Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (24064)	8/4/1998 2:28:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

<< First of all, we need to dispose of the farcical "Jesus Seminar", of Funk and his colored balls. Funk and Company approach their study with the predetermination that miracles didn't happen, and that there was no resurrection, so they discount the testimony of the New Testament accounts before they begin. >> And you start with the predetermination that the miracles did happen. That's not being objective Freddy. Your flippant dismissal of the Jesus Seminar isn't going to cut it. There are over 100 religious scholars from major universities now participating. It is totally proper to look for mention of Jesus independent of the Bible. The fact is that there is very little to be found in the first century. Doesn't it seem odd that such profound events weren't considered important to others in the area? How is it that the dating of the New Testament writings are so easy for you, yet the Jesus Seminar scholars find it so difficult? Maybe you ought to join the Jesus Seminar and show 'em. They are asking for qualified people to join. Nice seeing you back. Del

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (24064)	8/9/1998 12:33:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Freddy, Del has already made most of the points I would have made in discussing the Jesus Seminar, so I won't bore you making the same ones. I would say, however, that in my original remarks my point was that Jesus was not recognized during his own lifetime as a hugely famous person, and that he did not have thousands of people watching and chronicling his every move, or standing around while he died on the cross. He was treated as a common criminal by the Romans. I do not dispute that there was some sort of historical Jesus who came from a rural area in Palestine and gathered some followers during his life. But the idea that he was a famous man who was worshipped widely is not true, and this is reflected in his absence from the historical record. I also think that after he attracted attention, much of who he was was embellished greatly over time. I have said before that I think Jesus would puke if he came back today and could see everything evil that has been done in his name. This thought is in no way original with me; it is widely held among people who are not Christians but sense some bright glimmer coming down through the ages which emanated from this man. I also think you have a lot of explaining to do regarding all of the pagan gods with the same birthday, many of whom were crucified. Then there is the Druidic god curiously named Hesus, who was crucified in 834BC. It is pretty obvious to me that there is something in man that needs sun god symbolism, and crucifixion symbolism, and that this man Jesus who was a teacher and had a gentle spirit, was simply wrapped up over time with all of this mythological needy stuff which came from ancient times: VI. -- HESUS OF THE CELTIC DRUIDS CRUCIFIED, 834 B.C. Mr. Higgins informs us that the Celtic Druids represent their God Hesus as having been crucified with a lamb on one side and an elephant on the other, and that this occurred long before the Christian era. Also that a representation of it may now be seen upon "the fire-tower of Brechin." In this symbolical representation of the crucifixion, the elephant, being the largest animal known, was chosen to represent the magnitude of the sins of the world, while the lamb, from its proverbial innocent nature, was chosen to represent the innocency of the victim (the God offered as a propitiatory sacrifice). And thus we have "the Lamb of God taking away the sins of the world" -- symbolical language used with respect to the offering of Jesus Christ. And here is indicated very clearly the origin of the figure. It is evidently borrowed from the Druids. We have the statement of the above writer that this legend was found amongst the Canutes of Gaul long before Jesus Christ was known to history. (See Anac. vol. ii. p. 130.) infidels.org

To: JF Quinnelly who wrote (24064)	8/9/1998 12:59:00 PM
From: Grainne	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 108807

Freddy, you really lose me with your argument about "one fragment of Mark" dating back to the '60's. The gospels were written as stories, telling the good news of Jesus' coming, are all different, and were embellished and changed to suit different audiences. They were not written as history at all. This discussion of Mark from the PBS Frontline series explains how Mark was working the destruction of the temple into his story telling. Do you have a fundamental disagreement with this? pbs.org For anyone who is not following this discussion but would like to do so, the basic disagreement, at least to me, is about how factual the Gospels were intended to be. My understanding is that they were written one on top of the other by men who were trying to encourage people to understand and follow Jesus. Biblical literalists believe they are the word of God. This is puzzling to me, since they are all quite different! Here is a basic passage from the PBS Frontline series which supports my understanding: pbs.org