ZEITGEIST: The Movie

[Ellis]

I find it amusing that people discredit the sources used for this movie. If you do that, then you have to discredit the bible as well

written by men 150 years after the death of "jesus". No first hand accounts. Only hearsay stories. no proof from the time of jesus that he ever existed. Countless translations and translation errors. If the original copy of these documents was not written in english, then how come everything has a melodic tune to it? all these quotes that rhyme. doesn't matter the language; enlglish, french, spanish...

Nycean creed, a group of men who got together and decided what was used and what wasn't. cherry picked information. good lord.

Really, if it really was the story of god, don't you think he would have made it more clear? No, instead we have over 25 versions of the bible. Give me a break.

How many of you are aware that purgatory was a concept that was fabricated well after the year 1000? I bet not many of you.

Go back and read about te times before the Jews.

Read about Enoch.

Read way before that too.

There is much more out there than what is accepted in modern times.

Requires homework.

[Zguy28]

What are you saying?

I have no idea. I wrote that months ago and I don't have the time to go back a paruse the thread to find out.

[Ken]

I have no idea. I wrote that months ago and I don't have the time to go back a paruse the thread to find out.

Fair enough..

[Dance04]

Go back and read about te times before the Jews.

Read about Enoch.

Read way before that too.

There is much more out there than what is accepted in modern times.

Requires homework.

are you disagreeing or agreeing with me. lol, sorry i just cant figure out your position

[techboy]

I find it amusing that people discredit the sources used for this movie. If you do that, then you have to discredit the bible as well

Just about everything you have typed here is 100% demonstrably FALSE (I can't call the first sentence false, because you probably were amused ). You know how there is a certain group of people who present wild claims then tell skeptical respondents that they should do their own research?

You are in desperate need of a little research yourself, but unlike those folks, I'm going to point you in the right direction.

written by men 150 years after the death of "jesus". No first hand accounts. Only hearsay stories.

The Bible was written just a smidge earlier than 150 years after the death of Jesus, which would be A.D. 180. All of the texts of the New Testament was written in the first century (this is agreed upon by even the most radical scholars), with parts of it being dated as early as within 5 years of Jesus' death (the kerygma from 1 Cor. 15) and within 7 years (portions of the passion story in Mark). Further, many of the texts of the Bible were written either by witnesses, or by others who interviewed the witnesses.See here for more detail, but I can blow this ridiculous statement out of the water right now.

Take a look at this.

The importance of this fragment is quite out of proportion to its size, since it may with some confidence be dated in the first half of the second century A.D., and thus ranks as the earliest known fragment of the New Testament in any language.

What you are looking at is a fragment of the Gospel of John, known as p52, originally discovered in Egypt and now held at the John Rylands library (the link above takes you to the library). The accepted dating of this fragment is 125 A.D, though this can range by as much as 25 years either way, thus the 100-150 dating listed "first half of the 2nd century".

We can take two things away from this.

1) If the fragment itself was written in Egypt between 100 and 150 A.D., then the original Gospel of John must have been written earlier than that (and likely well earlier, since there must have taken at least some time to spread that far).

2) Even if that fragment was the original (which it obviously isn't), it still predates A.D. 180 by at least 30 years.

no proof from the time of jesus that he ever existed.

The idea that Jesus never existed as an historical personage is completely ludicrous, and would be laughed off by any credible scholar. See my earlier post in this thread, for instance.

Countless translations and translation errors.

People who talk about the Bible being hopelessly corrupt, changed, or unreadable are as outside the mainstream of the scholarly field of textual criticism as Young Earth Creationists are outside of the mainstream of science.

The texts we can look at today are substantially identical to the texts as they were written, and where there are questions, they are generally minor, with no essential doctrine effected.

See here for more details.

If the original copy of these documents was not written in english, then how come everything has a melodic tune to it? all these quotes that rhyme. doesn't matter the language; enlglish, french, spanish...

Are you being serious? If you are, you might want to take a gander at the document above, which was written, oh, about a thousand years before English even existed...

Also, why would something written in English automatically rhyme in Spanish? That doesn't even make sense...

Nycean creed, a group of men who got together and decided what was used and what wasn't. cherry picked information. good lord.

The Council of Nicea had NOTHING to do with the Canon. It dealt with the heresy of Arius, and after a nearly unanimous vote (only 2 out of hundreds of bishops disagreed) that Jesus was God, eternal and uncreated, they declared anathema on a few people and things, banned self-castration (ouch!), and went home. The Canon was well on its way to being formed before Nicea (Ireneaus had a list that included the 4 Gospels in 180 A.D., for instance), and wasn't "official" until well after Nicea. See here for some of the details.

Really, if it really was the story of god, don't you think he would have made it more clear? No, instead we have over 25 versions of the bible. Give me a break.

No problem there, we just have to go back to the Hebrew and the Greek. See above.

How many of you are aware that purgatory was a concept that was fabricated well after the year 1000? I bet not many of you.

Purgatory is indeed questionable, so I guess you may have gotten two things right.

[techboy]

By the way, on the subject of how reliable the sources for this film are, it should be noted that one of the primary sources is Acharya S. I wrote this about her earlier in a different thread, but I think it fits here too.

Do you really want to trust a film that uses such a source? Here's what I wrote (sorry about the repetition of the John fragment part)...

Okay, I realized that apart from a little snarky sarcasm, I never really explained why Acharya S cannot be trusted as a source. I'll start with the general, then I'll get on to The Christ Conspiracy (side note: I think the subtitle the Greatest Story Ever Sold is really clever, and about the only thing I like about the book, actually... ).

First, there is the fact that as I mentioned earlier, Acharya S is not an expert in the field (any field) in any sense. As I noted, she doesn't even have a Master's. Now, I'm not an expert either, of course, and neither are a few of the sources I sometimes cite (though in this case, they are), so in that sense, this doesn't have to be a problem. If she were to carefully cite others who were respected experts, then she wouldn't have to be an expert herself, just a good, sensible researcher, but that brings us to the next objection.

Second, Acharya S. is not a good researcher who makes use of well-qualified expert sources. She is an incredulous, agenda-driven writer who makes use of questionable and non-existent sources while ignoring or dismissing the people who actually know what they're talking about.

Frankly, she's a conspiracy nut on par with the people that claim that the U.S. never landed on the moon and NASA covered the whole thing up. Don't believe me? Let's look at a few things we can "learn" from her writings before we get to this book, specifically.

1) Jesus never existed as an historical person. This is also a claim of the book, though I know that chomerics doesn't share this view. Of course, nobody else credible does either, as I explain at some length here. This contention by Acharya S is laughable in its own right, but it gets "better".

2) The Joos are trying to take over the world. From her website:

From some circles it appears that, rather than heading for a "new age of enlightenment" with increased personal freedom, including the freedom from religion, as is popularly believed, the United States--and by extension the world--is evidently being pushed instead towards a fascistic theocracy. Although governmental agencies may have had a hand behind some aspects of the "New Age Movement" (NAM), the One World Religion evidently intended by these various agencies is not the pastiche of airy-fairy, lovey-dovey concepts found within the NAM, by which everyone is equal and accepted.

