Chinadaily BBS - World Affairs Today - Bible fact or fiction?

Guest: Login | Register | Search | FAQ

Chinadaily BBS » News Talk» World Affairs Today» Bible fact or fiction?

Last Thread

Next Thread

john_galt (john galt)
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 11568
Digest Posts 0
Credits 87
Posts 87
Registered 2003-9-9
Status Offline

Why look to “history” for an answer? The basis for religion is probably found in the nature of man and more specifically in his emotions. Our strongest instinct is self preservation so when a religion promises us “eternal life” we are inclined to support it. We want to believe that our existence will not end. With “eternal life” as the enticement, religion then uses the standard practice of any salesman: first create the problem and then present your solution to the problem. The “problem” in Christianity, of course is sin. Christianity says, “You cannot have eternal life because you are a sinner, but listen to what I say. Come to my organization (and, by the way, support me) and I will see to it that you have the eternal life that you want.” This is one of the first lessons taught to western children and because they are influenced by the anchoring bias, it colors all of their subsequent thinking.

It is rather strange that people of western culture have adopted the religious beliefs of an alien culture, an Asian culture, especially since it is responsible for many of the conditions today which harm or weaken western nations (particularly the US).

2009-11-4 01:29 AM

#81

longtengws
Newcomer
Rank: 1

UID 289815
Digest Posts 0
Credits 12
Posts 8
Registered 2009-11-4
Status Offline

i agree,thanks for sharing

2009-11-4 09:21 AM

#82

wanghuhlj
Newcomer
Rank: 1

UID 289916
Digest Posts 0
Credits 11
Posts 11
Registered 2009-11-4
Status Offline

I don't know the history of the bible ?Who can tell me some thing about that?

2009-11-4 11:25 AM

#83

wiseoldlady (Teri Bach)
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 271443
Digest Posts 0
Credits 386
Posts 369
Registered 2009-9-24
Location At home
Status Offline

Here's something quick I found on "All About the Journey.org"

Hope it helps.....

History of the Bible

The history of the Bible starts with a phenomenal account of history! It's not one book like I always thought -- It's an ancient collection of writings, comprised of 66 separate books, written over approximately 1,600 years, by at least 40 distinct authors. The Old Testament contains 39 books written from approximately 1500 to 400 BC, and the New Testament contains 27 books written from approximately 40 to 90 AD. The Jewish Bible (Tanakh) is the same as the Christian Old Testament, except for its book arrangement. The original Old Testament was written mainly in Hebrew, with some Aramaic, while the original New Testament was written in common Greek.

The history of the "Bible" begins with the Jewish Scriptures. The historical record of the Jews was written down on leather scrolls and tablets over centuries, and the authors included kings, shepherds, prophets and other leaders. The first five books are called the Law, which were written and/or edited primarily by Moses in the early 1400's BC. Thereafter, other scriptural texts were written and collected by the Jewish people during the next 1,000 years. About 450 BC, the Law and the other Jewish Scriptures were arranged by councils of rabbis (Jewish teachers), who then recognized the complete set as the inspired and sacred authority of God (Elohim). At some time during this period, the books of the Hebrew Bible were arranged by topic, including The Law (Torah), the Prophets (Nebiim), and the Writings (Ketubim). The first letters of these Hebrew words - T, N and K -- form the name of the Hebrew Bible - the Tanakh. 1

Beginning as early as 250 BC, the Hebrew Bible was translated into Greek by Jewish scholars in Alexandria, Egypt. This translation became known as the "Septuagint", meaning 70, and referring to the tradition that 70 (probably 72) men comprised the translation team. It was during this process that the order of the books was changed to the order we have in today's Bible: Historical (Genesis - Esther), poetic (Job - Song of Songs), and prophetic (Isaiah - Malachi). 2

Although the Jewish Scriptures were copied by hand, they were extremely accurate copy to copy. The Jews had a phenomenal system of scribes, who developed intricate and ritualistic methods for counting letters, words and paragraphs to insure that no copying errors were made. These scribes dedicated their entire lives to preserving the accuracy of the holy books. A single copy error would require the immediate destruction of the entire scroll. In fact, Jewish scribal tradition was maintained until the invention of the printing press in the mid-1400's AD. As far as manuscript accuracy, the recent discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls has confirmed the remarkable reliability of this scribal system over thousands of years 3 (I'll get back to the Dead Sea Scrolls later).

