3 of 4
3
D.M. Murdock - The Christ Conspiracy
Posted: 06 July 2011 07:44 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1299
Joined  2009-10-21
diabolicalreally - 05 July 2011 08:51 PM

I’ll be on the look out for her books, they look pretty interesting. Are there more books like this?

Who Wrote the Bible by Richard Elliott Friedman – This one explains the Documentary Hypothesis.
Who Wrote the New Testament by Burton L. Mack
Jesus Interrupted by Bart Ehrman
The Bible Unearthed by Israel Finkelstein (PBS and National Geographic have covered this)
Some Mistakes of Moses by Robert Green Ingersoll
Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2011 09:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7574
Joined  2007-03-02
Lausten - 06 July 2011 07:44 AM
diabolicalreally - 05 July 2011 08:51 PM

I’ll be on the look out for her books, they look pretty interesting. Are there more books like this?

Jesus for the Non-Religious by John Shelby Spong

LOL  You do know why Jack wrote “Jesus for the Non-religious” don’t you?  While he is humanistic, he still has a god concept and has no desire for people to give up on Xianity or even Jesus.  It is his way of evangelizing.  Don’t get me wrong, I adore the man and he was one of my mentors before I lost belief and religion.  He’s a good man and I have nothing against him.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2011 11:03 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1299
Joined  2009-10-21

  You do know why Jack wrote “Jesus for the Non-religious” don’t you?

Talking to you is very much like talking to a theist. You have a strange sense of evidence and facts. I know Spong still loves Jesus as if he is real and present, but when I read his stuff I can’t figure out why. His stated mission is to keep the church from becoming what the fundamentalists want it to be. When I met him after a speech, I told him the book almost made me quit the church. He said, well, maybe you should. Eventually I did.

In the book listed, he goes through many of the well known miracles and discusses why they could not possibly be true and discusses how they came to be written. That is the topic that diabolicalreally asked about.

While he is humanistic, he still has a god concept and has no desire for people to give up on Xianity or even Jesus.  It is his way of evangelizing.

What are you saying? Can’t you evaluate his works separate from his personal feelings?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2011 11:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7574
Joined  2007-03-02
Lausten - 06 July 2011 11:03 AM

  You do know why Jack wrote “Jesus for the Non-religious” don’t you?

Talking to you is very much like talking to a theist. You have a strange sense of evidence and facts. I know Spong still loves Jesus as if he is real and present, but when I read his stuff I can’t figure out why. His stated mission is to keep the church from becoming what the fundamentalists want it to be. When I met him after a speech, I told him the book almost made me quit the church. He said, well, maybe you should. Eventually I did.

In the book listed, he goes through many of the well known miracles and discusses why they could not possibly be true and discusses how they came to be written. That is the topic that diabolicalreally asked about.

While he is humanistic, he still has a god concept and has no desire for people to give up on Xianity or even Jesus.  It is his way of evangelizing.

What are you saying? Can’t you evaluate his works separate from his personal feelings?

I’ve met him also and have had a few correspondences with him, which I still have.  In fact, he encouraged me to become a humanist.  However, I do not see how talking to me is like talking to a theist, esp when I do not have a god concept or even believe in a historical Jesus.  This kicks me out of the theist category.

What am I saying?  Well, I’m not separating his works from his feelings.  He is the true definition of a Xian humanist or humanistic Xian.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2011 03:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1299
Joined  2009-10-21

Mriana; You are like a theist in that you seem more interested in feelings than facts. You are ignoring my question about the Documentary Hypothesis, probably because you see the consequence of responding. You judge Spong based on his beliefs. Of the 6 titles I supplied, you picked the one that you could make non-fact based slam about.

What am I saying?  Well, I’m not separating his works from his feelings.  He is the true definition of a Xian humanist or humanistic Xian.

Yes, I got that. The question means what are you implying?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2011 05:31 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7574
Joined  2007-03-02
Lausten - 06 July 2011 03:49 PM

Mriana; You are like a theist in that you seem more interested in feelings than facts. You are ignoring my question about the Documentary Hypothesis, probably because you see the consequence of responding. You judge Spong based on his beliefs. Of the 6 titles I supplied, you picked the one that you could make non-fact based slam about.

I never saw the Documentary hypothesis, so how can I answer that question if I’ve never even heard of it? I don’t even know what it means. I really don’t have a clue, so don’t accuse me of something, when you don’t even know why I have not answered that question.  I’m not ignoring anything, just waiting for someone else to answer you on that.  So unless you know what I’m thinking, then don’t get your underwear in a knot.  I’ve taken many a religious course at the uni and they never once talked about any “documentary hypothesis”.

