tat tvam asi wrote:Stahrwe, first off, I've told you many times over that the whole premise for assuming that she's done anything wrong whatsoever in her writing is false. She cites every one of the people quoted in her books - just look at the number next to the quote and then look down at the bottom of the page where the people are cited. If you really have any of them you would already know that. She cites Bruce as Bruce and the reader can easily go and find the full quotation by visiting the bibliography. Bruce says that evidence for the life of Jesus is "Scanty and Problematic". Does he later go back on his word and say that it isn't "Scanty and Problematic"? If he doesn't then she properly quoted him in proper context. He said something, he means it, and she quoted it to let others understand just how tough an issue we're actually dealing with here - tough even for this Christian authority who does believe in an historical Jesus despite the lack of contemporary evidence to go by. She never once asserts that Bruce or any of the Christians she's quoting don't believe in an historical Jesus, she never says anything remotely close to that. You have no case for calling her work sloppy to begin with. You've gotten way ahead of yourself already in that respect.
I refer you to my prior post regarding research standards and the use of fragmentary quotes. I suggest that you purchase a copy of the Bruce book to read the rest of the story and his conclusion. I quote a portion as follows:
“…the name of Christ (as the gentiles called him) and his followers became familiar at the heart of the Roman Empire. …And, Christ did come to be mentioned in Roman historical ‘literature’.”
Bruce, NTH, page 164
I forwarded the following quote to Dr. John Ankerberg for comment.
“If His words were not accurately recorded in the Gospels, how can anyone know what He really taught? The truth is, we couldn’t know. Further, if the remainder of the New Testament cannot be established to be historically reliable, then little, if anything can be known about what true Christianity really is, teaches, or means.”
Dr. John Ankerberg and Dr. John Weldon
The Historical Reliability of the New Testament Text
This quote is on Page 4, of D.M. Murdock's Who Was Jesus, The Fingerprints of the Christ.
2007
Here is the reply:
Dear XXX
We are somewhat familiar with the author you mention. In terms of comments, much of our recent information on this topic is found in our book Taking a Stand for the Bible. Even apart from the Bible itself, much can be discovered concerning the historical Jesus. In this book, we quote from our interviews with Dr. Gary Habermas, who points out 129 facts about the life of Christ from 45 ancient sources outside of the Bible that confirm the birth, activities, death, empty tomb, and appearances of Christ. Based on these facts, he concludes, the only conclusion that fits the details is that Jesus really returned to life, proving himself as God’s Son.
Jesus as a legend is not a historically accurate option. As C.S. Lewis put it, Jesus is either a liar, lunatic, or Lord. In other words, he lied when he claimed to be God’s Son, he was delusional and simply believed he was God’s Son, or he really was and is God’s Son, the Messiah Jesus Christ. Though this is a decision ultimately dealing with faith, it is not a blind faith. The facts for the truth of the Gospel message are significant and far superior to those of any other religious system.
Feel free to send us any other questions or comments you have. Myself or one of our staff will be glad to assist in any way possible. You can also see some of our video clips with Dr. Habermas and other scholars on this issue at
http://www.youtube.com/johnankerberg.
Sincerely,
Dillon Burroughs
Staff Writer, The John Ankerberg Show
tat tvam asi wrote:Stahrwe wrote:I am not attacking tat though I would like to know if he considers himself to be a Braham.
(That Thou Art?)
Why would "Tat Tvam Asi" give you the impression I'm a Brahman when the terms comes from the Forest Philosophy movement, the movement of leaving behind the Brahmans with their sacrifices for the forests and isolation from society? The "Close In Doctrine" of "Tat Tvam Asi" deals with the realization that the source, end, and supporting ground of all life and being is within you, and there's no need for any middle man parties between you and what you consider God (the source) to be. It's already within you - "Thou Art That". So no, I'm not a Brahman, just a former Christian who enjoys the Forest Philosophy movement as described by Joseph Campbell in his scholarship and sees it as an interesting self understanding.
“Tat tvam asi is the Mahāvākya (Grand Pronouncement) from Chandogya Upanishad. The Advaita school of Shankara assigns a fundamental importance to this Mahāvākya and three others of the same kind from three other Upanishads. This is actually a statement meted out by Sage Aruni to Shvetaketu, his son. It says literally 'That thou are'. In other words that Brahman which is the common Reality behind everything in the cosmos is the same as the essential Divinity, namely the Atman, within you. It is this identity which is the grand finale of Upanishadic teaching, according to Advaita. The realisation of this arises only by an intuitive experience and is totally different from any objective experience. It cannot be inferred from some other bit of knowledge. To comprehend the meaning an analysis of the three words in the pronouncement is needed.”
Who is this 'Thou'?
'Thou' stands for the inherent substratum in each one of us without which our very existence is out of question. Certainly it is not the body, mind, the senses, or anything that we call ours. It is the innermost Self, stripped of all egoic tendencies. It is Ātman.