After approximately 400 years of scriptural silence, Jesus arrived on the scene in about 4 BC. Throughout his teaching, Jesus often quotes the Old Testament, declaring that he did not come to destroy the Jewish Scriptures, but to fulfill them. In the Book of Luke, Jesus proclaims to his disciples, "all things must be fulfilled which were written in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms concerning Me." 4

Starting in about 40 AD, and continuing to about 90 AD, the eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus, including Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, James, Peter and Jude, wrote the Gospels, letters and books that became the Bible's New Testament. These authors quote from 31 books of the Old Testament, and widely circulate their material so that by about 150 AD, early Christians were referring to the entire set of writings as the "New Covenant." During the 200s AD, the original writings were translated from Greek into Latin, Coptic (Egypt) and Syriac (Syria), and widely disseminated as "inspired scripture" throughout the Roman Empire (and beyond). 5 In 397 AD, in an effort to protect the scriptures from various heresies and offshoot religious movements, the current 27 books of the New Testament were formally and finally confirmed and "canonized" in the Synod of Carthage. 6

1 Henry H. Halley, Halley's Bible Handbook, 25th ed., Zondervan Publishing House, 2000, 1071.
2 Ibid.
3 Various, Zondervan Handbook to the Bible, Zondervan Publishing House, 1999, 64-65.
4 Luke 24:44, The Holy Bible, New King James Version, Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982.
5 F.F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable? 5th rev. ed., Intervarsity Press, 1960, 21-28.
6 Ibid., 27.

2009-11-4 11:31 AM

#84

amuyaima
Newcomer
Rank: 1

UID 201586
Digest Posts 0
Credits 15
Posts 12
Registered 2009-2-20
Status Offline

Its is not a novel that you read and get the meaning. Many thousands are doing research on this book for thousands of year. Read again and again then the meaning will comes out.

2009-11-5 09:17 AM

#85

wiseoldlady (Teri Bach)
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 271443
Digest Posts 0
Credits 386
Posts 369
Registered 2009-9-24
Location At home
Status Offline

amuyaima:

Good insight.

Once you have a basic knowledge of the book. Then read what others have to say

about the book. Listen to what others say about the book. Watch how people
haveapplied lessons from the book to their lives. Use the information you have

gathered in your own life to benefit your self and others.

Never be afraid of doubters, they can teach you alot.

Wayves quoted in another thread:

At the center of your being you have the answer; you know who you are and you know what you want.

~Lao Tzu

2009-11-5 09:30 AM

#86

Fookchew
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 206821
Digest Posts 0
Credits 394
Posts 382
Registered 2009-3-4
Status Offline

The story of Jesus is one of the biggest lies ever sold in human history.

[ Last edited by Fookchew at 2009-11-5 09:33 AM ]

2009-11-5 09:32 AM

#87

Fookchew
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 206821
Digest Posts 0
Credits 394
Posts 382
Registered 2009-3-4
Status Offline

Biblical Sources ...

"The story of Jesus Christ can be found only in the forged books of the New
Testament, an assortment of gospels and epistles that required many centuries and
hands to create. As Dr. Lardner said, “. . . even so late as the middle of the sixth
century, the canon of the New Testament had not been settled by any authority that
was decisive and universally acknowledged. . .”lxiv Mead describes the confused
compilation of the “infallible Word of God”:
The New Testament is not a single book but a collection of groups of books and single
volumes, which were at first and even long afterwards circulated separately. . . . the
Gospels are found in any and every order. . . . Egyptian tradition places Jn. first
among the Gospels.lxv
In fact, it took well over a thousand years to canonize the New Testament, and
the Old Testament canon remains different to this day in the Catholic and Protestant
versions. This canonization also required many councils to decide which books were
to be considered “inspired” and which “spurious.” Contrary to the impression given,
these councils were not peaceful gatherings of the “good shepherds of Christ” but
raucous free-for-alls between bands of thugs and their arrogant and insane bishops.
As Keeler says:
The reader would err greatly did he suppose that in these assemblies one or two
hundred gentlemen sat down to discuss quietly and dignifiedly the questions which
had come before them for settlement. On the contrary, many of the bishops were
ignorant ruffians, and were followed by crowds of vicious supporters who stood ready
on the slightest excuse to maim and kill their opponents.lxvi
In fact, at the Council of Ephesus in 431 mobs consisting of the dregs of society
and representing the warring factions of Antioch and Alexandria broke out in riots
and killed many of each other. This melee was merely one of many, and this
shedding of blood by Christian followers was only the beginning of a hideous
centuries-long legacy.
Church historian Eusebius admits the chaotic atmosphere of the Christian
foundation:
But increasing freedom transformed our character to arrogance and sloth; we began
envying and abusing each other, cutting our own throats, as occasion offered, with
weapons of sharp-edged words; rulers hurled themselves at rulers and laymen waged
party fights against laymen, and unspeakable hypocrisy and dissimulation were
carried to the limit of wickedness. . . . Those of us who were supposed to be pastors
cast off the restraining influence of the fear of God and quarrelled heatedly with each
other, engaged solely in swelling the disputes, threats, envy, and mutual hostility and
hate, frantically demanding the despotic power they coveted.lxvii
Such were the means by which the New Testament was finally canonized.
Concerning the NT as it stands today, Wheless says:
The 27 New Testament booklets, attributed to eight individual “Apostolic” writers,
and culled from some 200 admitted forgeries called Gospels, Acts, and Epistles,
constitute the present “canonical” or acceptedly inspired compendium of the
primitive history of Christianity.lxviii
The various gospels, of which only four are now accepted as “canonical” or
“genuine,” are in actuality not the earliest Christian texts. The earliest canonical texts
are demonstrably the Epistles of Paul, so it is to them that we must first turn in our
investigation."