Vying for the authorship of the One World Religion are evidently a number of factions, including certain interest groups that wish the theocracy to be based primarily on Judaic ideology, emulating the firm and merciless hand of Islam's mullahs and imams. Under such a dictatorship, books would be banned and burned, and freethinkers would be jailed or executed. If the Hassidic Jewish Movement has its way, the so-called Noahide Laws would be followed to the letter, as would many others found in the "Old Testament," prescribing capital punishment for abortion, euthanasia and "sexual deviation" such as adultery and homosexuality. The punishment, in fact, for breaking any of the Noahide Laws is decapitation.

3. Wait! Not if the Mormons get there first! You see, they smuggled uranium into Australia, where they intend to build and set off bombs to bring about the One World Government! The Joos are just helping, this time.

One way in which the Mormons became so powerful was exposed in conspiracy researcher extraordinaire Mae Brussell's "lost files," which were given to me by one of her "Brussell sprouts," and some of which have been published in Kenn Thomas and David Hatcher Childress's Inside the Gemstone Files.

In Tape #342 (8/4/78), entitled "Mormon Uranium and the One World Gov't," Brussell relates the report of an attorney Doug Wallace on a conference held by the "Latter Day Saints Freedom Foundation" on "Mormon Church Infiltration of Government Agencies Suspected of Sequestering Uranium Ore Outside the United States." The report relates that the Mormon Church illegally exported tons of uranium from Washington State and Utah to Australia, evidently in the late '50s. Says Brussell, "It is of no small moment that the LDS has infiltrated the CIA and the FBI, and that the special interests of the church have been handled by those church members who had the agencies of gov't to assist them in the conspiracy."

Brussell continues: "The objective of the Mormon conspiracy was to transport the ore beyond the control of the federal gov't. The avowed purpose of the church in its secret political conquest Council of Fifty, was to obtain nuclear capability for future use when it would attempt to obtain world conquest and single world government." The document further implicates Lyndon Johnson in the shipment of 10 million tons of ore to Australia. It also says, "The nuclear capability of Israel has resulted from this conspiracy, which provided for the highjacking of 200 tons of ore in 1968. The rumor was widespread in the knowledgeable circles of Salt Lake City that the Mormon Church had arranged to assist Israel in bringing off Armageddon."

Unfortunately, this kind of "research" carries over into her book, The Christ Conspiracy. In the book Acharya S uses out of date, discredited sources, such as Wells and Cumont (if she even bothers to cite sources at all) in order to support wild, unsubstantiated theories. Her primary source for instance, in trying to show that the texts of the New Testament are late 2nd century frauds (more on this later) is Joseph Wheless (continuing the pattern, an attorney, not an expert). See here for an analysis of how erroneous Wheless is.

Time and again, Acharya S uses erroneous, non-expert sources that support her agenda, while ignoring good, solid scholarship which is inconvenient to her case. A good list of many of the problems in the book is here, but I'll just focus on one.

The central claim she pins the rest of her book on is that the Gospels and other texts of the New Testament are late 2nd century forgeries. This is not an accident... she knows darn well that mythological development takes at least that long (as noted by Professor Sherwin-White in the passage I cited earlier in this thread).

Examples of this abound. PeterMP cited Troy. Another good example can be found within the Christian religion itself, in the extra-Biblical late 2nd century Gospel of Peter, which unlike the relatively plain "just the facts" synoptic Gospels of the 1st century, has at the Resurrection figures with their heads overtopping the sky, fleeing armies of Roman soldiers, and a talking cross! Now that is an example of Christian mythological development.

So anyway, Acharya S knows that the premise of her whole book absolutely hinges on the idea that the Gospels were not written until the late 2nd century, and of course if things were made up, they have to also be forgeries, right? Here's a quote from page 34 of the book:

Although they are held up by true believers to be the "inspired" works of the apostles, the canonical gospels were forged at the end of the 2nd century, all four of them probably between 170-180, a date that just happens to correspond with the establishment of the orthodoxy and supremacy of the Roman Church.

Now, I could cite legions of reputable scholars, ranging from Christian to atheist, who all date all of the Gospels at the latest in the 1st century, 30 to 60 years after the Resurrection (many scholars go earlier, but that's more controversial).

Or, I could point out the incredible weakness of the arguments she makes to support this dating, or as I already have, the serious problems with the source (Wheless) she draws much of this from.

(I cut out this part of what I wrote, because it just goes over the Rylands papyrus I showed in my last post, which proves conclusively that the Bible could not have been composed in A.D.170-180.)

Central theory destroyed. Book dead. If anyone out there was planning to read this book, please calculate the value of your time as an hourly wage and your speed of reading and send me a check for what I've saved you.

Seriously, though, this is a good example of the problem with this author. P52 (the fragment) has been around for years, and well before this book, and yet she still proposes this crazy theory.

[Ellis]

are you disagreeing or agreeing with me. lol, sorry i just cant figure out your position

I'm saying... TO ANYONE, not you specifically ...to go out there and do your own research instead of buying into a bunch of youtube videos made by alarmists who are scared to exit their own house b/c they think the gov't is filming their every moves.

:laugh:

It's sad that in this day and age, a simple 5 minute video on youtube or a poorly pieced together film such as Zitghost somehow has more credibility than 5,000 years of human history... a history that is documented constantly.

There are complex reasons as to why religion evolves. most of the time, it is to bring peace to waring cultures. They merge. The bottom line is, it's just the natural progression of spiritual evolution. Things change with the times. And this has been documented for centuries.

It's pathetic that people want to jump to conclusions that they've been dupped. No, you haven't. The times demanded change. So change was made. If you want to know the truth, the facts, the reasons for change or where it all began... simply go seek it out. It's not hidden. It's all out there.

You cannot lump together an opinion of man's time on Earth in 5 minute or 2 hour videos. Things like that simply become broad stroke generalizations and often times are loaded with errors. You have to do your OWN research. Something that could take 20 years+/- depending on yourself and how much time you'd dedicate to studying. But if you REALLY wanna know the truth and see the light, it requires personal effort. Letting other people make the effort for you is a waste of the mind you have.

THINK. Think for yourself. Research.

Don't be a sheep. Be the shepperd.

[Dance04]

I'm saying... TO ANYONE, not you specifically ...to go out there and do your own research instead of buying into a bunch of youtube videos made by alarmists who are scared to exit their own house b/c they think the gov't is filming their every moves.

:laugh:

It's sad that in this day and age, a simple 5 minute video on youtube or a poorly pieced together film such as Zitghost somehow has more credibility than 5,000 years of human history... a history that is documented constantly.

There are complex reasons as to why religion evolves. most of the time, it is to bring peace to waring cultures. They merge. The bottom line is, it's just the natural progression of spiritual evolution. Things change with the times. And this has been documented for centuries.

