 592 BCE. You are once again depending upon the bible -- to prove that the bible is true. Can you see where this is not a valid form of ‘proof’? This is what a ‘circular argument’ is David.  

Second, Tyre and Sidon have been through many cycles of conquering and reestablishment – just like most every city of the world, but neither of them were ever destroyed. In fact, one of my favorite ancient biblical scholars – Origen of Alexandria – was buried in Tyre around 254 CE/AD and the cities of Tyre and Sidon still stand today.

expect you to say that the Bible is more recent and again use the argument that it is a Historical narrative to deceive the masses to believe the entire content

Yes, you expect accurately. I stand firm in my conviction that people are misusing the bible by selling it in toto as historical fact. This misuse does great harm to the people of this world; it keeps them ignorant of the truth about the bible, and moreover, it keeps them stonewalled from seeking and finding God in the world today.

The bible no doubt includes kernels of historical data, but…this does not mean that the events and people found only in the bible were real and historical as well.  In fact, the whole Di Vinci Code controversy is a good example: there are no doubt kernals of historical fact in Dan Brown's novel, BUT it is a work of FICTION and Brown never claimed anything else. Unless one is writing pure fantasy or sci-fi, kernals of history are found in most all fictional works.

I look forward to hearing your take on the article, as it covers this issue a bit as well.

That article is just trying to disprove a scholar’s position using the same baseless claims that are always made to discredit those who are taking a new position that contradicts the power of the religions that are now facing eventual extinction. An article like that would probably look much the same with any new scholarly approach – only the names would be changed – but that same baseless rhetoric would be used over and over again to try to discredit the findings.

In fact, many critics of the new movement toward a factual understanding of the ancient world are being personally attacked by being called "anti-Semitic" "anti-Christian" and "anti-Muslim" etc.

Sound familiar? You have done the exact same thing with me.

All this does is clearly show that critics of the new scholarship cannot produce a legitimate arguable position in support of traditional religious understanding -- all they can do is find ways to personally attack the new scholar.

This is not only hurtful to the new scholar, but it is hurtful to their families and to their reputations.

All scholars will eventually be forced to look at the FACTS.  As I have said before: good religion is not good scholarship.

We (many people) are finding new FACTS every day that contradicts the traditional interpretation of the bible and the traditional position of the religions involved, but unfortunately (for you), traditionalists are not finding new FACTS in support of the bible.

It’s happening David. Everyday. More and more people are going to start thinking for themselves, educating themselves, and coming to the same conclusions that I am. In the second article you quoted, one of the people involved is Philip Davies, University of Sheffield, UK. Try reading what he has to say:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Davies_Biblical_Scholars.htm

Another fellow scholar of Davies is Thomas Thompson, University of Copenhagan, Denmark:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/copenhagen.htm

And Peter Lemche, also of the Univ of Copenhagen:

http://www.bibleinterp.com/articles/Conservative_Scholarship.htm

And here is a Wiki related entry, for scholars are already having to come to terms with the fact that 'biblical Hebrew' did not exist until after the first century CE/AD.

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

We are at the beginning of the end of traditional understanding regarding the bible David, and all that it entails. During this time, a lot of fur will fly, and a lot of insults will be exchanged, and moreover a lot of reputations will be on the line, but, none of these things will change the truth of the matter: The Bible Was Creative Fiction. Not History.

It is just a matter of time before the world really catches on. In the meantime, it is my best suggestion that believers begin to establish a relationship with God outside of the bible.

~Beth

[Mustardseed]

Dear Beth

Thanks for the time you take writing such long posts. There is a lot to read so I will take some time to do so and get back to you about it.

I do hope you understand my dilemma. As I said before, at 50, and with a very real life to live, kids responsibilities etc I will most likely remain a layman and forgo a university degree, and I see a different route for me than the one you decided on. I do as I said applaud you for doing what you did, a very courageous thing.

As far as attacking each other, I suggest we leave that issue then, I did apologize as I believe that you were right in mentioning that your motives had nothing to do with the question, I ask that you grant me the same freedom, to pursue the path of truth without being harassed as "religious nut" or whatever.

I will remind you that when we first met, as I also mentioned before, the tone in the posts were quite, aggressive toward Christians, here on the pulse. I feel I was being drawn into a confrontation by rhetoric, and a very unkind criticism of my person, something that is still happening here on the pulse from time to time. I should probably have turned the other cheek but my Scorpio sense of injustice and my pride got the best of me and I answered in like manner. This is hoe we as humans often launch out at each other, in selfdefence.

In any case it is something I am trying hard to be on guard about in this thread, as I assume you realize.

About the article, I agree that it was very troubling to me as well, that the person who wrote it was so sarcastic, and assumed so many things about the author in question. However I felt it had some validity, in regards to the historical findings.

I realize also, that I am out of my league, and debating an issue that I really do not know that much about, at least not compared to you. This was never a question, I always realized that, yet I am trying to research for my own benefit as much as I can. It does give some problems as I can not argue with the ease you do. I hardly understand what the articles say, and have to use a dictionary all the time when reading them. Ha

In any case I have a very unique alternative route that I can take, and I think I will try that. I will explain that later.  For now thanks for the homework, and all the best to you.

Regards Mustardseed

[Beth]

As always David -- you are welcome!

~Beth