The Christ Conspiracy - The greatest story ever sold

2009-11-5 09:44 AM

#88

Fookchew
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 206821
Digest Posts 0
Credits 394
Posts 382
Registered 2009-3-4
Status Offline

When Hitler was the 'true Holy Ghost"...

In April 1937, a Christian organization in the Rhineland passed a resolution that Hitler’s word was he law of God and possessed “divine authority.”
Reichsminister for Church Affairs, Hans Kerrl announced: “There has arisen a new authority as to what Christ and Christianity really are—that is Adolf Hitler. Adolf Hitler . . . is the true Holy Ghost. And so the pious gave him their blessing, and the churches gave him God’s."

2009-11-5 09:51 AM

#89

Fookchew
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 206821
Digest Posts 0
Credits 394
Posts 382
Registered 2009-3-4
Status Offline

"Of the Pandira/Pandera story, Larson states, “Throughout the middle ages, the
legend of Pandera and Yeshu, considered by most scholars a Jewish invention,
continued to persist.”cxviii This Jewish invention may have been created in order to
capitulate to the Christian authorities, who were persecuting “unbelievers.” Thus we
find the tale in the Talmud, written after the Christ myth already existed.

"To quote Wells:
Klausner’s very full survey of the relevant material in [the Talmud] led him to the
conclusion that the earliest references to Jesus in rabbinical literature occur not
earlier than about the beginning of the second century . . . If there had been a
historical Jesus who had anything like the career ascribed to him in the gospels, the
absence of earlier references becomes very hard to explain. When Rabbis do begin to mention him, they are so vague in their chronology that they differ by as much as 200 years in the dates they assign to him. . . . It is clear from this that they never thought
of testing whether he had existed, but took for granted that this name stood for a real
person. . . . But let us see what modern Jewish scholarship, as represented by
Sandmel and Goldstein, has to say about Jesus’ historicity. Sandmel concedes that
what knowledge we have of him “comes only from the NT”, “since he went unknown
in the surviving Jewish and pagan literature of his time”; and that passages about
him in the ancient rabbinical literature of reflect NT material and give no information
that is independent of Christian tradition. That the Talmud is useless as a source of
reliable information about Jesus is conceded by most Christian scholars.cxix
Other Talmudic references to Jesus, cloaked by the name “Balaam,” are
derogatory condemnations written centuries after the purported advent, thus serving
as commentary on the tradition, not testimony to any “history.”
Wells further states:
Now that so much in the NT has fallen under suspicion, there is a natural tendency to
exaggerate the importance of non-Christian material that seems to corroborate it—
even though Christian scholars past and present have admitted that, on the matter of
Jesus’ historicity, there is no pagan or Jewish evidence worth having . . .cxx
To reiterate, “The forged New Testament booklets and the foolish writings of the
Fathers, are the sole ‘evidence’ we have for the alleged facts and doctrines of our
most holy Faith,” as, adds Wheless, is admitted by the Catholic Encyclopedia
itself.cxxi
As it is said, “Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof”; yet, no proof of
any kind for the historicity of Jesus has ever existed or is forthcoming. "

2009-11-5 10:38 AM

#90

Fookchew
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 206821
Digest Posts 0
Credits 394
Posts 382
Registered 2009-3-4
Status Offline