It's pathetic that people want to jump to conclusions that they've been dupped. No, you haven't. The times demanded change. So change was made. If you want to know the truth, the facts, the reasons for change or where it all began... simply go seek it out. It's not hidden. It's all out there.

You cannot lump together an opinion of man's time on Earth in 5 minute or 2 hour videos. Things like that simply become broad stroke generalizations and often times are loaded with errors. You have to do your OWN research. Something that could take 20 years+/- depending on yourself and how much time you'd dedicate to studying. But if you REALLY wanna know the truth and see the light, it requires personal effort. Letting other people make the effort for you is a waste of the mind you have.

THINK. Think for yourself. Research.

Don't be a sheep. Be the shepperd.

Oh ok. Well, first I would just like to point out that I have spent lots of time doing research on these subjects. I have not come to conclusions based simply on this one film.

Most of what I said in my earlier post is never even mentioned in the Zeitgeist movie.

I do take everything I read with a grain of salt. However, that goes both ways.

[Dance04]

Just about everything you have typed here is 100% demonstrably FALSE (I can't call the first sentence false, because you probably were amused ). You know how there is a certain group of people who present wild claims then tell skeptical respondents that they should do their own research?

You are in desperate need of a little research yourself, but unlike those folks, I'm going to point you in the right direction.

The Bible was written just a smidge earlier than 150 years after the death of Jesus, which would be A.D. 180. All of the texts of the New Testament was written in the first century (this is agreed upon by even the most radical scholars), with parts of it being dated as early as within 5 years of Jesus' death (the kerygma from 1 Cor. 15) and within 7 years (portions of the passion story in Mark). Further, many of the texts of the Bible were written either by witnesses, or by others who interviewed the witnesses.See here for more detail, but I can blow this ridiculous statement out of the water right now.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the four writers never saw jesus themselves. Their writings are the ones used. This is hearsay. Of course it is easy to say that these stories come from people who interviewed people who were actually there. Like I said, this is hearsay. I am curious as to how it's not?

Take a look at this.

What you are looking at is a fragment of the Gospel of John, known as p52, originally discovered in Egypt and now held at the John Rylands library (the link above takes you to the library). The accepted dating of this fragment is 125 A.D, though this can range by as much as 25 years either way, thus the 100-150 dating listed "first half of the 2nd century".

We can take two things away from this.

1) If the fragment itself was written in Egypt between 100 and 150 A.D., then the original Gospel of John must have been written earlier than that (and likely well earlier, since there must have taken at least some time to spread that far).

2) Even if that fragment was the original (which it obviously isn't), it still predates A.D. 180 by at least 30 years.

Never once did I say that the gospels themselves were fabricated. I do beleive that this is a piece of the writings that were used. like you said, which copy, wether it be the first or second, or tenth is unclear. Also, Egypt is not sooo far. I might have missed it in the links you provided, I just took a quick look over them (I wanna watch the hockey game) but I did not see anything anywhere indicating that it was infact written IN egypt.

The idea that Jesus never existed as an historical personage is completely ludicrous, and would be laughed off by any credible scholar. See my earlier post in this thread, for instance.

Of course, I realize myself that this sounds very outlandish to most. I had trouble beleiving it myself at first. But of course, that brings me to my next point that we disagree on. What evidence is there of his existence? There are pictures of napoleon... hyroglyphs, and drawings of the pharoahs of egypt. Even alexander the great has a city named after him. Why is it, that the common picture of jesus used today throughout our continent is a picture of him looking like an italian. Go to china. He is depicted as chinese. Go to Sierra Leone. He is depicted as black. There is also no description of what he looked like. Was he tall? short? Fat? skinny?

Of course I'm sure we can both agree that if he did exist, he would look like an arab.

People who talk about the Bible being hopelessly corrupt, changed, or unreadable are as outside the mainstream of the scholarly field of textual criticism as Young Earth Creationists are outside of the mainstream of science.

The texts we can look at today are substantially identical to the texts as they were written, and where there are questions, they are generally minor, with no essential doctrine effected.

See here for more details.

Have you ever heard of Thomas Paine? I'm sure someone as intelligent as you has. He is one of the greatest minds to ever come out of america. Here is what he has to say about the bible, jesus in particular

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/AOR1.html#3

Also, why would something written in English automatically rhyme in Spanish? That doesn't even make sense...

Dude, thats what I'm saying! It doesn't make sense. But they do rhyme, check the bible yourself

The Council of Nicea had NOTHING to do with the Canon. It dealt with the heresy of Arius, and after a nearly unanimous vote (only 2 out of hundreds of bishops disagreed) that Jesus was God, eternal and uncreated, they declared anathema on a few people and things, banned self-castration (ouch!), and went home. The Canon was well on its way to being formed before Nicea (Ireneaus had a list that included the 4 Gospels in 180 A.D., for instance), and wasn't "official" until well after Nicea. See here for some of the details.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. I must have been given false information. I really do plan of reading the link you posted, but as I said, my canadiens are playing :laugh:

No problem there, we just have to go back to the Hebrew and the Greek. See above.

See, to me, that is a problem. If it really was the word of God, there would be one definite version. No others. There would not be different versions for different agendas. God would not leave it up to interpretation. I think he would make it more concrete

Purgatory is indeed questionable, so I guess you may have gotten two things right.

at least we agree on something :cheers:

I am enjoying this debate. Unfortunetly I do not have the talent to express what I really want to say. (and no, its not just cuz im canadian!!)

So i apologize if i lose merit because I do not get my point fully across. I just hard to get my thoughts down on paper to sound the way it does in my head.

Cheers mate

[techboy]

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the four writers never saw jesus themselves. Their writings are the ones used. This is hearsay. Of course it is easy to say that these stories come from people who interviewed people who were actually there. Like I said, this is hearsay. I am curious as to how it's not?

The books of Matthew and John are traditionally attributed to the disciples Matthew and John, both of whom were direct eyewitnesses. Reputable scholars fall on both sides of this point, but there is a fair amount of evidence, both internal and external, to support this (see here and here for a presentation of these arguments by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace).

Beyond that, though, I don't understand your complaint. The book of Luke, for instance, is a careful history modeled after the works of the great Greek historians, and in it Luke has assembled the testimony and stories of eyewitnesses.

Do you disdain history books because they relate the reports of others?

Further, I am currently reading a provocative new book by Dr. Richard Bauckham, called Jesus and the Eyewitnesses: The Gospels as Eyewitness Testimony.

Here's the blurb:

This momentous book argues that the four Gospels are closely based on the eyewitness testimony of those who personally knew Jesus. Noted New Testament scholar Richard Bauckham challenges the prevailing assumption that the accounts of Jesus circulated as anonymous community traditions, asserting instead that they were transmitted in the names of the original eyewitness.To drive home this controversial point, Bauckham draws on internal literary evidence, the use of personal names in first-century Jewish Palestine, and recent developments in the understanding of oral tradition. "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" also taps into the rich resources of modern study of memory, especially in cognitive psychology, refuting the conclusions of the form critics and calling New Testament scholarship to make a clean break with this long-dominant tradition. Finally, Bauckham challenges readers to end the classic division between the historical Jesus and the Christ of faith, proposing instead the Jesus of testimony as presented by the Gospels.Sure to ignite heated debate on the precise character of the testimony about Jesus, "Jesus and the Eyewitnesses" is a groundbreaking work that will be valued by scholars, students, and all who seek to understand the origins of the Gospels.

