Peter Joseph, producer of the documentary Zeitgeist, was quoted as saying:
"The idea that the film is against any group is a fallacy. The only thing the film addresses is ideology and beliefs. Sadly, many don't realize that one's ideology is not them. We are emergent beings and everything we believe is taught to us one way or another. Therefore to say the film is attacking "Christians" is about as absurd as saying the film attacks people with baseball caps. This is a serious problem in our society, for identity is erroneously associated with belief. Once again, propagandists against the project use this idea that the film "attacks" a group in order to try and manipulate their surroundings into not thinking critically about the information. The same kind of propaganda has materialized where the project has been called "new world order", "satanic" "marxist" and other irrational, thoughtless distinctions not worth bringing up.
The Zeitgeist Movement
It should be apparent to Peter Joseph why Christians see the movie as an attack on Christianity. It is not simply because of the movie, but because of the skeptics and critics of the Bible who did not heed the words of warning and took the movie serious enough to claim it proves that Jesus stole Christianity from the Egyptians. The movie relied heavily on books written with no other motive than to prove the founders of Christianity relied on paganism. One of the major contributors was the books "The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Sold," and "Christ In Egypt,The Horus-Jesus Connection" written by D. M. Murdock, better known as Acharya S. Although She is a mythologist by profession, Her books as well as Her site are aimed primarily at proving a Christian conspiracy. The theme is always the same, that either Jesus or the Gospel writers stole Christianity from Egyptian religious customs.
Acharya relied heavily on the ramblings of Gerald Massey, author of "The Historical Jesus an Mythical Christ",written over a hundred years ago. While I do not question the expertise of Acharya as a qualified writer and mythologist, I do question the accuracy of the historical content of Her sources.Gerald Massey admitted that much of His information came from oral tradition with some of it taken from Greek historians. The majority of His history has since been proven false and the majority of Egyptologists do not agree with the misinterpretations of Massey's Egyptian gods. His "ancient: Egyptian history came from Gnostic and Coptic writings. Although it is believed by some that the Gnostics were around prior to the Christian era, the majority of scholars believe it was the first century ce. There is little doubt that they incorporated Christianity into paganism. Their practice of paganism included Greek, Roman, Persian and Egyptian gods. Near the second century ce, they began to add Christian beliefs to their paganism. The Egyptian inscriptions that were referenced do exist, but they do not say what has been misinterpreted as Egyptian gods that appear in the Christian Gospels. Even Massey claimed in more than one paragraph that the Egyptians that embraced Christianity, refused to do away with their pagan gods and incorporated them into Christianity. The Egyptians had been doing that since since their history was first written down. They saw nothing wrong with borrowing gods from Canaan, Syria, Ethiopia or Arabia.The problem arises when Christian era texts are passed off as more ancient writings.
Most of the sources for the movie, and the book as well, were taken from books on the subject, which were personal opinions. They had little to do with actual history. The Majority were written in the 18th century, and do not reflect the opinions of scholars today. That is possibly the reason for depending on books written at a time when superstition over ruled common sense. There are not very many people still around that believe that Jews have horns. Books from a century ago will lead one to believe that is true, if we place any faith in them. Like the Horus/ Jesus connection, the idea came from unreliable sources looking for something to justify their own beliefs. Like the Horus/Jesus connection it originated from a mistranslation and persisted for centuries. It originated in the 16th century when Michelangelo's statue of Moses showed Him with horns. That came from the Hebrew word "qaran," which meant both shine and horn. It is a good example of not paying attention to reality or not bothering to check sources for honesty and accuracy.
More
Tuesday, November 16, 2010
Thursday, October 21, 2010
The Dawkins Delusion
It is surprising how many intelligent people still believe that there is scientific evidence that God does not exist, or that it proves God is very unlikely. Many claim to be unbiased logical thinkers, but few are. They still follow the lead of Richard Dawkins, who's ideas of why a Creator could not exist have been rejected by the majority of scientists. His book "The God Delusion" has been criticized by many of his faithful fans, who find the book one of the worst he has ever written. Dawkins has declared those who believe in a Creator to be delusional and ignorant, going so far as to claim that only atheists are the intelligent ones. The problem is that Dawkins made Himself look unintelligent by his rantings about religion being the cause of the evils in the world, claiming that there has never been any evil committed in the name of atheism. His remark that he can prove that the probability of God's existence is almost zero is ,in itself, a betrayal to science. His suggestion that although the majority of the founding fathers believed in God,some of them were probably atheists. Not only does that prove nothing, it is an unscientific approach and is exactly what Dawkins argues against Christians using.