BTW, I do know what the question, “What are you saying?” means.  You don’t have to get bent.

[ Edited: 06 July 2011 05:34 PM by Mriana ]
 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 July 2011 07:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1299
Joined  2009-10-21
Mriana - 06 July 2011 05:31 PM
Lausten - 06 July 2011 03:49 PM

Mriana; You are like a theist in that you seem more interested in feelings than facts. You are ignoring my question about the Documentary Hypothesis, probably because you see the consequence of responding. You judge Spong based on his beliefs. Of the 6 titles I supplied, you picked the one that you could make non-fact based slam about.

I never saw the Documentary hypothesis, so how can I answer that question if I’ve never even heard of it? I don’t even know what it means. I really don’t have a clue, so don’t accuse me of something, when you don’t even know why I have not answered that question.  I’m not ignoring anything, just waiting for someone else to answer you on that.  So unless you know what I’m thinking, then don’t get your underwear in a knot.  I’ve taken many a religious course at the uni and they never once talked about any “documentary hypothesis”.

The question was, had you seen it referenced in Acharya’s work. You claimed you are very familiar with her work, so if you hadn’t heard of it, then the answer must be no. I don’t see what is so difficult about that.

Mriana - 06 July 2011 05:31 PM

BTW, I do know what the question, “What are you saying?” means.  You don’t have to get bent.

It did not appear from your response that you did understand the question. So, I was clarifying, not getting bent.

I don’t understand your hostile attitude. Obviously we disagree. I don’t think I am that difficult to understand but you have frequently misinterpreted me, as in the two cases in this last response.

(Edited for clarity)

[ Edited: 07 July 2011 08:22 AM by Lausten ]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2011 01:48 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  189
Joined  2009-01-01
Mriana - 05 July 2011 07:13 PM


Yeah, the Church has been doing it for years, yet when it comes to the Church, they seem to be above the law.

Few appreciate the research and motives that go into the historical reporting of various histories as much as I do, except perhaps those who use such material as a tool for their own plagiarism.  What ever might motivate such a thing except that it be used as a continuing source of justification for the powers that choose to hold sway over and rule (other) men.

“The Church” seems somewhat ill-defined these days but yes, either “religion” or some other iconic figurehead has forever been above the law if not actually in full command of the law itself from the beginning of most world histories.  But that’s just a personal and quite unqualified opinion.  Notwithstanding the above, one should never underestimate either the confusion or influence of the mystics who pervade throughout our history.  cheese

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 11 July 2011 07:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1299
Joined  2009-10-21

Some of the links are broken, but this post from a different forum is the most comprehensive one that I have found. (FYI, in case you think I am being obsessive, I was looking for something else when I found this)

Comments on Zeitgeist and Acharya’s theories in general, with links

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2011 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  264
Joined  2008-11-10

Earl Doherty, who is mentioned in the interview, is not a scholar.  He has no credentials.  He is just a layperson who self-published a book.  No major Academic faculty will hire Robert M. Price because his theories about Jesus are not credible.  D. M. Murdock doesn’t have a PhD either.  She is just a layperson with a theory that has no peer reviewed credibility.  The Jesus-Myth hypothesis has not penetrated the universities because there is nothing to it.  Secularists would like it to be true, but academics have dismissed it based on lack of merit.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 04 August 2011 08:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  264
Joined  2008-11-10
john76 - 04 August 2011 04:36 PM

Earl Doherty, who is mentioned in the interview, is not a scholar.  He has no credentials.  He is just a layperson who self-published a book.  No major Academic faculty will hire Robert M. Price because his theories about Jesus are not credible.  D. M. Murdock doesn’t have a PhD either.  She is just a layperson with a theory that has no peer reviewed credibility.  The Jesus-Myth hypothesis has not penetrated the universities because there is nothing to it.  Secularists would like it to be true, but academics have dismissed it based on lack of merit.

