Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Answering Christtian Confusion Counrter #1

Answering Christtian Confusion Counrter #1

Ratings: (0)|Views: 40|Likes:
Published by Afromations
The purpose is to explore Christianity's hybridization during the Hellenistic Period through the examination of trends prior to Jesus. The spark for this inquiry is from personal observations of contradictions within Christian rearing conflicting with my studies: from pagan forged and conflicting interpolation of texts to forged controversial secular texts to validate the historicity of Jesus. This focus used accredited sources as a scope to view the interaction between traditional Jewish texts and understanding with other texts and religions. I acknowledge many amalgamations make up the character of Jesus; therefore, this inquiry broadly (but not exhaustively) exhibits evidence of the birth of Christianity and if there is a a significant connection between Serapis Christ and Jesus Christ.

This connection is carefully traced and well documented in a linear fashion. The counter argument by Erik chaotically weaves a Picasso of a tapestry that displays Jesus believers’ wavering of logic to prove himself correct. First let’s answer the question: What qualifies as good evidence? In order of quality good evidence is...

Erik G. states, “antithetical to everything we know about Christian history.” This is the exact reason for the title of this inquiry Christian Confusion: Virgin Psychosis. What is generally understood about the New Testament is based off of Christian tradition. This tradition does not apply consistency in its application of logic of what they claim is true. This slight of hand in logic is generally not understood by most: as they do not know they are doing it as the other does not know it’s being done to them. It was my intent to expose these assessment inequalities of believers in Jesus as a man-god savior with historical accounts. The Bible has traditionally dated the books of the NT by the narration; hence, the New Testaments organizational placement of texts without any actual dating methods. These traditions are attributed to the unscrupulous Hellenistic church fathers. Majority of scholars have agreed that many of these texts were not written as prescribed by Christian tradition. Irregardless of any bracketing qualifiers for all texts, Jesus believers continue to use these nonacademic methods to validate their faith.
The purpose is to explore Christianity's hybridization during the Hellenistic Period through the examination of trends prior to Jesus. The spark for this inquiry is from personal observations of contradictions within Christian rearing conflicting with my studies: from pagan forged and conflicting interpolation of texts to forged controversial secular texts to validate the historicity of Jesus. This focus used accredited sources as a scope to view the interaction between traditional Jewish texts and understanding with other texts and religions. I acknowledge many amalgamations make up the character of Jesus; therefore, this inquiry broadly (but not exhaustively) exhibits evidence of the birth of Christianity and if there is a a significant connection between Serapis Christ and Jesus Christ.

This connection is carefully traced and well documented in a linear fashion. The counter argument by Erik chaotically weaves a Picasso of a tapestry that displays Jesus believers’ wavering of logic to prove himself correct. First let’s answer the question: What qualifies as good evidence? In order of quality good evidence is...

Erik G. states, “antithetical to everything we know about Christian history.” This is the exact reason for the title of this inquiry Christian Confusion: Virgin Psychosis. What is generally understood about the New Testament is based off of Christian tradition. This tradition does not apply consistency in its application of logic of what they claim is true. This slight of hand in logic is generally not understood by most: as they do not know they are doing it as the other does not know it’s being done to them. It was my intent to expose these assessment inequalities of believers in Jesus as a man-god savior with historical accounts. The Bible has traditionally dated the books of the NT by the narration; hence, the New Testaments organizational placement of texts without any actual dating methods. These traditions are attributed to the unscrupulous Hellenistic church fathers. Majority of scholars have agreed that many of these texts were not written as prescribed by Christian tradition. Irregardless of any bracketing qualifiers for all texts, Jesus believers continue to use these nonacademic methods to validate their faith.

More info:

Categories:Types, Presentations
Published by: Afromations on Aug 02, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

09/16/2014

pdf

text

original

 
[DRAFT] FINTRODUCTION TO SECOND RESPONSE to: http://www.scribd.com/doc/225717450/Revised-Christian-Confusion-Virgin-Psychosis 
 
Erik G. states, “antithetical to everything we know about Christian history.” This is the exact reason for the title of this inquiry
Christian Confusion: Virgin Psychosis.
 What is generally understood about the New Testament is based off of Christian tradition. This tradition does not apply consistency in its application of logic of what they claim is true. This slight of hand in logic is generally not understood by most: as they do not know they are doing it as the other does not know it’s being done to them. It was my intent to expose these assessment inequalities of believers in Jesus as a man-god savior with historical accounts. The Bible has traditionally dated the books of the NT by the narration; hence, the New Testaments organizational placement of texts without any actual dating methods. These traditions are attributed to the unscrupulous Hellenistic church fathers. Majority of scholars have agreed that many of these texts were not written as prescribed by Christian tradition. Irregardless of any bracketing qualifiers for all texts, Jesus believers continue to use these nonacademic methods to validate their faith. Erik stated that my position was true because “Richard Carrier and Joseph Atwill think so.” After using this ad homonym argument, he leaps to the conclusion that, “Jesus definitely existed, and not only that, he died as atonement for us as Isaiah 53:4, 10-11  prophesied.” It is clear that there are no parameters to measure the explanation power of  proof texts in his conclusions. Rather than prioritizing evidence, he leaps to conclusions  based off of “foreshadowing imagery”. He refutes hypothesis that there were worshipers of Serapis Christ prior to Jesus Christ, are similarities, and an influential relations  between the two by ignoring documented sources like the book of Maccabees and the
 Encyclopedia Britannica
, and his very own beloved NIV. I am sure everyone would agree with this following statement: “If we want all our beliefs to be more likely true than false, then we must
proportion our beliefs to the evidence
. So if our reasons to believe are few and unreliable, our confidence should be low, and if our reasons to believe are many and reliable, our confidence should be high, with an appropriate continuum between. That means if we have no reason to believe something, then we should not believe it, and if we have much better reasons to believe something than we have not to, then we should believe it” [Carrier debate vs. Wanchick 2006].” Yes, I agree with Richard Carrier’s logical approach, but I do not deny the supernatural elements of our experience. I continue to agree with this understanding. “A fellow freethinker by the name of John Ransom engaged me to compose a statement of why I am not a Christian. I should summarize my case, he said, simply and clearly so everyone can understand where I'm coming from. John was especially frustrated by Christians who routinely come up with implausible excuses to defend their faith, which they don't really examine--as if defending the faith with any excuse mattered more than having a genuinely good reason
 