Dawkins uses the Drake equation, that calculates the probability of life on other planets, in a contradictory argument against the probability of God. According to Dawkins scientists should keep an open mind on the issue, but states that the same equation proves the unlikely hood of God existing. Apparently having an open mind does not include religion. He resorts to fabricating His own statistics to try to prove that he is among the majority in His beliefs. Again He fails miserably in logic and intelligence. He claims that only one or two Nobel prize winning scientists out of hundreds are Christians. Since Dawkins has not won a Noble prize, that statement proves nothing other than, according to His own reasoning, he is either a Christian or not as intelligent as the average atheist.
One of Dawkins biggest errors is believing that evolution requires leaving out a Creator. He rambles on about natural selection being an argument against a creator. He wrote that any complex entity requires an explanation for its existence and that a Creator would have had to be more complex than His creation. His claim that natural selection is the only known mechanism that can produce complexity from simplicity, has nothing whatsoever to do with creation. Natural selection explains how life changes over time, it does not explain how life began, or how simplicity acquired the intelligence to become complex. Dawkins attempts to use evolution as evidence that life could not have been created falls short of logic, since they are not the same thing. Dawkins came close to logic by writing that life could just as well have happened without God. Scientifically that is possible, but Dawkins dislike for anything religious would not allow Him to write without taking punches at those who would not let Him win the debates with Creationists.
Dawkins stated that intelligence evolved and any super intelligence could not have existed before life, claiming that the first self replicating entity was powerful. He has stated that any creator would have been a super intelligent entity, and would be very improbable. His claim that natural selection produces complexity out of simplicity is contradictory to a creator having to be super intelligent to have created such a complex system. It is just as possible for God to have created a simple system with the ability to evolve as it is for a simple system to have accidentally evolved into complexity. In one of His many contradictions Dawkins attempts to prove the unlikely hood of a super intelligent being by limiting His power and intelligence to one who is obligated to create only what we see today, in a way that only an atheist scientist can understand. It is apparently beyond his understanding that God could have build a self sufficient and self replicating simple system with the ability to evolve into a complex system. Dawkins also failed to mention that it took a complex set of laws governing the interaction between atoms and molecules for evolution to begin. Who created the Atom? Did it always exist?
Dawkins seems to have forgotten that the scientific theory of life rising from non life without some outside intervention is highly improbable. He seems to believe in the possibility of life having developed despite the odds against it, but disputes creation because of the odds against it. Science offers an explanation of accidental life, which has been proven impossible to duplicate. A scientific theory is based on evidence that explains why something exists. Not only can a theory be tested, but it can also be proven false. While it is possible to test the theories of evolution, it is not possible to test the theories of how life began, with satisfactory results. Such experiments have produced amino acids that are used to make protein in living cells, but they also yielded nitrates which destroy amino acids. The tests require an outside source to produce amino acids. They also depend on knowing the condition of the earths atmosphere at the time life began. The only accurate results of the tests is that scientists are unable to create a living organism from nonliving ingredients.
Scientists seem to have the same predicament that Dawkins uses to prove the improbability of a creator. He asked the question, Who created God, but cannot answer the question of who created the organic molecules. Did they create themselves? Did they always exist? When scientists can answer either of those questions, they will also have answered the question of how God came to be. The theories, some of which cannot be accurately called theories, about the origins of life are varied. All are accepted by some scientists and rejected by others. It is not explained by evolution, which is concerned only with changes in inherited traits through generations. Abiogenesis is a belief that life sprang from non life. It does not explain how it took place. Creation explains how life sprang from non life. Creation does not explain or leave out the possibility of evolution.
The Bible itself hints at evolution and does not claim that every living thing was created, only that every kind was created. Genesis 1:11-12 states that the grass and trees were left to recreate more of it's kind."
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
"Genesis 1:20, when taken as it is written, states that not only did the ocean recreate life, it also brought forth the flying creatures.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Richard Dawkins relied heavily on the theories of Darwin and natural selection, but Dawkins has added His own twist in that Darwin believed natural selection is a blind process, while Dawkins believes it is a complex steering process which is not left to chance. Dawkins failed to mention that evolution also depends on random mutation. Dawkins probability argument would have to take into consideration a universe that randomly mutated.