The entity indicated by the word 'That' according to the notation used in the Vedas, is Brahman, the transcendent Reality which is beyond everything that is finite, everything that is conceived or thought about. You cannot give a full analogy to it and that is why the Vedas say words cannot describe it. It cannot even be imagined because when there is nothing else other than Brahman it has to be beyond space and time. We can imagine space without earth,water, fire and air. But it is next to impossible to imagine something outside space. Space is the most subtle of the five elemental fundamentals. As we proceed from the grossest to the subtle, that is, from earth to water, to fire, to air, and to space the negation of each grosser matter is possible to be imagined within the framework of the more subtle one. But once we reach the fifth one, namely space or Ākāsha, the negation of that and the conception of something beyond, where even the space is merged into something more subtle, is not for the finite mind. The Vedas therefore declare the existence of this entity and call it 'sat' (existence), also known as Brahman.
That and This
The Ātman or the innermost core of our self seems to have an individuality of its own. So, in saying that it is the same as the unqualified Brahman in the Infinite Cosmos, we seem to be identifying two things: one that is unlimited and unconditioned, and one that is limited and conditioned. Whenever someone says, for instance, that the person B whom you are meeting just now is the same as the person A whom you saw twenty years ago at such and such a place, what is actually meant is not the identity of the dresses of the two personalities of A and B, nor of the features (those of B may be totally different from A), but of the essential person behind the names. So whenever such an identity is talked about we have to throw away certain aspects which are temporarily distinctive or indicative in both and cling on only to those essentials without which they are not what they are. B and A may have distinct professions, may have different names, may have different attitudes towards you or towards a certain issue, or may have an additional identity, exemplified by, say, having different passports -- but still they are the same, is what is being asserted by the statement 'B is the same as A'.
[edit] Brahman minus its Māyā and Ātman minus its avidyā are identical
In the same way, when Brahman and Atman are identified by this Mahāvākya, we have to discard those inessential qualities that are only indicative and therefore extraneous and to explore what commonality or essentialness there is in them that is being identified. Brahman is the Cause of this Universe. But this is a predication of Brahman and so is extraneous to the identity we are talking about. The Self or the Ātman, appears to be limited by an individuality which keeps it under the spell of ignorance; this is extraneous to the essentiality of the Ātman. So what is being identified is Brahman, minus its feature of being the Cause of this Universe and Ātman minus its limitations of ignorance-cum-delusion. That these two are the same is the content of the statement 'Tat tvam asi'. The cosmic Māyā is what makes Brahman the cause of this Universe. The individual avidyā (ignorance) is what makes the Ātman circumscribed and delimited. So the Mahāvākya says that Brahman minus its Māyā and Atman minus its avidyā are identical.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tat_Tvam_Asi
1.Before the sun entered Pisces Jesus was the Lamb of God in Aries.
29 The next day he saw Jesus coming toward him, and said, "Behold, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world! (John 1:29)
2.After his resurrection, he entered Pisces the fish.
42 They gave him a piece of broiled fish,
43 and he took it and ate before them. (Luke 24:42-43).
There is no fish eating tradition in Christianity, certainly not one base on this scripture.
tat tvam asi wrote:Stahrwe wrote:I checked out the link to the Myspace page on Rook, I think it qualifies as an ad homenim attack
That's what I thought! Who posted that link? Robert or Me? It was Robert and so you addressed me as if I were him, when I'm not. That's odd, here you are a Christian apologist and you couldn't even find it in yourself to 'apologize' to me for getting me mixed up with Robert's post and accusing me of something that I had nothing to do with in the first place. Look Stahrwe, you appear to be the local "Token Apologist" at a largely atheist and freethought oriented forum. You're tough skinned enough to hang out in an environment of people who frown on Young Earth theories and the inerrancy of the Bible. Let's get down to business here. This is the deal, the Bible claims that a baby named Jesus / Yeshua was born of a virgin during a certain time period ruled by certain Jewish and Roman authorities. A claim has been made! Do you believe the initial claim and are you supporting it?
Neither you nor anyone before you has ever been able to meet the
burden of proof for the
initial claim of Jesus' historicity. The more you continue beyond this point without providing what no other apologist has ever been able to provide you are evading! Just like Bruce. He's evading the lack of contemporary evidence by trying to suggest that we shouldn't be surprised at no contemporary evidence in the Roman period. No contemporary evidence is ever presented in any of this, just more and more evading.
No, this discussion is not about Jesus, Chriatianity or religion, it is about The Christ Myth Antology, by D. M. Murdock. My point is that she is not credible because of her research methods. We live in a society where information is thrown at us at an unbelievable rate. We don’t have time to check everything so we have to trust our sources to be accurate and honest. When we find our trust violated we understandably question whether the source can be trusted. This morning I was listening to a report on NPR about law suits by first responders at 9/11 who are suffering health problems. During the report, the reporter said that one of the plaintiffs had been pursuing his case since 1994. What, 1994, 9/11 happened in the year 2001. This was obviously an error in the report, but it is hard to understand how it made it through editing to air. When I hear an error like that I have to ask myself, if someone can make such a simple mistake, how trustworthy is the remainder of the information being reported. Now, in the case of Murdock, I believe I have made the case that her research is sloppy at best. I give her the benefit of the doubt because the alternative is deliberate deception. You continue to focus on the substance of her writings, my point is that I can’t trust them to be accurate until I can assess her reliability.