"Further Evidence of a Fraud
"There is basically no textual evidence of the existence of Jesus Christ, other than
forged biblical books and epistles. In our quest we will now examine what
proponents and opponents of the Christian religion were claiming beginning in the
second century, during which the “new faith” actually arose. Little of the actual works
of most opponents survives, unfortunately, because the Christian conspirators went on
a censorship rampage for centuries. However, in their refutations the Christians
themselves preserved their opponents’ main points of contention, the most
important of which was that the whole story was fabricated. In fact, from their own
admissions the early Christians were incessantly under criticism by scholars of great
repute whom the Christians at first viciously impugned and later murdered by the
thousands. Yet, it was not only the dissenters and Pagans who apprehended the
truth, as the Christians themselves continuously disclosed that they knew the story
and religion of Jesus Christ were not original but were founded upon more ancient
myths and ideologies throughout the known world.
For example, the eminent Church doctor Augustine readily confessed that
Christianity was a rehash of what already existed long prior to the Christian era:
That which is known as the Christian religion existed among the ancients, and never
did not exist; from the beginning of the human race until the time when Christ came
in the flesh, at which time the true religion, which already existed, began to be called
Christianity.cxxii
In addition, in the face of criticism that Christianity was fabricated, Eusebius
sought to demonstrate it was not “novel or strange” by claiming it was based on older
ideas. Says he:
. . . although we certainly are a youthful people and this undeniably new name of
Christians has only lately become known among all nations, nevertheless our life and
mode of conduct together with our religious principles, have not been recently
invented by us, but from almost the beginnings of man were built on the natural
concepts of those whom God loved in the distant past . . .
Eusebius thus admitted not only that Christianity was built upon earlier
ideologies but also that the name “Christian” was still “undeniably new” by his time,
300 years after the purported beginning of the Christian era, in spite of the New
Testament tales that the gospel had been “preached to all the nations” and that a vast
church network had sprung up during the first century.
Regarding these Christian admissions, Doane states:
Melito (a Christian bishop of Sardis), in an apology delivered to the Emperor Marcus
Atoninus, in the year 170, claims the patronage of the emperor, for the now-called
Christian religion, which he calls “our philosophy,” “on account of its high antiquity,
as having been imported from countries lying beyond the limits of the Roman
empire, in the region of his ancestor Augustus, who found its importation ominous of
good fortune to his government.” This is an absolute demonstration that Christianity
did not originate in Judea, which was a Roman province, but really was an exotic
oriental fable, imported from India . . . cxxiii
As this exotic oriental fable settled in, it was placed in Judea and based on Old
Testament tales as well, as is affirmed by Tertullian in his Against Praxeas, in which
he gives the following ludicrous argument, when confronted with the
similarities between Christ and a number of OT characters, such as Joshua, or
Jesus, as his name is in Greek:
"Early Manifestations of the Son of God, as Recorded in the Old Testament;
Rehearsals of His Subsequent Incarnation. . . . Thus was He ever learning even as
God to converse with men upon earth, being no other than the Word which was to be
made flesh. But He was thus learning (or rehearsing), in order to level for us the way
of faith, that we might the more readily believe that the Son of God had come down
into the world, if we knew that in times past also something similar had been done.
It is more than a little odd that the “omniscient” God would need to learn how."

2009-11-5 10:45 AM

#91

Fookchew
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 206821
Digest Posts 0
Credits 394
Posts 382
Registered 2009-3-4
Status Offline

"The Trinity.."

"The trinity or triune deity is yet another aspect of the ubiquitous mythos, found
in countless other cultures long prior to the Christian era. Obviously, then, the
concept did not originate with Jesus; in fact, it was not adopted into Christianity
until the Council of Nicea in 325. Like so many aspects of Christianity, the trinity was originally found in the Egyptian religion. As Churchward says:
Such mysteries as the Trinity, the Incarnation, and the Virgin Birth, the
Transfiguration on the Mount, the Passion, Death, Burial, Resurrection and
Ascension, Transubstantiation and Baptismal Regeneration, were all extant in the
mysteries of Amenta with Horus or Iu-em-Hotep as the Egyptian Jesus.dclxi
Jacolliot notes that the Trinity is also of Indian origin: “The Trinity in Unity,
rejected by Moses, became afterwards the foundation of Christian theology, which
incontestably acquired it from India.”