In summary, Richard Dawkins understands that life began as a simple system, but could not have been created as a simple system.Richard Dawkins believes in the possibility of extraterrestrials with the possibility of being more advanced that earthlings, but not in the possibility of God. He believes it is very,very unlikely that an intelligent Christian exists. In reality it is very, very unlikely that one can be a genuine scientist and believe the way Dawkins does. Those who believe in Dawkins are indeed, delusional. Richard Dawkins has begun to self destruct. Since He is an atheist and too intelligent to cause his own demise, perhaps God did it.
Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists anymore. That seems to be a very wise decision given His track record on unintelligent rambling. A 400 page book on the scientific reasons why God cannot exist can only be filled with nonsense. Perhaps he should have listened to his publisher and stayed away from attacking God and Christians. Believing that he could scientifically prove the unlikely hood of a Creator shows that he is much more delusional than those he attacks. Those who quote him are using a delusional scientist to prove Christians are delusional. They also quickly lose credibility.
Dawkins uses the Drake equation, that calculates the probability of life on other planets, in a contradictory argument against the probability of God. According to Dawkins scientists should keep an open mind on the issue, but states that the same equation proves the unlikely hood of God existing. Apparently having an open mind does not include religion. He resorts to fabricating His own statistics to try to prove that he is among the majority in His beliefs. Again He fails miserably in logic and intelligence. He claims that only one or two Nobel prize winning scientists out of hundreds are Christians. Since Dawkins has not won a Noble prize, that statement proves nothing other than, according to His own reasoning, he is either a Christian or not as intelligent as the average atheist.
One of Dawkins biggest errors is believing that evolution requires leaving out a Creator. He rambles on about natural selection being an argument against a creator. He wrote that any complex entity requires an explanation for its existence and that a Creator would have had to be more complex than His creation. His claim that natural selection is the only known mechanism that can produce complexity from simplicity, has nothing whatsoever to do with creation. Natural selection explains how life changes over time, it does not explain how life began, or how simplicity acquired the intelligence to become complex. Dawkins attempts to use evolution as evidence that life could not have been created falls short of logic, since they are not the same thing. Dawkins came close to logic by writing that life could just as well have happened without God. Scientifically that is possible, but Dawkins dislike for anything religious would not allow Him to write without taking punches at those who would not let Him win the debates with Creationists.
Dawkins stated that intelligence evolved and any super intelligence could not have existed before life, claiming that the first self replicating entity was powerful. He has stated that any creator would have been a super intelligent entity, and would be very improbable. His claim that natural selection produces complexity out of simplicity is contradictory to a creator having to be super intelligent to have created such a complex system. It is just as possible for God to have created a simple system with the ability to evolve as it is for a simple system to have accidentally evolved into complexity. In one of His many contradictions Dawkins attempts to prove the unlikely hood of a super intelligent being by limiting His power and intelligence to one who is obligated to create only what we see today, in a way that only an atheist scientist can understand. It is apparently beyond his understanding that God could have build a self sufficient and self replicating simple system with the ability to evolve into a complex system. Dawkins also failed to mention that it took a complex set of laws governing the interaction between atoms and molecules for evolution to begin. Who created the Atom? Did it always exist?
Dawkins seems to have forgotten that the scientific theory of life rising from non life without some outside intervention is highly improbable. He seems to believe in the possibility of life having developed despite the odds against it, but disputes creation because of the odds against it. Science offers an explanation of accidental life, which has been proven impossible to duplicate. A scientific theory is based on evidence that explains why something exists. Not only can a theory be tested, but it can also be proven false. While it is possible to test the theories of evolution, it is not possible to test the theories of how life began, with satisfactory results. Such experiments have produced amino acids that are used to make protein in living cells, but they also yielded nitrates which destroy amino acids. The tests require an outside source to produce amino acids. They also depend on knowing the condition of the earths atmosphere at the time life began. The only accurate results of the tests is that scientists are unable to create a living organism from nonliving ingredients.
Scientists seem to have the same predicament that Dawkins uses to prove the improbability of a creator. He asked the question, Who created God, but cannot answer the question of who created the organic molecules. Did they create themselves? Did they always exist? When scientists can answer either of those questions, they will also have answered the question of how God came to be. The theories, some of which cannot be accurately called theories, about the origins of life are varied. All are accepted by some scientists and rejected by others. It is not explained by evolution, which is concerned only with changes in inherited traits through generations. Abiogenesis is a belief that life sprang from non life. It does not explain how it took place. Creation explains how life sprang from non life. Creation does not explain or leave out the possibility of evolution.