It's Dr. Bauckham's assertion that traditions were transmitted in the name of a witness or witnesses, and so these witnesses could act as a check on inaccuracy and as verifiers of stories.

Finally, you need to understand that your outright rejection of the historical value of the New Testament flies in the face of current scholarship. Jesus historians differ on how much of each text they credit, but all of them use those texts to paint a picture of the historical Jesus, and there are many facts that are not in dispute, regardless of skeptical stripe (Jesus' healing ministry, His execution, etc.).

In fact, it is possible to assemble a logical case for the historicity of Jesus' Ressurection using only facts agreed upon by a great majority of critical (in other words, including non-Christian) scholars. See here for my latest presentation of this argument.

You might note that even good ol' Thomas Paine apparently made use of these texts to make historical conclusions. From your link:

That such a person as Jesus Christ existed, and that he was crucified, which was the mode of execution at that day, are historical relations strictly within the limits of probability. He preached most excellent morality, and the equality of man; but he preached also against the corruptions and avarice of the Jewish priests, and this brought upon him the hatred and vengeance of the whole order of priest-hood. The accusation which those priests brought against him was that of sedition and conspiracy against the Roman government, to which the Jews were then subject and tributary; and it is not improbable that the Roman government might have some secret apprehension of the effects of his doctrine as well as the Jewish priests; neither is it improbable that Jesus Christ had in contemplation the delivery of the Jewish nation from the bondage of the Romans. Between the two, however, this virtuous reformer and revolutionist lost his life. [NOTE: The French work has here: "However this may be, for one or the other of these suppositions this virtuous reformer, this revolutionist, too little imitated, too much forgotten, too much misunderstood, lost his life. -- Editor. (Conway)]

Where do you think he got this?

Never once did I say that the gospels themselves were fabricated. I do beleive that this is a piece of the writings that were used. like you said, which copy, wether it be the first or second, or tenth is unclear. Also, Egypt is not sooo far. I might have missed it in the links you provided, I just took a quick look over them (I wanna watch the hockey game) but I did not see anything anywhere indicating that it was infact written IN egypt.

Actually, what you said was that the Gospels were written 150 years after Jesus' death, which would be A.D. 180.

The fragment I cited was written no later than 150 A.D., which means you were flat wrong.

The fact that it is a copy only makes things worse for you, as this would mean that the original would have been written even earlier.

Of course, I realize myself that this sounds very outlandish to most. I had trouble beleiving it myself at first. But of course, that brings me to my next point that we disagree on. What evidence is there of his existence? There are pictures of napoleon... hyroglyphs, and drawings of the pharoahs of egypt. Even alexander the great has a city named after him. Why is it, that the common picture of jesus used today throughout our continent is a picture of him looking like an italian. Go to china. He is depicted as chinese. Go to Sierra Leone. He is depicted as black. There is also no description of what he looked like. Was he tall? short? Fat? skinny?

Of course I'm sure we can both agree that if he did exist, he would look like an arab.

Let me try again.

The simple fact is that pretty much anyone who has done any reading at all in the field of Jesus history knows that virtually no serious scholar in the field argues that Jesus was not an historical person. No one. Not the atheists, not the skeptics, not the Christians. No one.

Like the time travel thing I mentioned earlier, it's not even an area of dispute, in a field where virtually everything is disputed by somebody.

If you don't believe me, try doing a little reading in the field.

For instance, Wikipedia, while not a scholarly source in itself, is sometimes a good place to get an overview and a listing of sources. Try their article on the Jesus Myth hypothesis. A telling excerpt:

The historian Michael Grant states, for example, that, "To sum up, modern critical methods fail to support the Christ myth theory. It has 'again and again been answered and annihilated by first rank scholars.' In recent years, 'no serious scholar has ventured to postulate the non historicity of Jesus' or at any rate very few, and they have not succeeded in disposing of the much stronger, indeed very abundant, evidence to the contrary." - Michael Grant, Jesus: An Historian's Review of the Gospels (Scribner, 1995)

While you're reading the article, note that of the proponents of the theory, not a one is actually an expert in the field (clicking on a person's name will take you to his or her page, which usually includes a biography). G.A. Wells, for instance, is the most prominent of the "mythers", and he is a Professor of German!

If you go through the list of "sources" for the Jesus section of Zeitgeist, you will find a similar phenomenon. Acharya S, the primary source, has a degree in mythology, not history (This seems to be a common field of study for the "Jesus mythers", and I am reminded of the old saw that if the only tool one has is a hammer, pretty soon everything begins to look like a nail ). Many of the sources cited are listed as "author", which means "I don't have any credentials, but I wrote a book!". There is not a single historian of the time period or New Testament scholar listed in the credits of Zeitgeist, and for good reason.

If you're interested in heavier reading, try this summary of a academic listserv discussing the historical Jesus. Consider, for instance, this answer by John Dominic Crossan, who is about as far from a fundamentalist Christian as one can get:

If I understand what Earl Doherty is arguing, Neil, it is that Jesus of Nazareth never existed as an historical person, or, at least that historians, like myself, presume that he did and act on that fatally flawed presumption.

I am not sure, as I said earlier, that one can persuade people that Jesus did exist as long as they are ready to explain the entire phenomenon of historical Jesus and earliest Christianity either as an evil trick or a holy parable. I had a friend in Ireland who did not believe that Americans had landed on the moon but that they had created the entire thing to bolster their cold-war image against the communists. I got nowhere with him. So I am not at all certain that I can prove that the historical Jesus existed against such an hypothesis and probably, to be honest, I am not even interested in trying.

It was, however, that hypothesis taken not as a settled conclusion, but as a simple question that was behind the first pages of BofC when I mentioned Josephus and Tacitus. I do not think that either of them checked out Jewish or Roman archival materials about Jesus. I think they were expressing the general public knowledge that "everyone" had about this weird group called Christians and their weird founder called Christ. The existence, not just of Christian materials, but of those other non-Christian sources, is enough to convince me that we are dealing with an historical individual. Furthermore, in all the many ways that opponents criticized earliest Christianity, nobody ever suggested that it was all made up. That in general, is quite enough for me.

There was one other point where I think Earl Doherty simply misstated what I did. In BofC, after the initial sections on materials and methods (1-235), I spent about equal time in Galilee (237-406) , or at least to the north, and in Jerusalem with pre-Pauline materials (407-573). I agree that if we had a totally different and irreconcilable vision/program between Paul and Q (just to take an example), it would require some very good explaining. Part of what I was doing, for example, in talking about the Common Meal Tradition was showing how even such utterly distinct eucharistic scenarios as Didache 9-10 and I Cor 11-12 have rather fascinating common elements behind and between them. It is a very different thing, in summary, for Paul to say that he is not interested in the historical Jesus (Jesus in the flesh) than to say that "no Galilee and no historical Jesus lie behind Paul."

