tat tvam asi wrote:

Dolous wrote:

tat tvam asi wrote:WTF???

Uh, you asserted that I claimed that an apologetic group was following ME around. Simply post the quote of me actually saying that. If you can't, then guess what, you just raised and strawman...

Your post from Wed May 30, 2012 9:34 pm:

tat tvam asi wrote:No, it didn't fall apart and in fact the more you think about it the more clear it becomes actually. This is very telling indeed. We went from Stahrwe, to Ant, to you and seem to be getting much of the same from each. One apologist fades out and another is there promptly to replace him - like the teeth of a white shark.

Interesting.....

Kindly cut the innuendo and personal attacks and deal with the ideas being discussed. If you're bothered by the fact that people with differing viewpoints enter into your "atheist dominant board," then I'd suggest you find an isolated place where only people who agree with you can speak.

So there's the root of your strawman. You took my statement about "WE", the BT forum members, all of us, and twisted it around as if I made a personal appeal to an apologetic group following "Me" around personally. And I made it more than clear that it's BT the forum which has been approached by Stahrwe making claims of a wider audience following all of the theistic verses atheistic debates going on at BT.

Be careful, because if you raise a strawman like this it won't go unchecked. You'd be wise to pick and choose your assertions carefully...

Actually I took your innuendo about 3 people being in this forum as some type of troll apologist conspiracy and made a joke about it.

I'm all for checking. Why don't you ask a Mod to come down and we can resolve this quickly. If you'd like me to do the honours, then simply talk me through the process and I'd be happy to.

Oh, and you forgot to copy the rest of the post:

tat tvam asi wrote: Post enough posts in a row Stah, I mean Doulos?

The mods actually had to pass a rule about consecutive over posting due to Stahrwe's obsessive over posting. This must be a type of common reaction for apologetic trolls or something because how many consecutive posts did you just make for no apparent reason? Count'em out.

You could just simply deal with the ideas being discussed and cease with the innuendo and character attacks.

tat tvam asi wrote:

Doulos wrote:You hit on a second problem when you comment on the "cycle of birth, death, and rebirth." Yes there is a cycle... an annual cycle because the gods killed were agricultural symbols (though its again hard to be exact since you don't actually list which dieties you're speaking of). Jesus does not do this however. He does not rise and die each year. Quite simply, he doesn't fit the pattern you talk about.

Oh really? That's odd, because yes the gospel tale - if not originally - was eventually oriented intentionally around such older patterns. To be brief, here's a video in passing that calls attention to the general outline of the gospel myth according to what can be analyzed about the versions we know about:

OK. Your earlier proof was someone else's online forum post, where they cite the cover page of a book.

You now want to use a YouTube video?

The video doesn't even contain factual information Tat. Have you done any additional research to verify the claims made on here, because they certainly don't provide any proof in the video!

Let's take some examples:
(1:43) "The entire story of Jesus' travels during his one year ministry is an allegory for the yearly journey of the Sun through the twelve zodiac constellations and the passage of the seasons of the year."
- Jesus ministry was not 1 year... it was 3

(2:03) "The Jesus allegory begins with Jesus (a personification of the Sun), visiting John the Baptist (a personification of Aquarius) who baptises with water."
- Huh? Just assertions with no proof? Jesus personifies the Sun? John the Baptist is Aquarius? There's an element of symbolism to John definitely, but we're actually told about it.
"He is the Elijah who was to come." (Matthew 11:14)

(2:10) "Suddenly John the Baptist is put in prison. There is no further explanation in the Bible, which seems quite strange if John were a real person."
- Which is why there actually IS an explanation, which takes up most of a chapter. So whoever made this YouTube video knows very little about the Bible.
"At that time Herod the tetrarch heard the reports about Jesus... John’s disciples came and took his body and buried it. Then they went and told Jesus." (Matthew 14:1-12, with a fuller version in Mark 6:14-29)

(3:19) "In the Jesus story, after crossing the the lake (the Milky Way), Jesus heals two demon possessed men, Castor and Pollux."
- Except that Jesus does not heal two demon possessed men... he heals one(Mark 5:1-8), and his name certainly isn't Castor or Pollux. They also seem to imply just before this that this is after Jesus walks across water, and this does not happen after that. Neither are the Castor and Pollux of Greco-Roman myth connected with demon possession. I'm not even going to talk about the 'Milky Way'...


I could go on, but the video is just a joke. Even worse, the music on it makes the Barney song seem good.

Tat, is this the BEST evidence you have to back up your views???

say youre right and there really was a historical jesus Doulos.

so what ?

why should it matter, what in your mind is the significance?

Doulos wrote:Tat, is this the BEST evidence you have to back up your views???

More strawmen Doulos.

Once again, where did I claim that I was posting the best evidence I have or anything even close to that effect? Where did I use the word "evidence" at all? What I did is specify that I was dropping a short video in passing. And the video states that it is an over simplification of the subject and drops some links to further reading.