The Bible itself hints at evolution and does not claim that every living thing was created, only that every kind was created. Genesis 1:11-12 states that the grass and trees were left to recreate more of it's kind."
And God said, Let the earth bring forth grass, the herb yielding seed, and the fruit tree yielding fruit after his kind, whose seed is in itself, upon the earth: and it was so.
12And the earth brought forth grass, and herb yielding seed after his kind, and the tree yielding fruit, whose seed was in itself, after his kind: and God saw that it was good."
"Genesis 1:20, when taken as it is written, states that not only did the ocean recreate life, it also brought forth the flying creatures.
And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
24And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Richard Dawkins relied heavily on the theories of Darwin and natural selection, but Dawkins has added His own twist in that Darwin believed natural selection is a blind process, while Dawkins believes it is a complex steering process which is not left to chance. Dawkins failed to mention that evolution also depends on random mutation. Dawkins probability argument would have to take into consideration a universe that randomly mutated.
In summary, Richard Dawkins understands that life began as a simple system, but could not have been created as a simple system.Richard Dawkins believes in the possibility of extraterrestrials with the possibility of being more advanced that earthlings, but not in the possibility of God. He believes it is very,very unlikely that an intelligent Christian exists. In reality it is very, very unlikely that one can be a genuine scientist and believe the way Dawkins does. Those who believe in Dawkins are indeed, delusional. Richard Dawkins has begun to self destruct. Since He is an atheist and too intelligent to cause his own demise, perhaps God did it.
Richard Dawkins refuses to debate creationists anymore. That seems to be a very wise decision given His track record on unintelligent rambling. A 400 page book on the scientific reasons why God cannot exist can only be filled with nonsense. Perhaps he should have listened to his publisher and stayed away from attacking God and Christians. Believing that he could scientifically prove the unlikely hood of a Creator shows that he is much more delusional than those he attacks. Those who quote him are using a delusional scientist to prove Christians are delusional. They also quickly lose credibility.
Wednesday, June 2, 2010
Ken Humphreys Never Existed
According to the Jesus never existed web site, Ken Humphreys is a real life figure. Extensive research, however, has failed to turn up anyone who actually knows him personally. He appears, at times, to be an educated scholar, but that is very difficult to validate. His blogs and articles make it even more difficult to accept Him as an actual person. One of His arguments, for instance, is in opposition to something that I have never heard anyone claim, which is that Jesus is better documented than any other ancient figure. According to Humphreys, Julius Caesar, unlike Jesus, has a mass of mutually supporting evidence.
Huh? Caesar was a political figure, born in an aristocratic family, who set up a dictatorship that covered North Africa, The Northern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Christ was not. Julius Caesar started wars. Jesus Christ did not. Julius Caesar made a point to be remembered by history. Jesus Christ did not. Historians loved to write about political figures, especially hated dictators. Very few write about quite, non political religious figures. Any real person would not find difficulty in understanding the difference.
Humphreys has been quoted as writing:
"As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judea in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD). Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus or Christianity!"
Any real human that is familiar with the Bible and history would know that there were no Gospels written before 47 AD.and if there had been any, it is doubtful they would have reached Egypt before the death of Philo. No Gospels, no mention of Christians. Not having ever heard the word Christian or Christianity is a very good reason for not writing about them. If Humphreys was actually a real person, instead of a mythical figure, he would know that the followers of Christ, around 50 AD, were mostly Jews who referred to themselves as Jews. Philo could not have lived more than 15 years after Christ started His ministry. Christianity may have spread quickly, but not so quickly that those who called themselves Christians would have become prominent enough for a historian to write about. Philo did not write about any of the other small religious sects scattered around Egypt and the Levant and there were many of them during His lifetime.
There is reason to believe that Ken Humphreys, like the pagan gods he writes about, is a mixture of characters, some of which may be actual living scholars:
"The Israelites did not come from Egypt – a palpable myth – but emerged from the local population. There was no ancient 'Jewish Empire': the Jewish priests drew their inspiration from the empire of the Assyrians and "Judaism" was a reaction to the loss of the northern kingdom and an instructive period spent in Babylon.
Jerusalem in 10th century BC had been barely a village of huts and cave dwellings."