Paragraph 3 is especially telling, I think.

One more passage by Crossan:

I am not certain, Neil, that I have much to add to my previous post. I do not claim "ideological immunity" against the possibility that the historical Jesus never existed. That such a person existed is an historical conclusion for me, and neither a dogmatic postulate nor a theological presupposition. My very general arguments are: (1) that existence is given in Christian, pagan, and Jewish sources; (2) it is never negated by even the most hostile critics of early Christianity (Jesus is a **** and a fool but never a myth or a fiction!); (3) there are no historical parallels that I know of from that time and period that help me understand such a total creation. There is, however, a fourth point that I touched on in BofC 403-406. It is crucially important for me that Jesus sent out companions and told them to do exactly what he was doing (not in his name, but as part of the Kingdom of God). The most basic continuity that I see between Jesus and those companions was, as I put it, not in mnemonics, but in mimetics. In other words, they were imitating his lifestyle and not just remembering his words. I find that emphasized in the Q Gospel’s indictment of those who talk, but do not do, and in the Didache’s emphasis on the ways (tropoi) of the Lord (not just words/logoi). When, therefore, I look at a phrase such as "blessed are the destitute," and am quite willing to argue that it comes from the historical Jesus, I am always at least as sure that it represents the accurate summary of an attitude as the accurate recall of a saying. For analogy: If Gandhi had developed a large movement after his death of people who are living in non-violent resistance to oppression, and one of them cited an aphorism of Gandhi, namely "if you do not stand on a small bug, why would you stand on a Big Bug," I would be more secure on the continuity in lifestyle than in memory and could work on that as basis.

Emphasis mine. That about sums it up, and if you know anything about Crossan, you know that (unlike me ) he is not writing from any theological bias (this is the guy who once wrote in an academic journal that he thought that Jesus' corpse was eaten by wild dogs, so he doesn't have a, uh, dog in this fight ).

I'd suggest you go back to "having trouble believing it".

As to what Jesus looked like, who cares?

Have you ever heard of Thomas Paine? I'm sure someone as intelligent as you has. He is one of the greatest minds to ever come out of america. Here is what he has to say about the bible, jesus in particular

http://www.thomaspaine.org/Archives/AOR1.html#3

Thomas Paine was a brilliant man.

Thomas Paine also lived over 200 years ago, and did not have access to modern advances in textual criticism, including new manuscript finds (such as the one I cited earlier, P52).

As you will see if you click the link I provided earlier, today's best scholarship shows us that the texts we hold in our hands today are substantially identical to the originals as written.

The problem is that the theories you are proposing as facts (such as the Jesus myth hypothesis) are years (or centuries) out of date and have been roundly discredited by scholarship.

For instance, let's consider Paine's theory that the Ressurection and such were mythologized. This simply does not hold up in light of the best scholarship.

For one thing, there was insufficient time for this kind of legendary development. From Contemporary Scholarship and the Historical Evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ by Dr. William Lane Craig:

First, the resurrection appearances. Undoubtedly the major impetus for the reassessment of the appearance tradition was the demonstration by Joachim Jeremias that in 1 Corinthians 15: 3-5 Paul is quoting an old Christian formula which he received and in turn passed on to his converts According to Galatians 1:18 Paul was in Jerusalem three years after his conversion on a fact-finding mission, during which he conferred with Peter and James over a two week period, and he probably received the formula at this time, if not before. Since Paul was converted in AD 33, this means that the list of witnesses goes back to within the first five years after Jesus' death. Thus, it is idle to dismiss these appearances as legendary. We can try to explain them away as hallucinations if we wish, but we cannot deny they occurred. Paul's information makes it certain that on separate occasions various individuals and groups saw Jesus alive from the dead. According to Norman Perrin, the late NT critic of the University of Chicago: "The more we study the tradition with regard to the appearances, the firmer the rock begins to appear upon which they are based." This conclusion is virtually indisputable.

At the same time that biblical scholarship has come to a new appreciation of the historical credibility of Paul's information, however, it must be admitted that skepticism concerning the appearance traditions in the gospels persists. This lingering skepticism seems to me to be entirely unjustified. It is based on a presuppositional antipathy toward the physicalism of the gospel appearance stories. But the traditions underlying those appearance stories may well be as reliable as Paul's. For in order for these stories to be in the main legendary, a very considerable length of time must be available for the evolution and development of the traditions until the historical elements have been supplanted by unhistorical. This factor is typically neglected in New Testament scholarship, as A. N. Sherwin-White points out in Roman Law and Roman Society tn the New Testament. Professor Sherwin-White is not a theologian; he is an eminent historian of Roman and Greek times, roughly contemporaneous with the NT. According to Professor Sherwin-White, the sources for Roman history are usually biased and removed at least one or two generations or even centuries from the events they record. Yet, he says, historians reconstruct with confidence what really happened. He chastises NT critics for not realizing what invaluable sources they have in the gospels. The writings of Herodotus furnish a test case for the rate of legendary accumulation, and the tests show that even two generations is too short a time span to allow legendary tendencies to wipe out the hard core of historical facts. When Professor Sherwin-White turns to the gospels, he states for these to be legends, the rate of legendary accumulation would have to be 'unbelievable'; more generations are needed. All NT scholars agree that the gospels were written down and circulated within the first generation, during the lifetime of the eyewitnesses. Indeed, a significant new movement of biblical scholarship argues persuasively that some of the gospels were written by the AD 50's. This places them as early as Paul's letter to the Corinthians and, given their equal reliance upon prior tradition, they ought therefore to be accorded the same weight of historical credibility accorded Paul. It is instructive to note in this connection that no apocryphal gospel appeared during the first century. These did not arise until after the generation of eyewitnesses had died off. These are better candidates for the office of 'legendary fiction' than the canonical gospels. There simply was insufficient time for significant accrual of legend by the time of the gospels' composition. Thus, I find current criticism's skepticism with regard to the appearance traditions in the gospels to be unwarranted. The new appreciation of the historical value of Paul's information needs to be accompanied by a reassessment of the gospel traditions as well.

However, I think the most telling point against this is the fact that the disciples and early followers of Jesus really believed that He was Ressurected.

Consider this passage from Resurrection Research from 1975 to the Present: What are Critical Scholars Saying, by Dr. Gary Habermas. Keep in mind that this is a survey of critical scholars.

I like to quote this section:

Bart Ehrman explains that, “Historians, of course, have no difficulty whatsoever speaking about the belief in Jesus’ resurrection, since this is a matter of public record. For it is a historical fact that some of Jesus’ followers came to believe that he had been raised from the dead soon after his execution.” This early belief in the resurrection is the historical origination of Christianity.[91]

As we have mentioned throughout, there are certainly disagreements about the nature of the experiences. But it is still crucial that the nearly unanimous consent[92] of critical scholars is that, in some sense, the early followers of Jesus thought that they had seen the risen Jesus.