Over the millennia, the trinity took different forms: all-female, all-male and
mixed. The earliest trinities in many places were all-female. As Walker relates:
From the earliest ages, the concept of the Great Goddess was a trinity and the model for all subsequent trinities, female, male or mixed. . . . Even though Brahmans
evolved a male trinity of Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva to play these parts [of Creator,
Preserver and Destroyer], Tantric scriptures insisted that the Triple Goddess had
created these gods in the first place. . . . The Middle East had many trinities, most
originally female. As time went on, one or two members of the triad turned male. The usual pattern was Father-Mother-Son, the Son figure envisioned as a Savior. . . .
Among Arabian Christians there was apparently a holy trinity of God, Mary, and
Jesus, worshipped as an interchangeable replacement for the Egyptian trinity of
Osiris, Isis, and Horus. . . dclxii

In the solar mythos, the trinity also represents the sun in three stages: Newborn
(dawn), mature (full-grown at 12 noon), and “old and dying, at the end of the day
(going back to the Father).”dclxiii

The trinity is even found in Peru, a fact that prompted the perturbed Rev. Father
Acosta to remark:
It is strange that the devil after his manner has brought a Trinity into idolatry, for the
three images of the sun called Apomti, Churunti, and Intiquaoqui, signify Father and Lord Sun, the Son Sun, and the Brother Sun."

2009-11-5 11:54 AM

#92

wiseoldlady (Teri Bach)
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 271443
Digest Posts 0
Credits 386
Posts 369
Registered 2009-9-24
Location At home
Status Offline

A Refutation of Acharya S's book, The Christ Conspiracy

Written by Mike Licona

Copyright © 2001, TruthQuest PublishersAll Rights Reserved. No reproduction of any kind permissible without the expressed written consent of the publisher

.Acharya S is a skeptic with an interest in mythology who has written a book entitled The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold.

6. Poor Scholarship
On the home page of her web site, Ms. Murdock claims to be a scholar.(111) If anything has become apparent while we have briefly examined her book, The Christ Conspiracy, it is that precisely just the opposite is true.

In addition to all that we have just reviewed, a few other points stand out. Practically all of her sources are secondary rather than primary sources. For example, she quotes Adolf Hitler as saying that it was his Christian convictions which led him to attempt to exterminate the Jews.(112) Where did Hitler say this? We cannot know from reading her book, because her source is The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets! On another occasion, she appeals to the Catholic Encyclopedia.(113) However, rather than quote directly from it, she merely quotes someone else who is summarizing from it. On still another point, she quotes Otto Schmiedel.(114) However, when you look at the endnote, you find that her source is Rudolf Steiner, a mystic.(115) This shows that Ms. Murdock knows what some others are saying. But it does nothing to prove that what her sources are saying are correct. Rarely are reasons provided by her sources in support of their statements. It is like someone arguing that terrorism is justified and cites ten terrorists claiming that terrorism is just. However, this does nothing to support their position that terrorism is justified; only that some believe that it is. It also indicates that she has not checked out the claims of her sources, but rather uncritically accepts what they say.(116)

Much of her book is blocks of quotes from these secondary sources, most of whom are hardly authorities. Let us look at whom she cites: Barbara Walker’s The Woman’s Encyclopedia of Myths and Secrets!; J. M. Roberts, Esq. (not a scholar but an attorney) who wrote Antiquity Unveiled for Health Research; Col. James Churchward’s The Lost Continent of Mu. An uncomfortably large number of her citations are by non-scholarly sources such as these.

She makes a large number of unrestrained claims without supporting them. Here are a few examples: (a) The story of Lazarus’ rising from the dead is an Egyptian myth.(117) (b) The author of Acts used Josephus and Aristides as sources.(118) (c) The book of Acts "was fabricated by monks, ‘devil-drivers’ and popes, who wished to form an alliance by writing the book."(119)

She draws conclusions based on certain obscure definitions of English words rather than their original meanings in Greek. For example, she says "the Gospel was not designed to be rational, as the true meaning of the word ‘gospel’ is ‘God’s Spell,’ as in magic, hypnosis and delusion."(120) This is laughable. The word "Gospel" has an Anglo-Saxon origin where the term "spell" means "news," not magic.(121) Moreover, it does not matter what the English word means. What matters is what the word means in Greek, something Murdock does not even bother to consider. The Greek word for "Gospel" is "euangelion." It comes from 2 words: eu which means "good" and angelos which means "angel" or "messenger." Euangelos means good messenger and our word, euangelion means the "good message."(122) Thus, you can see why English translators have used the term "Gospel" for "good news." This is a very odd mistake by someone who claims to be a scholar of the Greek language. Again, we notice a lack of responsible research on Ms. Murdock’s part.

Are scholars saying anything about The Christ Conspiracy? With the lone exception of a book review which was negative towards The Christ Conspiracy, there has been a silence from scholarship regarding it. It seems painfully obvious why this is the situation. Her book offers no credible information towards supporting her thesis.