Any living person would know that there is a good possibility of someone knowing that the above is a direct quote from Israel Finkelstein. It would also seem that He would have read somewhere that the theories of Finkelstein are not accepted by mainstream archeologists. Anyone other than Finkelstein would have known that Jerusalem, from at least 1700 bc was surrounded by a 26 foot wall built with cut stones weighing up to five tons. It isn't difficult for a real person to find out that in the 10th century bc, another wall was added, which included gate houses and Royal quarters. That is quite a feat for cave dwelling villagers. The only way that Ken Humphreys would not have known that where there are Royal quarters there is Royalty, would be if He is not a real person. Normally where there is Royalty, there is a palace. Where there is a palace, there is a kingdom capital. Under normal circumstances a capital city would have an army. It is easy logic for a real person.
Humphreys belief concerning Herod the great is absolute evidence that He is not a real person.
"Herod the Great was a real king – but he did not massacre any babies. He was an astute and successful ruler."
The Massacre of the Innocents is not documented in official historical documents, but that does not mean it never happened. It is mentioned in the Saturnalia written in the 4th century by a Roman philosopher. All 2 year boys in the whole of Syria were killed, including the son of Herod. One Syrian texts claims there were
64,000 Innocents killed, while other sources put it at 14,000. There is a very good chance that it did take place, and history tells us that Herod was not only cruel, he was so paranoid about losing His throne that he had no problem resorting to murder if he felt it was threatened. Whether or not the Massacre of the Innocents ever took place, it is a fact that he burned alive 40 Jewish students for smashing His statue. The question might be why would they be protesting against such an astute and successful ruler. Herod was called King of the Jews. From the time he was born Jesus was called King of the Jews. It seems to me that Herod the Paranoid would have seen that as a very good reason to kill every male born around the same time as Jesus. Herod was very capable of doing that and would have had no remorse. If later Christians fabricated the story, they got very lucky and accidentally picked the one Jewish King their story would be the most likely to succeed with.
The "James Ossuary being found to be a fake is not even worth going into any farther than saying that all Bible scholars know that the names Jesus and James were two of the most common names in Israel. There are probably a lot of Jesses with brothers named James. No one really expected it to be "The Jesus". Fraud happens. It happens in religion almost as often as it happens in science. It happens in the articles of Bible critics and skeptics, but it isn't fraud that makes them look unrealistic. It's the absurd problems they invent and the ignorant way they try to solve them.
And that brings us to the virgins. According to Ken the Fraud, the pagan world was riddled with virgins who gave birth. One of those He mentioned, Isis, was never portrayed as a virgin and anyone who ahs ever read the critical views of the movie Zeitgeist knows that. Vesta was a virgin, hence the Vestal Virgins. Vesta was not "the virgin" and she never gave birth, although one of the Vestals did. Diana remained a pure virgin. I have no idea what happened to Arty, but knowing Ken's batting average, I would put my money on Her remaining a pure virgin.
I am still waiting on Ken to get back with evidence that Paul was not a real person. He seems absolutely positive that Paul was never shipwrecked, as if shipwrecks never happened back then. He is so certain that Paul's travels never happened that I will wait on His positive proof before commenting. I don't want to look as unintelligent as Ken does now, when he delivers the evidence that proves Paul never slept there. That is, of course, if Ken turns out to be an actual live person and not a mythical figure. The logic is that no real, living person could be that absurd and still have the ability to write intelligently. The truth is that the Bible, which is dismissed as being too ridiculous to be real, is a lot more realistic than Ken Humphreys. It is a lot more realistic than most skeptics. The Bible is filled with what has been called coincidences, which hit on the truth more often than skeptics.
Please Convince Me
Huh? Caesar was a political figure, born in an aristocratic family, who set up a dictatorship that covered North Africa, The Northern Mediterranean and the Middle East. Christ was not. Julius Caesar started wars. Jesus Christ did not. Julius Caesar made a point to be remembered by history. Jesus Christ did not. Historians loved to write about political figures, especially hated dictators. Very few write about quite, non political religious figures. Any real person would not find difficulty in understanding the difference.
Humphreys has been quoted as writing:
"As it happens, we have an excellent witness to events in Judea in the first half of the first century AD: Philo of Alexandria (c25 BC-47 AD). Yet Philo says not a word about Jesus or Christianity!"
Any real human that is familiar with the Bible and history would know that there were no Gospels written before 47 AD.and if there had been any, it is doubtful they would have reached Egypt before the death of Philo. No Gospels, no mention of Christians. Not having ever heard the word Christian or Christianity is a very good reason for not writing about them. If Humphreys was actually a real person, instead of a mythical figure, he would know that the followers of Christ, around 50 AD, were mostly Jews who referred to themselves as Jews. Philo could not have lived more than 15 years after Christ started His ministry. Christianity may have spread quickly, but not so quickly that those who called themselves Christians would have become prominent enough for a historian to write about. Philo did not write about any of the other small religious sects scattered around Egypt and the Levant and there were many of them during His lifetime.