Most people would just think that Jesus' ministry was a three year period like we've all heard growing up. Yes, Doulos, you are starting at square one of literal interpretation 101, I know that. What I'm pointing out in passing is that when analyzed closer it becomes obvious that Jesus life is more or less arranged similar to something like the 12 labors of Hercules where the myth covers the suns journey around the zodiac. Here's some more reading on the matter that you or anyone following along may wish to consider:

The Gospel and the Zodiac A provocative study by a Unitarian minister considers a theory that Jesus never existed historically but was a representation of an astrological theology, a possibility the author reveals is evidenced by the zodiacal appearances of other representative figures.

[/quote]

Are you going to drop your faith and literalist perspective over any of this?

Probably not.

But so what?

I'll drop a few links here and there anyways because someone out there might find some interest in these freethinking issues at hand. While none of this registers with you, it may be appreciated by other members and guests reading through...

tat tvam asi wrote:

Doulos wrote:Tat, is this the BEST evidence you have to back up your views???

More strawmen Doulos.

Once again, where did I claim that I was posting the best evidence I have or anything even close to that effect? Where did I use the word "evidence" at all? What I did is specify that I was dropping a short video in passing. And the video states that it is an over simplification of the subject and drops some links to further reading.

Most people would just think that Jesus' ministry was a three year period like we've all heard growing up. Yes, Doulos, you are starting at square one of literal interpretation 101, I know that. What I'm pointing out in passing is that when analyzed closer it becomes obvious that Jesus life is more or less arranged similar to something like the 12 labors of Hercules where the myth covers the suns journey around the zodiac. Here's some more reading on the matter that you or anyone following along may wish to consider:

The Gospel and the Zodiac A provocative study by a Unitarian minister considers a theory that Jesus never existed historically but was a representation of an astrological theology, a possibility the author reveals is evidenced by the zodiacal appearances of other representative figures.

Are you going to drop your faith and literalist perspective over any of this?

Probably not.

But so what?

I'll drop a few links here and there anyways because someone out there might find some interest in these freethinking issues at hand. While none of this registers with you, it may be appreciated by other members and guests reading through...

Most people, when questioned about their beliefs will put forward their best evidence, or at least solid evidence.

You've chosen a forum post and a (very inaccurate) Youtube video. The video is not an oversimplification, it's simply inaccurate on most major facts.

There's no problem with freethinking tat, but thinking should be based upon facts and reality. What you've presented is wishful thinking based upon falsehoods.

If you'd like to discuss "The Gospel and the Zodiac," I'd be happy to do that with you. This IS Booktalk after all!

I would request that you begin by posting some of the best evidence put forward by the author for discussion first. Before I go out and buy a book, I'd like to know if it's worth the money

youkrst wrote:say youre right and there really was a historical jesus Doulos.

so what ?

why should it matter, what in your mind is the significance?

If for no other reason, to acknowledge what is true.

^Yeah, sure thing Doulos, that's what the link is for. You should look into it if you're interested in what this minister happened across in the book of Mark.

You may not agree with him but it's still interesting to consider against the fact that the 12 tribes of Israel are allegedly arranged according to the 12 signs of the zodiac - as per Philo and Josephus. The 12 jewels on the breast plate of the high priest playing the same role as it goes. And of course with the 12 jewels of revelation given as the 12 signs of the zodiac in reverse order from Pisces to Aries - by old tradition - everything sort of opens up yet another degree when analyzing this same theme against the book of Mark in particular, but also against all of the gospels together for a sense of the general trend which can be detected throughout:

http://www.usbible.com/astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm

The above is another interesting link which more or less follows along the same lines of investigation as the Mark inquiry and I believe it's what inspired the video I posted earlier, if indeed you want to check this zodiacal cycle against the gospel verses themselves (which you seem to be hinting at). You can also compare the general trend against the 12 labors of Hercules at the bottom of the page as well.

Now of course none of this proves that Jesus wasn't or couldn't have been historical because the gospels are so late that some man's mundane life (as per Ehrman) could have easily been reworked with all of this zodiacal symbolism later included for a much more powerful presentation as time went on. But there are also other reasons to suspect that it could have been there all along too, Gnostic type reasons, as Robert has put forward.

As far as your inquiries about "beliefs," this isn't really associated with "belief" unless you're trying to form a type of belief system around it, like a modernized Gnosticism or some other thing. And I'm not very interested in "belief" to be quite honest with you. Especially as concerns believing or having faith in the theory that the gospel myths can really be stripped down to an historical core. That's essentially just as un-provable as as trying to prove that God exists. The whole thing's clothed in blatant uncertainty.

And the argument between believers, evemerists, and mythicists seems beyond settling in any absolute sense. One persons gut instinct is for the believer position, another is for the evemerist position, while another may feel that the mysticist position is correct. And you can't really expect anyone to deny their gut feelings, especially when it's your gut feelings alone that you have to go by because there is no solid contemporary evidence to settle this thing with certainty. All three of these positions are subject to change and so pouring a lot of "belief" into any one of them is probably ill advised. Probably better to stay somewhat loose and keep an opened mind and adjusting to new evidence as it arises...

to acknowledge what is true.

so having acknowledged that in your estimation, historical jesus is historical, do you also assent to this good advice?