This conclusion does not rest on the critical consensus itself, but on the reasons for the consensus, such as those pointed out above. A variety of paths converge here, including Paul's eyewitness comments regarding his own experience (1 Cor. 9:1; 15:8), the pre-Pauline appearance report in 1 Corinthians 15:3-7, probably dating from the 30s, Paul's second Jerusalem meeting with the major apostles to ascertain the nature of the Gospel (Gal. 2:1-10), and Paul's knowledge of the other apostles' teachings about Jesus' appearances (1 Cor. 15:9-15, especially 15:11). Further, the early Acts confessions, the conversion of James, the brother of Jesus, the transformed lives that centered on the resurrection, the later Gospel accounts, and, most scholars would agree, the empty tomb. This case is built entirely on critically-ascertained texts, and confirmed by many critical principles such as eyewitness testimony, early reports, multiple attestation, discontinuity, embarrassment, enemy declarations, and coherence.[93]

Please keep in mind that Dr. Ehrman is not a Christian. He is a skeptic.

Not only is it an historical certainty (insofar that we can be certain of anything, historically) that Jesus existed, it is also an historical fact that the earliest Christians really believed that they had encountered the risen Jesus, which makes the myth theory ridiculous on its face.

Thus, as Dr. William Lane Craig (did I mention yet that I met him this past weekend? ) writes in Reply to Evan Fales: On the Empty Tomb of Jesus:

Now from D. F. Strauss through Rudolf Bultmann the role of myth in the shaping of the gospels was a question of lively debate in New Testament scholarship. But with the advent of the so–called "Third Quest" of the historical Jesus and what one author has called "the Jewish reclamation of Jesus,"{1} that is, the rediscovery of the Jewishness of Jesus, scholars have come to appreciate that the proper context for understanding Jesus and the gospels is first–century Palestinian Judaism, not pagan mythology. A most informative article on the demise of myth as a useful interpretive category for the gospels is Craig Evans's "Life–of–Jesus Research and the Eclipse of Mythology," in which he chronicles and accounts for the "major shift" away from mythology as a relevant factor in gospel interpretation.{2}

Given that Jesus and the gospels find their natural home in first century, Palestinian Judaism, recourse to pagan mythology to explain them has become otiose. Hence, we find James Dunn, called upon to write the article on "Myth" for the Dictionary of Jesus and the Gospels, questioning even the need for such an entry in the dictionary: "Myth is a term of at best doubtful relevance to the study of Jesus and the Gospels…The fact that 'myth' even appears here as a subject related to the study of Jesus and the Gospels can be attributed almost entirely to the use of the term by two NT scholars"–Strauss and Bultmann.{3} In lamenting that most commentators have no "knowledge of–or at least, they certainly ignore–the tools that modern anthropology has provided for the analysis of myths and myth construction," Fales tacitly recognizes that his views in gospel interpretation would be rejected by the vast majority of NT critics (and not, therefore, simply by "fundamentalists!"). What he does not appreciate is that the construal of the gospels in terms of myth has been tried and found wanting by NT scholarship.

You're repeating centuries-old, washed up, discredited theories, and quoting centuries old sources to do so.

Might I suggest that you come with me into the 21st century?

Dude, thats what I'm saying! It doesn't make sense. But they do rhyme, check the bible yourself

Even if they do rhyme, so what? How does the fact that the Bible ryhmes in Spanish say anything about whether or not the Bible was originally written in English?

Futher, this is irrelevant, as a quick examination of the textual record (including the p52 manuscript I linked to above) shows that the idea that the Bible was originally written in English is just ludicrous.

I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. I must have been given false information. I really do plan of reading the link you posted, but as I said, my canadiens are playing :laugh:

Good enough.

See, to me, that is a problem. If it really was the word of God, there would be one definite version. No others. There would not be different versions for different agendas. God would not leave it up to interpretation. I think he would make it more concrete

We have a nearly perfect idea of what the originals said in Greek and Hebrew. The fact that people have chosen to translate into their own language and with their own style is irrelevant to this.

Besides, good modern translations (making use of textual criticism) pretty much differ only in style (more literal translations like the NASB follow the Greek grammar more closely, which is awkward in English, while paraphrases like the NIV keep the meaning with an easier to read style), not content. You're exaggerating the differences.

at least we agree on something :cheers:

I am enjoying this debate. Unfortunetly I do not have the talent to express what I really want to say. (and no, its not just cuz im canadian!!)

So i apologize if i lose merit because I do not get my point fully across. I just hard to get my thoughts down on paper to sound the way it does in my head.

Cheers mate

Talent is nice, but some actual facts would be nicer...

Come with me... Come into the world of responsible and reputable scholarship... Join me in the 21st century...

[Springfield]

Just watched this movie, I've been told by conspiracy theorist friends to watch it because "it would blow my mind". In my opinion, I found it... provocative.

Part 1.

I like the title "The Greatest Story Ever Told". If you have paid attention to my past posts, I'm a non believer. My opinion was based on my own critical thinking, based on my own personal knowledge of history and scripture. I found it interesting, don't think I can prove or disprove part 1 though. I do think that the bible is nothing more than a great story rewritten many times to make it more provocative, most notibly with the King James Version.

I don't know much about Egyptology, so I can't comment on that. However I do believe Christian holidays were purposefully planned in conjunction with Pagan holidays in order to wipe out that religion. Romans were rather ruthless, meaning either you were a Christian or you were dead. I firmly believe the Roman Empire has much to do with the proliferation of Christianity.

The "ages" section does make me think. I find it interesting.

Part 2.

I don't really care much for the 9/11 conspiracy theories. They will always be around, just like the JFK conspiracy theories. They are best just for entertainment to me. I highly doubt that 9/11 was an inside job.

It did get me thinking though. I would assume that the towers wouldn't collapse in such a uniform manner. Wouldn't you think they would fall like a tree being cut down? Not straight down but from the damaged area to the side? Just a thought to put out there, eventhough I don't think it was an inside job.

Part 3.

This part may have the most merit to me. Not that it is a great conspircay, but I think the want for a "Global Economy" by the powers at be is well known. Is far as the RealID and RFID chips, I can see that happening. I will fight that untill the death. As much as people may want such a thing, I will NEVER EVER allow an RFID chip to be injected into my body. I will start the revolution if this comes into practice.

The RFID's is what I want to talk about. Would you guys allow this to happen to yourselves in the name of security and economy?

I certainly know how this could expertly be injected into every person in America. Have the parents inject the RFID into their children. Parents are scared, they'll believe anything when it comes to their kids. If they think they are benefitting their children by injecting an RFID chip (for medical, security or other reasons) into their kid, they will sleep better at night. If the kids grow up with these chips in them, they will be will be accept putting them into their own children. Within 2 generations, you will have every person identified. It's like circumciscion, if it has benefits and it becomes tradition, soon enough every child will be submitted to it. RFID chips are the scariest thing to me, as far as invasion of my civil liberties and "Big Brother" is concerned.