Dr. Robert Price is far from being a Christian. Rather, he is a prominent atheist and a member of the Jesus Seminar who reviewed Ms. Murdock’s book. After referring to it as "sophomoric," Price comments, "She is quick to state as bald fact what turn out to be, once one chases down her sources, either wild speculation or complex inference from a chain of complicated data open to many interpretations. One of the most intriguing claims made repeatedly in these books is that among the mythical predecessors of Jesus as a crucified god were the Buddha, the blue-skinned Krishna, and Dionysus. Is there any basis to these claims, which Murdock just drops like a ton of bricks? Again, she does not explain where they come from, much less why no available book on Buddha, Krishna, or Dionysus contains a crucifixion account. . . . When Murdock speaks of the ‘Christ Conspiracy,’ she means it. She really believes that ‘people got together and cooked up’ early Christianity like a network sitcom. And who were these conspirators? The, er, Masons (pp. 334 ff.). It is remarkable how and where some people’s historical skepticism comes crashing to a halt. But it gets much, much weirder than that. We start, in the last chapters, reading bits and pieces drawn from James Churchward, promoter of the imaginary lost continent of Mu; Charles Berlitz, apologist for sunken Atlantis; Zechariah Sitchen, advocate of flying saucers in ancient Akkadia; and of course all that stuff about the maps of the ancient sea kings. The Christ Conspiracy is a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney."(123)

2009-11-5 11:45 PM

#93

wiseoldlady (Teri Bach)
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 271443
Digest Posts 0
Credits 386
Posts 369
Registered 2009-9-24
Location At home
Status Offline

con't

7. Conclusion
Ms. Murdock claims that the reason she and her sources are ignored by scholars is because her "arguments have been too intelligent and knifelike to do away with" and have "no doubt [been] fearfully suppressed because they are somewhat irrefutable."(124) Murdock would have us all believe that prominent scholars within New Testament criticism, Hinduism, Buddhism, astronomy, history, and Freemasonry are all intellectual lightweights compared to herself and who either cannot appreciate her arguments or suppress them for reasons untold.

However, it is abundantly clear why scholars have ignored and turned their noses up at her views. The reason for the lack any positive acknowledgment from scholars is:
a. Almost all of her sources are secondary and are themselves wrong on many occasions.

b. A large number of her sources are not scholars.

c. She makes wild claims without supporting them.

d. Her claim that astrology permeates the Bible such as that the 12 tribes of Israel and the 12 disciples represent the 12 signs of the zodiac is so erroneous that a Professor of Astronomy and Astrophysics at the University of Chicago who specializes in ancient practices in astronomy referred to her as "nutty."

e. Her claim that Krishna represents a dying and rising god prior to Christianity is so mistaken that the Professor of Hindu Studies at Rutgers said that this claim is "absolute and complete nonsense," that "she doesn’t know what she’s talking about," and that she should take a religion 101 course before making these kind of claims.

f. Her claim that many similarities exist between Buddha and Jesus elicited a similar response from the Chair of the Department of Religion at Rutgers who specializes in Buddhism: "[The woman you speak of] is totally ignorant of Buddhism. It is very dangerous to spread misinformation like this. . . . Please ask [her] to take a basic course in world religion or Buddhism before uttering another word about things she does not know."

g. Indeed, even an atheist scholar, Bob Price called her book "sophomoric." He also commented that her book is "a random bag of (mainly recycled) eccentricities, some few of them worth considering, most dangerously shaky, many outright looney."
One thing you have to grant Ms. Murdock; she is consistent.(125) If you enjoy extreme and unsubstantiated views with an attitude, you will like The Christ Conspiracy. If you appreciate anything you can get your hands on that insults Christianity, irrespective of the quality of the arguments and the data, you will relish The Christ Conspiracy. But in terms of this book being a responsible account of the origin of Christianity, it is unsalvageable.

For the full article, please go to r is en j es usdo tc om

2009-11-5 11:47 PM

#94

marquis
Newcomer
Rank: 1

UID 183581
Digest Posts 0
Credits 1
Posts 1
Registered 2008-12-1
Status Offline

Once Jesus touches your life and have you transformed, the only regret you will have is why should not you believe Him earlier.
I do not know the taste of Chongqing hotpot until i tasted it myself.
So it is with Jesus.

2009-11-6 07:12 AM

#95

wiseoldlady (Teri Bach)
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 271443
Digest Posts 0
Credits 386
Posts 369
Registered 2009-9-24
Location At home
Status Offline

2009-11-6 07:57 AM

#96

UYA
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 241994
Digest Posts 0
Credits 497
Posts 433
Registered 2009-6-28
Status Offline

good work fook and little old lady

You both made great contributions to this thread!