There is reason to believe that Ken Humphreys, like the pagan gods he writes about, is a mixture of characters, some of which may be actual living scholars:
"The Israelites did not come from Egypt – a palpable myth – but emerged from the local population. There was no ancient 'Jewish Empire': the Jewish priests drew their inspiration from the empire of the Assyrians and "Judaism" was a reaction to the loss of the northern kingdom and an instructive period spent in Babylon.
Jerusalem in 10th century BC had been barely a village of huts and cave dwellings."
Any living person would know that there is a good possibility of someone knowing that the above is a direct quote from Israel Finkelstein. It would also seem that He would have read somewhere that the theories of Finkelstein are not accepted by mainstream archeologists. Anyone other than Finkelstein would have known that Jerusalem, from at least 1700 bc was surrounded by a 26 foot wall built with cut stones weighing up to five tons. It isn't difficult for a real person to find out that in the 10th century bc, another wall was added, which included gate houses and Royal quarters. That is quite a feat for cave dwelling villagers. The only way that Ken Humphreys would not have known that where there are Royal quarters there is Royalty, would be if He is not a real person. Normally where there is Royalty, there is a palace. Where there is a palace, there is a kingdom capital. Under normal circumstances a capital city would have an army. It is easy logic for a real person.
Humphreys belief concerning Herod the great is absolute evidence that He is not a real person.
"Herod the Great was a real king – but he did not massacre any babies. He was an astute and successful ruler."
The Massacre of the Innocents is not documented in official historical documents, but that does not mean it never happened. It is mentioned in the Saturnalia written in the 4th century by a Roman philosopher. All 2 year boys in the whole of Syria were killed, including the son of Herod. One Syrian texts claims there were
64,000 Innocents killed, while other sources put it at 14,000. There is a very good chance that it did take place, and history tells us that Herod was not only cruel, he was so paranoid about losing His throne that he had no problem resorting to murder if he felt it was threatened. Whether or not the Massacre of the Innocents ever took place, it is a fact that he burned alive 40 Jewish students for smashing His statue. The question might be why would they be protesting against such an astute and successful ruler. Herod was called King of the Jews. From the time he was born Jesus was called King of the Jews. It seems to me that Herod the Paranoid would have seen that as a very good reason to kill every male born around the same time as Jesus. Herod was very capable of doing that and would have had no remorse. If later Christians fabricated the story, they got very lucky and accidentally picked the one Jewish King their story would be the most likely to succeed with.
The "James Ossuary being found to be a fake is not even worth going into any farther than saying that all Bible scholars know that the names Jesus and James were two of the most common names in Israel. There are probably a lot of Jesses with brothers named James. No one really expected it to be "The Jesus". Fraud happens. It happens in religion almost as often as it happens in science. It happens in the articles of Bible critics and skeptics, but it isn't fraud that makes them look unrealistic. It's the absurd problems they invent and the ignorant way they try to solve them.
And that brings us to the virgins. According to Ken the Fraud, the pagan world was riddled with virgins who gave birth. One of those He mentioned, Isis, was never portrayed as a virgin and anyone who ahs ever read the critical views of the movie Zeitgeist knows that. Vesta was a virgin, hence the Vestal Virgins. Vesta was not "the virgin" and she never gave birth, although one of the Vestals did. Diana remained a pure virgin. I have no idea what happened to Arty, but knowing Ken's batting average, I would put my money on Her remaining a pure virgin.
I am still waiting on Ken to get back with evidence that Paul was not a real person. He seems absolutely positive that Paul was never shipwrecked, as if shipwrecks never happened back then. He is so certain that Paul's travels never happened that I will wait on His positive proof before commenting. I don't want to look as unintelligent as Ken does now, when he delivers the evidence that proves Paul never slept there. That is, of course, if Ken turns out to be an actual live person and not a mythical figure. The logic is that no real, living person could be that absurd and still have the ability to write intelligently. The truth is that the Bible, which is dismissed as being too ridiculous to be real, is a lot more realistic than Ken Humphreys. It is a lot more realistic than most skeptics. The Bible is filled with what has been called coincidences, which hit on the truth more often than skeptics.
Please Convince Me
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)