Ah, I also found a Q/A page by the director if anyone is interested:

http://zeitgeistmovie.com/q&a.htm

[techboy]

Part 1.

I like the title "The Greatest Story Ever Told". If you have paid attention to my past posts, I'm a non believer. My opinion was based on my own critical thinking, based on my own personal knowledge of history and scripture. I found it interesting, don't think I can prove or disprove part 1 though.

You don't need to be a believer to see that part 1 is total idiocy, and if you don't think you can disprove it, you haven't really looked into it.

I do think that the bible is nothing more than a great story rewritten many times to make it more provocative, most notibly with the King James Version.

Also demonstrably false. As I mentioned earlier, we've got the texts in the original Greek. The King James (and every other so-called "re-writing") are completely moot.

People who talk about the Bible being hopelessly corrupt, changed, or unreadable are as outside the mainstream of the scholarly field of textual criticism as Young Earth Creationists are outside of the mainstream of science.

The texts we can look at today are substantially identical to the texts as they were written, and where there are questions, they are generally minor, with no essential doctrine effected.

You can read more detail here, though I did not include this article, by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace, who notes that

Once again the reader should be reminded of a point made earlier. Though textual criticism cannot yet produce certainty about the exact wording of the original, this uncertainty affects only about two percent of the text. And in that two percent support always exists for what the original said--never is one left with mere conjecture. In other words it is not that only 90 percent of the original text exists in the extant Greek manuscripts--rather, 110 percent exists. Textual criticism is not involved in reinventing the original; it is involved in discarding the spurious, in burning the dross to get to the gold.

So, you can reject the Bible if you like, but you can't do it on the grounds that we don't really know what the original said because it was "changed" or corrupted". Modern scholarship simply does not allow that option.

I don't know much about Egyptology, so I can't comment on that. However I do believe Christian holidays were purposefully planned in conjunction with Pagan holidays in order to wipe out that religion.

Totally true.

Romans were rather ruthless, meaning either you were a Christian or you were dead. I firmly believe the Roman Empire has much to do with the proliferation of Christianity.

Maybe, but the period of fastest spread occurred in spite of Rome's opposition. It was only after Christianity had a wide and deep foothold across the Empire that Constantine made it the official religion.

Actually, in many ways, the Empire most responsible for the spread of Christianity was the Greeks. If they hadn't conquered before the Romans and left behind Greek as a lingua franca (as it were), it would have been much harder (if not impossible) for the faith to spread.

The "ages" section does make me think. I find it interesting.

Think about this: The astrological signs as we know them know did not exist at the time. This section is total crap, too. I'll provide a few links below, if you're interested.

In summary, Zeitgeist does not reference one single reputable scholar in its bibliography. Most of its "experts" are amateurs, or working outside their field (most, both). The source cited most often in part one is a writer named Acharya S. Not only is she completely without qualification, she relies on outdated, discredited, and even non-existent sources while ignoring good solid research that discredits her views, and is a loony conspiracy theorist who apparently believes that the Joos and the Mormons are secretly conspiring together to trigger armageddon via nuclear war. Read here for more about her, and consider the source.

Virtually every qualified scholar find the ideas put forth in Zeitgeist laughable. It's the kind of garbage found only on the internet and in self-publishing houses, because any peer-reviewed journal or the like would laugh them out of the room.

Anyway, if you'd like to read more, I reference some of these scholars here, here, here, here, here.

The RFID's is what I want to talk about. Would you guys allow this to happen to yourselves in the name of security and economy?

No, but as far as I can tell, the sources propogating this apparent urban legend are radical Christians afraid of the "mark of the beast", which I find highly amusing given the slant of part one. :laugh:

Again, as with parts one and two, there are no reliable experts, and many unattributed quotes and ideas. Crap just like the rest.

[dcnativenerd]

Saw the movie awhile ago. Though I am a devout Christian, I decided to take a look at it with an open mind and consider what the film maker had to say. Though there were a few interesting and thought provoking claims made, I couldn't get on board with the overall sentiment of the movie (apart from the section about the Federal Reserve) and I'm certainly not 9/11 conspiracy junky (though I do believe the government has mishandled the situation and is nothing more or less than completely incompetent when dealing with terrorism and homeland security). Plus...my faith is still as strong as ever.

Sorry, it seems as if I'm going to continue being a half-brained, superstitious, bible thumper

[Vicious]

Before you are conceived you are not alive. After your lifespan has met it's end you are not alive. Before the beginning is the same as after the end. You can believe whatever you want but the way things are setup in this reality you are not capable of avoiding this. Like a spark from the machinery of the universe you'll burn out, you'll still be matter but there will not be any heat left.

[Springfield]

Techboy. Thanks for responding to my post. I will admit, I am much less well versed in the Bible as you seem to be. I admit... In my current mindstate, cannot accept the Bible as truth and anything other than stories made up to tame the people. This may or may not displease you, but I'm sorry if it does (and I hope you don't view me as any less intelligent as you do). I am of the "seeing is believing" type, and I have seen nothing I can believe from the Bible.

I haven't looked at any of your links but I did read many of your posts from the thread, so I get the general jist of what you are saying. I do credit you for your research in the field, I haven't done much research myself. I believe what I have come to know and understand (much like that of Christians) and hold that above all else. My beliefs are absolute and I'm sure your links support your statements, my thoughts are irrespective of the movie at hand (to be quite honest).

I would try to inform myself of early Christianity, however, I feel that there is a lot of disinformation out there, specifically on the internet. Because of the disinformation out there and because of my lack of traditional information seeking (i.e.: going to the library for hours on end), I choose to lead my own thoughts in an uninformed manner at least at the scholarly level.

It is something that interests me though. I just rather not research that kind of thing through the internet, for better or for worse.

As far as the RFID tags... I was watching this with my girlfriend earlier tonight. She thought that the idea of RFID tags weren't that upsetting. She doesn't have anything to hide (I don't either, to be honest), so she figures that it wouldn't be a "bad" thing for RFID chips to be injected into everyone. I absolutely disagree with what she thinks, sadly to say, but I feel like she carries the majority opinion (eventhough you and I may agree). I would give up my life here in America, my friends, family and everything I love in order to not be "tagged". The RFID chip idea is something I vehomently disagree with, I would stop at no end in order to avoid such a thing.

Dcnativenerd... In all of your Bible thumping glory, I'm glad to hear you at least gave this movie a fair shot. Other than our complete polar opposites when it comes to the Bible, I pretty much agree with what you say. Thanks for chiming in.

[techboy]

SpringfieldSkins, I think it is certainly very possible to be an intelligent, well-informed individual, and yet not accept Christianity as the Truth (with a capital T). There are a great many New Testament scholars, for instance, that are either agnostics/atheists (like Bart Ehrman) or what I might call "nominal Christians", in that they profess to be Christians, yet hold to views that seem inconsistent with Chrstianity, like John Dominic Crossan who rejects the idea that Jesus was ressurected or performed any miracles at all...