Thanks

2009-11-6 08:20 AM

#97

wiseoldlady (Teri Bach)
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 271443
Digest Posts 0
Credits 386
Posts 369
Registered 2009-9-24
Location At home
Status Offline

Thanks, UYA.

btw, congrats on your new job at the university!

2009-11-6 08:32 AM

#98

Fookchew
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 206821
Digest Posts 0
Credits 394
Posts 382
Registered 2009-3-4
Status Offline

Rebuttal to Licona's "Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy"

Concerning Mike Licona's response to Acharya's rebuttal, please see her lengthy response, which is her 600-page book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled.

"In Christian apologist Mike Licona's "refutation" of my book The Christ Conspiracy, he terms me a "skeptic with an interest in mythology." This statement is misleading, as are many of his other remarks, as he has learned to do in apologist school in order to make individuals who do not subscribe to his particular belief system look ridiculous and inadequate. Firstly, Licona spends his time trying to prove a most preposterous premise: To wit, that Jesus Christ did in fact rise from the dead, which should in itself cast doubt on his own credibility. Secondly, I am not a "skeptic with an interest in mythology." I am an expert in comparative religion and mythology who is sensibly skeptical of the silly stories and bogus claims foisted upon the masses by priestly hucksters such as Licona, e.g., that a Jewish man is the God of the cosmos and rose from the dead 2,000 years ago. At least Licona has the courtesy of calling me a "scholar," albeit an "amateur."

"It is obvious that apologist Licona's main tactic in refuting The Christ Conspiracy is to attack my credibility, constantly misrepresenting statements from my book and website in order to make me look absurd. Such is a classic tactic of apologists and other used-religion salesmen attempting to sell their shoddy goods to an unsuspecting public. Apologists are not generally trained to think independently or to refute facts but to assail the credentials and credibility of the individual who does not buy such shoddy goods. In other words, don't bother them with the facts or the science, they will simply retort that your hair is the wrong color or you will be punished by God or some other playground rubbish.

"While Licona himself uses "experts" so entrenched in the mainstream perspective that they are unable to do research into anything "new," such as the information I provide--and cite quite thoroughly--he nevertheless attacks my sources, calling them "non-experts," "non-scholarly," etc. Again, another classic apologist tactic: bait and switch, sleight-of-hand, etc. The attack on sources is an old trick designed to keep the reader from looking at the facts presented. The whining about the use of secondary sources is also a strawman tactic used for the same purpose; in reality, the clamor for "primary sources" serves to remind that there are few remaining, that the ancient cultures have been thoroughly decimated, usurped and destroyed by Christian fanatics. Thus, every time an apologist moans about "primary sources," he is indicting his own "faith" (brainwashing) and its perpetrators. The use of the term "poor scholarship" is another typical trick designed to keep the reader from addressing the facts presented, as is illustrated by the comment above by Arthur Drews, who was writing nearly a century ago--obviously, harping about "poor scholarship" is an old huckster tactic. As Columbo says, "Just the facts, ma'am." Forget about whether the sources are primary, secondary, tertiary, etc.--does what they are saying make sense, factually? This factual argument, of course, is dangerous to the world of religions/cults, since they require blind belief in non-facts. So, attack the sources, even if what they are saying is not only perfectly logical but absolutely true! Then, when you've befuddled the reader/listener, you can slip in your own erroneous and bogus load of balderdash. Like PT Barnum said, there's a sucker born every minute. The reader is invited to study the following, as well as my many other works, and see if they constitute "poor scholarship." The bibliography of my book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled alone comprises over 250 books and articles, many of which are conservative, Christian resources.

"While thus impugning my integrity, it is ironic that, while Licona attempts to make me and my sources look absurd, he himself is running about trying to convince people that a fictional character was really the "son of God" who was truly raised from the dead! And, just what are Licona's motives in attempting to fob off this fairytale, one must wonder? The priestly and ministerial occupation is a con game as old as the hills: Tell tall tales, with no evidence whatsoever, and hope the less intellectual will fall for it.

"As the ignorance of nations grows darker, priests of all religion see their way the more clearly.

Christian Mythology Unveiled

[ Last edited by Fookchew at 2009-11-6 11:36 AM ]

2009-11-6 11:30 AM

#99

Fookchew
Primary Member
Rank: 2

UID 206821
Digest Posts 0
Credits 394
Posts 382
Registered 2009-3-4
Status Offline

Rebuttal to Licona's "Refutation of The Christ Conspiracy"

Concerning the attitude of priests, preachers and pastors towards their flocks of sheeple, Count Volney remarks:

That we may understand the general feelings of priests respecting the rest of mankind, whom they always call by the name of the people, let us hear one of the doctors of the church. "The people," says Bishop Synnesius, in Calvit. page 315, "are desirous of being deceived, we cannot act otherwise respecting them. The case was similar with the ancient priests of Egypt, and for this reason they shut themselves up in their temples, and there composed their mysteries, out of the reach of the eye of the people." And forgetting what he has before just said, he adds: "for had the people been in [on] the secret they might have been offended at the deception played upon them. In the mean time how is it possible to conduct one's self otherwise with the people, so long as they are people? For my own part, to myself I shall always be a philosopher, but in dealing with the mass of mankind, I shall be a priest."