Okay.  My vacation’s over.  Had fun posting on the forums.  I will check back again in another six months.  But with the Jesus-Myth theory, try to remember something:

On the planet earth, we have things called universities where you can go and learn about stuff from experts.  If you want to learn about religion, you go to the theology department of the university.  In the theology department, you will not be taught that Jesus was a myth, because the overwhelming majority of experts in theology agree that Jesus was a real person.  If you want to hear stories about Jesus being a myth, you go to people like D. M. Murdock, Earl Doherty, and Robert M. Price, who the experts all agree are being foolish and careless with their theories.  Don’t confuse the fact that Bob Price is prolific and really interested in religion with the idea that anyone who matters takes him seriously.  Bob Price is prolific, not profound.  Secularists love him because they want Jesus to be a myth.  You don’t have to believe Jesus was divine, but the experts agree he lived.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2011 09:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  264
Joined  2008-11-10
Mriana - 28 June 2011 07:58 PM

Two of my favourite people together.  I can’t wait to listen to it.  smile

And in what peer reviewed, academic theological journal can I find a defense of D. M. Murdock?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 August 2011 12:52 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2423
Joined  2007-09-03
Lausten - 06 July 2011 03:49 PM

..... You are ignoring my question about the Documentary Hypothesis, ......

could you repeat the question—- and doesn’t the ‘documentatry hypothesis’ relate to the old Testament?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Documentary_hypothesis

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2011 05:23 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  5
Joined  2011-01-10

Some here have made light of the fact that Price isn’t employed by a University, because of his supposed wacky theories.  This is an ad hominem not a critique of the evidence presented.  There is also a lot of weight being given to the fact that the majority of scholar in Christian theological school believe Jesus was a Historical Person.  Forgetting for a moment the fact that an appleal to the majority is a logical falacy, what does the fact that the majority of Christians who teach at Theological school believe their god was a historical person?  Nothing.  It’s like asking an Ancient Ptolemian if he believes the earth is the center of the solar system or a Hindu if Siva is real.  It is a faith statement plan in simple.  If you don’t like the Christ Myth theory critique the arguments.  As for peer view Theological journal not publishing the works of Price and the other mythists, again what does that mean?  That the editors of SBL and other “scholarly” journal in the field believe Jesus was historical.  Further what does peer view mean in religious studies?  Its not like the authors are conducting experiments that the reviewer can repeat inorder to see if the same results are acheived, rather it is a statement that a member of some ‘good ol boy’ network finds the authors ideas agreeable.  Thus I find it as no surprise that a bunch of religionist find it disagreeable/abhorant to say there wasn’t a Jesus.  Do I agree with Murdock, no, do I think the Christ myth theory should be honestly debated?  Yes.  If there is a discoverible historical figure behind the Bible then he should be able to be discovered using the tools of historical research, without the need to resort to special pleading, evident free hyperbole, and logical falacies.  Finally, the claim that what “religious scholars” are doing is so complicated that someone without a PhD can’t possible contribute.  While I generally agree that I wouldn’t want to go to a Doctor who doesn’t have an MD, I find this argument a bit silly.  The only limiting factor I see, as one who has a degree in Religious studies, is the knowledge of the various ancient language the different Biblical manuscripts have survived in, if you have mastered these languages I see no reason an outsider who has read all the relevant literature can’t contribute to the field, hell most religious movement were founded by individuals who lack anything but the most basic of education so I am not sure why someone who can work in the languages of the religious text can’t figure them out.  This doesn’t mean I agree with Murdock and Doherty? No, rather it means I want their arguments critique not whether or not they have a degree.  In other words if their lack of education means that they have made numerous mistakes, as Murdock has, (I’m not familiar with Doherty’s work) because of her reliance on poorly done translations and out right frauds, then point these mistakes out don’t attack her for not having a peice of paper.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 08 August 2011 07:08 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  189
Joined  2009-01-01

The most wonderful thing about conspiracies is that they can go on ad infinitum.  I’m sure that all people like to imagine that each has some kind of special franchise regarding the God they worship or at least are supposed to be worshiping according to their own traditions.  This does add a common and personal relationship with regards to forming a cohesive unit of a given society (we are special), but I’d suspect that the real God that we all know and love is much larger than that and by most definitions has been around and making some kind of presence known since “the beginning” in one way or another. 

In such case historical similarities as outlined herein might just as well be viewed as a reinforcing aspect as opposed to exposing the stories as purely fraudulent simply because they have been heard somewhere before.  Moses was reportedly raised in the royal house of Egypt which might tend to make him quite familiar with the early Egyptian perceptions of “gods” or even “God”, but perhaps even the character Moses is simply yet another piece of yet another conspiracy?  Do we have any more historical basis for a real Moses than we do for a real Jesus aside from the verbal and written records handed down to us by the Hebrews and their descendants?  If one’s position to this question is taken simply as “negative” then there we go, “There is (apparently) no such thing as God!” or at least the Hebrew one.  But all things would then become much less interesting to us whether or not any form of sheepskin in involved with the telling.

The purpose of confusion is to make you think harder.

 Signature 

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful. - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3