Chrysothemis(Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 08:23:39 PM)
Paul's anti-female comments are most likely not part of the original text. There is ample evidence that women played a decisive role in the early church - that was even one of the main objections of its opponents.
marsCubed(Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 06:49:54 PM)
Chrysothemis, I agree, The bible is a document which is perhaps best understood as a living entity, it was revised and added to as the Judean state developed. It offers us a window into the mindset of an ancient people and their concept of themselves and how they came together.
It is not historically accurate but a prism of aspiration, myth and religious dogma, it helps us to form a more coherent picture of what actually in Canaan, knowing the untruths helps us understand Canaan's psyche too.
Chrysothemis(Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 06:32:05 PM)
Oh, and I would argue that Christianity led to European monasteries where philosophy and the seeds of rationalism were allowed to grow to the point where the enlightenment, science and yes, atheism were able to emerge.
In a mere three centuries or so, these phenomena have changed the world beyond recognition. You can of course argue that Jesus' role in this process was indirect.
Chrysothemis(Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 06:24:45 PM)
I'll concede that a real Mohammad is in a sense more influential than an imaginary Jesus.
This reminds me of the ontological argument that God is more perfect if he exists than if he doesn't.
I guess that it comes down to the fact that we don't know if Jesus existed, and if he didn't, who made him up. If we were to find a lost letter by Paul to the effect that he came up with the whole thing himself, then clearly Paul would be the most imortant character in history, not Jesus.
Muchodelcrazy(Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 06:00:13 PM)
What about Mohammed? How are you measuring "influential?" One of the most influential, yes.
I don't think it's fair to say that Jesus is the influential person if he is fictitious, but believed to be real. The real credit goes to the people who invented his character and all his shenanigans. Just like the credit really goes to Shakespeare, not Hamlet, for being the influential person.
Chrysothemis(Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 05:46:53 PM)
marsCubed - this is not quite true. Actual history isn't completely separated from Biblical history. It's not fair to dismiss it outright.
Consider the Scandinavian pagan stories. While no evidence has emerged in favor of the Gods, archeology has proven surprisingly many of the kings, battles etc to actually be historical.
Stories of this kind tend to build on actual events, but picking up theological baggage and getting ever more fantastical as they are transmitted down the ages.
marsCubed(Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 05:15:41 PM)
Again you refer me to the opinion of Google. And that is really the problem with your argument. There is no academic working in the field of biblical archaeology today who thinks that the bible is accurate, there is not one single shard of pottery which supports the existence of the Hebrew people or any such settlements where or when the bible states they should be. Many of the cities and peoples mentioned simply did not exist until much later.
Buy a plane ticket and visit the evidence.
Chrysothemis(Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 05:00:58 PM)
To be honest, that's not the real issue for me. It's certainly possible that Jesus was invented by the original Jerusalem group, popularized by Paul and given his definitive form by Mark and Matthew and/or Luke. There are plenty of good arguments for this theory, although I don't agree.
Even if Jesus is indeed a fictional character, he is by far the most influential person who ever lived, or if that's your position, didn't.
Rather like how Hamlet is insightful and well spoken, while invented.
marsCubed
"Google isn't a source, it is a search engine"
I know, that is why I wrote "A Google SEARCH for "When was the Bible written and who wrote it?" and "Archaeology Confirms the Bible is Historical" will prove you are wrong."
You will always have people who ignore the overwhelming evidence in any matter or subject to push their own agenda or simply to contradict.
Just look at the idiots who make these videos. People have to be ignorant of the Bible to swallow that crap.
marsCubed(Tuesday 2nd of December 2008 02:42:26 PM)
MidnightHustler75, Google isn't a source, it is a search engine.
What has emerged is that the ancient people of the region were part of the same Canaanite nation.
Where the bible claims for it's history we find a hinterland barely populated with nomadic Canaanites for millennia. Only when writing and city building start is the bible written. But it is all Canaanite and polytheistic until 600BC in Josiah's Theocratic Judah.
It was written to justify and give an identity to Judah. not historical