If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

and why do i need to be concerned with this historical jesus? is it because i am intrinsically evil? and need to avoid my whole body being thrown into hell? something only faith in him can save me from?

and assuming i need saving from my wicked sinful self, when i get to church should i give them only 10% of my money or maybe more....

one thing leads to another.

perhaps i am over intellectualising it all and simply need to "trust in the lord" i certainly wouldnt want to jeopardise my faith with fallacious human reasoning even though reasoning is ok when we do it for the lord.

no "come, let us reason together says the lord... though YOUR sins be red as scarlett.... they shall be white as snow..."

thankyou lord, you always cheer me up with your sayings...

and thankyou for Doulos ant and Stahrwe.. for patiently and kindly trying to show me the way...

it's really nice

and i love niceness...

amen

oops i seemed to have drifted into prayer

forgive me brothers

youkrst wrote:

to acknowledge what is true.

so having acknowledged that in your estimation, historical jesus is historical, do you also assent to this good advice?

No. I assent to his divine advice... which is also good

youkrst wrote:If your right eye causes you to sin, tear it out and throw it away. For it is better that you lose one of your members than that your whole body be thrown into hell.

Yup. Jesus said that. I'd say its pretty clear that he saw sin as VERY important to deal with!

youkrst wrote: and why do i need to be concerned with this historical jesus? is it because i am intrinsically evil? and need to avoid my whole body being thrown into hell? something only faith in him can save me from?

and assuming i need saving from my wicked sinful self, when i get to church should i give them only 10% of my money or maybe more....

one thing leads to another.

perhaps i am over intellectualising it all and simply need to "trust in the lord" i certainly wouldnt want to jeopardise my faith with fallacious human reasoning even though reasoning is ok when we do it for the lord.

no "come, let us reason together says the lord... though YOUR sins be red as scarlett.... they shall be white as snow..."

thankyou lord, you always cheer me up with your sayings...

and thankyou for Doulos ant and Stahrwe.. for patiently and kindly trying to show me the way...

it's really nice

and i love niceness...

amen

oops i seemed to have drifted into prayer

forgive me brothers

Sometimes the 'prayers' you make when joking reflect what is really going on in your heart.

The Bible never says there are things wrong with having questions, doubts or even anger. If you read the Psalms, many begin with very honest cries addressed to God.

God already knows our hearts. There's nothing wrong with being honest with Him. Or each other.

tat tvam asi wrote:^Yeah, sure thing Doulos, that's what the link is for. You should look into it if you're interested in what this minister happened across in the book of Mark.

You may not agree with him but it's still interesting to consider against the fact that the 12 tribes of Israel are allegedly arranged according to the 12 signs of the zodiac - as per Philo and Josephus. The 12 jewels on the breast plate of the high priest playing the same role as it goes. And of course with the 12 jewels of revelation given as the 12 signs of the zodiac in reverse order from Pisces to Aries - by old tradition - everything sort of opens up yet another degree when analyzing this same theme against the book of Mark in particular, but also against all of the gospels together for a sense of the general trend which can be detected throughout:

http://www.usbible.com/astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm

The above is another interesting link which more or less follows along the same lines of investigation as the Mark inquiry and I believe it's what inspired the video I posted earlier, if indeed you want to check this zodiacal cycle against the gospel verses themselves (which you seem to be hinting at). You can also compare the general trend against the 12 labors of Hercules at the bottom of the page as well.

Now of course none of this proves that Jesus wasn't or couldn't have been historical because the gospels are so late that some man's mundane life (as per Ehrman) could have easily been reworked with all of this zodiacal symbolism later included for a much more powerful presentation as time went on. But there are also other reasons to suspect that it could have been there all along too, Gnostic type reasons, as Robert has put forward.

As far as your inquiries about "beliefs," this isn't really associated with "belief" unless you're trying to form a type of belief system around it, like a modernized Gnosticism or some other thing. And I'm not very interested in "belief" to be quite honest with you. Especially as concerns believing or having faith in the theory that the gospel myths can really be stripped down to an historical core. That's essentially just as un-provable as as trying to prove that God exists. The whole thing's clothed in blatant uncertainty.

And the argument between believers, evemerists, and mythicists seems beyond settling in any absolute sense. One persons gut instinct is for the believer position, another is for the evemerist position, while another may feel that the mysticist position is correct. And you can't really expect anyone to deny their gut feelings, especially when it's your gut feelings alone that you have to go by because there is no solid contemporary evidence to settle this thing with certainty. All three of these positions are subject to change and so pouring a lot of "belief" into any one of them is probably ill advised. Probably better to stay somewhat loose and keep an opened mind and adjusting to new evidence as it arises...

I guess that's always the crux of the matter isn't it Tat?

Do we trust ourselves, and our own desires and gut, or do we trust God? Is God real? Is He trustworthy? Is God represented by the God of the Bible?

These questions are not solved by myth, but by exploration of truth though. Wherever that truth may lead...