to believe in the first place. Discussing our experiences, we realized we'd both encountered many Christians like this,
who color their entire perception of reality with the assumption that they
have
 to be right, and therefore the evidence must somehow fit.
 So they think they can make anything up on the spur of the moment and be "sure" it's true. This is the exact opposite of what we do. We start with the evidence and then figure out what the best explanation of it all really is, regardless of where this quest for truth takes us” [Carrier, Richard. Why I am not a Christian. 2006]. I agree that G-d gave us a  brain, so we should use it. This was reason for part of the title of the paper, which plays on the mental acrobatics applied to maintain a theological belief—in a nut shell—based on manipulated conflicting theological, doctrinal and historical texts. The purpose is to explore Christianity's hybridization during the Hellenistic Period through the examination of trends prior to Jesus. The spark for this inquiry is from  personal observations of contradictions within Christian rearing conflicting with my studies: from pagan forged and conflicting interpolation of texts to forged controversial secular texts to validate the historicity of Jesus. This focus used accredited sources as a scope to view the interaction between traditional Jewish texts and understanding with other texts and religions. I acknowledge many amalgamations make up the character of Jesus; therefore, this inquiry broadly (but not exhaustively) exhibits evidence of the birth of Christianity and if there is a a significant connection between Serapis Christ and Jesus Christ. This connection is carefully traced and well documented in a linear fashion. The counter argument by Erik chaotically weaves a Picasso of a tapestry that displays Jesus  believers’ wavering of logic to prove himself correct. First let’s answer the question:
What qualifies as good evidence? In order of quality good evidence is:
 1) Contemporary evidence: Evidence that dates to the time the person or event actually happened. 2) Derivative evidence: Evidence that is known to use contemporary record-evidence that has since been lost. 3) Comparative evidence: Evidence that gives details that can be checked against known factors of the time. A good rule of thumb here is that history records the unusual, the special, and the important; and the amount history records is generally directly proportional to when these factors achieve a critical mass. If a person is said to be important and  popular during their lifetime then it is reasonable to expect contemporary evidence, or at the least derivative evidence, documenting this. In addition there are the various criteria of the Historical Method: 1) Source criticism 2) Procedures for contradictory sources 3) Core principles for determining reliability 4) Eyewitness evidence 5) Indirect witnesses and Oral tradition 6) Argument to the best explanation aka Occam's Razor * In EVERY case the evidence presented for Jesus by apologists fails of these criteria with Eyewitness evidence criteria being the most abused or ignored.
 
The following is a blueprint example of how people will hold onto a belief event though it is not logical. This is justified by forcing pieces together that do not fit by engineering creative resolutions. Is easy to fall into these romantic, fantasy filled, and inspirational influential texts. They are seductive to the most powerful human quality— hope! I would like to note that there were many Jesus’ that existed as described by Josephus but the one in the Gospels is a refined works of literature that compiled many attributes of other men into this fictional character/character.
 
Erik states, “I’m applying unequal weights and measures. Examples needed, and I'll be more than happy to answer.”
!
 
D=> Knowing that there is no original documentation to support the historicity of Jesus, he deflects this request. However, he does state that Josephus as a credible source and acknowledges its controversy but continues to use it as proof text to validate the historicity of Jesus. He continues to ignore the facts that surround this text that is well documented in credible sources like Britannica and other scholars. Consider another piece of evidence: 
 
"In the edition of Origen published by the Benedictines it is said that there was no mention of Jesus at all in Josephus  before the time of Eusebius [c. 300 ce]. Moreover, in the sixteenth century Vossius had a manuscript of the text of Josephus in which there was not a word about Jesus. It seems, therefore, that the passage must have been an interpolation, whether it was subsequently modified or not." (Drews, 9; emph. added) 
 
Additionally, Josephus does not qualify as a witness to Jesus as he does not reveal his source of his accounts  because he was not aware of jc himself.
 
Even if we do not have originals, again, logic shall prevail as it is through the scope of qualifiers to determine its legitimacy. See responses below for further evidence and details that Josephus has no explanation power of the historicity of Jesus. 
!
 
Erik later states, “When you take the time to not only <i> trace down their sources</i> but the <i> dates</i> thereof, you might end up a bit disappointed.
 
D=> Throughout his response he fails to apply the same  brackets to qualify proof texts but requires that I must, but he allows for different measures to be applied for theology  purposes when referencing biblical passages. He has the

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
scribd
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->