"A little jargon," says Gregory Nazianzen to St. Jerome (Hieron. ad. Nep.) "is all that is necessary to impose on the people. The less they comprehend, the more they admire. Our forefathers and doctors of the church have often said, not what they thought, but what circumstances and necessity dictated to them."

Moreover, Licona quotes some "experts" who not only impugn my integrity but basically assert that I should not be allowed to speak in public; yet, no one is bothered that used-religion salesmen with no evidence of their claims have free rein of the airwaves (and the minds of innocents).

Licona's "refutation" begins with an erroneous statement, setting the stage for what is to follow. Again, I am not a "skeptic" with some passing interest in mythology. I am what I say I am: an archaeologist, historian, mythologist and linguist. To reiterate, regardless of the disparagement, I am also a specialist in comparative mythology and astrotheology. It just so happens that, when religions and mythologies are studied in dept--in depth, mind you--they resolve themselves into astrotheology or astral mythology.

In reality, Licona's comments regarding ancient astrology--and those of his "expert" astronomer--are absolutely false and absurd, as is easily demonstrated by a wide variety of proofs. For one thing, the Babylonians and the priestly caste of Chaldeans were expert astrologers, with a known zodiac (the zodiac is even mentioned in the Bible, which I point out!) centuries to millennia prior to the Christian era--denying that fact is beyond ridiculous! But it does reveal the depth of dishonesty needed in order to shore up fables. Concerning the origin and antiquity of astrology, the "foster-sister of astronomy," the Catholic Encyclopedia relates ("Astrology"):

The history of astrology is an important part of the history of the development of civilization, it goes back to the early days of the human race.... The most ancient dwellers on the Euphrates the Akkado-Sumerians were believers in judicial astrology which was closely interwoven with their worship of the stars. The same is true of their successors, the Babylonians and Assyrians, who were the chief exponents of astrology in antiquity. The Babylonians and Assyrians developed astrology, especially judicial, to the status of a science, and thus advanced in pure astronomical knowledge by a circuitous course through the labyrinth of astrological predictions. The Assyro-Babylonian priests (Chaldeans) were the professional astrologers of classic antiquity. In its origin Chaldaic astrology also goes back to the worship of stars; this is proved by the religious symbolism of the most ancient cuneiform texts of the zodiac. The oldest astrological document extant is the work called "Namar-Beli" (Illumination of Bel) composed for King Sargon I (end of the third millennium B.C.) and contained in the cuneiform library of King Asurbanipal (668-626 B.C.). It includes astronomical observations and calculations of solar and lunar eclipses combined with astrological predictions, to which the interpretation of dreams already belonged. Even in the time of Chaldean, which should be called Assyrian, astrology, the five planets, together with the sun and moon, were divided according to their character and their position in the zodiac as well as according to their position in the twelve houses.... undoubtly the priests of the Pharaohs were the docile pupils in astrology of the old Chaldean priests. The mysterious Taauth (Thoth), the Hermes Trismegistus of antiquity, was regarded the earliest teacher of astrology in Egypt. He is reputed to have laid the foundation of astrology in the "Hermetic Books"; the division of the zodiac into the twelve signs is also due to him. In classic antiquity many works on astrology or on occult sciences in general were ascribed to this mythical founder of Egyptian astrology.... It is significant that in ancient Egypt astronomy, as well as astrology, was brought to an undoubtedly high state of cultivation. The astoundingly daring theories of the world found in the Egyptian texts, which permit us to infer that their authors were even acquainted with the helio-centric conception of the universe, are based entirely on astrologico-theosophic views. The astrology of the ancient inhabitants of India was similar, though hardly so comptetely developed; they also regarded the planets as the rulers of the different hours. Their division of the zodiac into twenty-eight houses of the moon is worthy of notice; this conception like all the rest of the fundamental beliefs of Hindu astrology, is to be found in the Rig-Veda [c. 1500 BCE, conservatively].

2009-11-6 11:31 AM

#100

Printable Version | Email to Friend | Subscription | Favorites


Forum Rules	Feedback	Privacy