So, if you want to reject Christianity on the basis of "I'm not convinced", I can totally respect that. I think you're wrong, and I'd love to convince you otherwise, of course.

Please just don't reject it based on tripe like Zeitgeist, or the "Bible as telephone game" urban legend.

It's like the difference between the voter that rejects voting for Obama because he doesn't like Obama's views on healthcare reform, and the guy who rejects voting for Obama because he's a Muslim.

[Springfield]

I reject Christianity because of my own personal views. I found Zeitgeist to be an interesting watch, but nothing really after that. It leaves me thinking, but mainly because of the thinking I had done prior to that movie. I personally don't think that Jesus never existed (although I won't rule out the possibility that he didn't), just that his accomplishments have probably been over aggrandized with each iteration of the Bible.

Here is a quote from the "New Century Version" that I disagree with regarding the differences between that and the previous version. My girlfriend just happened to have a Bible on the bookshelf, as much as we don't agree with it.

Rhetorical questions have been stated according to their implied answer. The phalmist's question, "What god so great as our God?" has been stated more directly as, "No god is as great as our God."

You may not find this offending at all, however it's the little discrepencies to me that make ALL of the difference. They outright change how the book is written to make it's readers believe what is said, rather than come to their own conclusions.

Zeitgeist to me, is nothing different than a Michael Moore movie (for better or for worse), it gets you thinking at least. I can appreciate that, I truly can appreciate a movie that gets you thinking. This goes for a movie that has a conservative perspective as well, I like movies that open up all aspects of different thinking.

EDIT: I also find it sacreligious that there would be more than one translation of the Bible. The protestants have their "New Revised Version" and the Catholics have their "New Century Version". There are obviously differences in these versions to pander to the different sects. I was raised on the "New Reviesed Version" and my girlfriend was raised on the other. To be absolutely right, one has to be the correct version. I would like to one day (not tonight, as I've been drinking a little and my Bible is still at my mom's house with the rest of my literature I haven't read in ages) go through each Bible and find out what is so different about them, just for my own personal knowledge.

[techboy]

The.

Bible.

Was.

Not.

Written.

In.

English.

Every English translation renders things slightly differently, because Greek is not English. A completely literal translation sounds stilted and awkward. The grammar's not the same as in English.

Some translations, like the NASB, keep the literal rendering as much as possible at the expense of readability and flow. Others, like the NIV, use paraphrasing, which keep the meaning but change the wording. Still others try to split the difference. All of them, as long as they are good modern translations using the latest findings in textual criticism, convey the same idea.

And, you know what?

It doesn't matter! The Bible wasn't written in English! If you really want to know exactly what the text says, word for word, learn Greek! (Lazy people like me read good translation notes, like in the NET Bible, and compare different translations to get a good idea )

You can repeat that silliness about "changing translations", but the one thing that does not change is the facts. And, the fact is, the texts of the Bible were not written in English. They were written in Hebrew and Greek.

Your perspective might make sense if as the years went by, old copies were lost and only the newest translations were kept, but that is not at all how it happened.

There are roughly 6 THOUSAND early greek manuscripts for scholars to look at.

Later translations, like the King James, or the New World, or whatever, are TOTALLY IRRELEVANT. We have the Greek.

This is not a matter of faith. This is not a matter of opinion. This is not a matter of "you believe what you believe and I'll believe what I believe".

This is a matter of hard fact, and the fact is, if you choose to hold to the idea that the Bible is "corrupted by multiple translations", you are doing so in willful ignorance to the truth of the matter.

[techboy]

I would like to one day (not tonight, as I've been drinking a little and my Bible is still at my mom's house with the rest of my literature I haven't read in ages) go through each Bible and find out what is so different about them, just for my own personal knowledge.

By the way, if you want to do this, Bible Gateway has lots of different versions, and you can switch between them with a drop-down menu.

As a side note, I'd like to plead with people not to bump old threads like this. I put a lot of work into composing carefully researched responses, and it frequently takes me several hours to do so. As a result, when I see an issue I've addressed before, I'll often do a search and copy over (sometimes with updates, sometimes not) previous things I've written.

I just realized that I've linked to things earlier in this thread, which is bad enough, but one of them is like three posts above the new one! :doh: :laugh:

[Springfield]

Well, tech... you have me trumped. I will admit to that. Your knowledge greatly outweighs mine. I can't refute a damn thing you say. I will look into the Bible Gateway when I'm sober, I do promise you that.

You are very right. I am ignorant in the matter, choosing what I want to believe. To that effect, you win this argument. What you have shared will most likely not change what I believe to be true, but it does shame me because I believe my thoughts to be true (in light of the facts you have presented).

The religious aspect of this movie is not what I intenitally intended to argue about to be honest. I didn't think I would prove anything, other than making my views look idiotic (to you especially).

I will admit... Your evidence and scholarly viewpoint greatly outweighs my own. I can't deny anything you've said. That is not what I really intended. I will look into your sources tomorrow and get back to you when I am in the right state of mind. I can't refute anything the church has said, or the scholars that support the church (as I assume, it is most scholars). I don't think my opinoin would get much traction or be without rebuttal here.

I didn't set out to debate religion here, but here I am opposing my own views on others. Not what i really wanted at all. I more or less knew you would crush me in that forum.

The movie was thought inspiring. It made me think more of where we are heading (as a human race) than where we have been. That is all.

Also, I took the liberty of looking over your wife's photographs of the weddings she has covered while I was thinking of my responses to your posts. I think that she takes beautiful photographs that seem rather candid. I will hopefully ask my longtime girlfriend to marry me, if I have the balls. I will PM you if I ever need her assistance in the future (seeing as how you are rather local to me).

[dcnativenerd]

Dcnativenerd... In all of your Bible thumping glory, I'm glad to hear you at least gave this movie a fair shot. Other than our complete polar opposites when it comes to the Bible, I pretty much agree with what you say. Thanks for chiming in.

No prob, Bob. I'd like to think I'm part of a school of Christians who don't just shove the secular world away (unless convenient) and who are able to look at films like ZEITGEIST withou writing petition letters or telling Pat Robertson how much it offended me. To me, it's an interesting conversation piece, but I cannot go along with it's message.

Oh, and techboy...I dunno if you're a Christian or not, but thanks for taking our side. Obviously, you're better versed in the word than I am. I think it's high time I cracked open my bible and REALLY started reading.

[Koolblue13]

This movie does a lot of the classic "truther jumping" but it's not that far off on some of it.

[Zguy28]

Oh, and techboy...I dunno if you're a Christian or not, but thanks for taking our side. Obviously, you're better versed in the word than I am. I think it's high time I cracked open my bible and REALLY started reading.

Stop, your making his head swell up.

[Coach Williams]

lol...this thread was over at post 2.....3 at best......WHY is it still alive?

[Springfield]

lol...this thread was over at post 2.....3 at best......WHY is it still alive?

Sorry...