Mythology

Originally posted by Choreant
and in flagranti

Incorrect.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets see what you are saying:
1. There is such a thing as "original Christian doctrine".
2. There was such a thing as the Bible before it got infiltrated and corrupted.

How do you know what those original doctrines and original Bible are? How do you know that they too aren't corruptions of earlier doctrines and Bibles?

Ever hear of "The New Testament Documents" by F.F.Bruce? The copies of the original bible scrolls/documents are more reliable than todays copies of Plato, Aristotle's works, etc..But no one questions them.

Originally posted by checkbaiter
Ever hear of "The New Testament Documents" by F.F.Bruce? The copies of the original bible scrolls/documents are more reliable than todays copies of Plato, Aristotle's works, etc..But no one questions them.

Yes they do, too. The nature of the questioning is different, of course, because the claims made on the texts are different.

Originally posted by KellyJay
How about the Big Bang, the beliefs invented were invented just a
little while ago so the word primitive doesn't apply I'd say, so what do
we call those that believe in that, arrogant, supercilious, there should
be something since primitive doesn't really apply?
Kelly

'Invented' is hardly what happened.Try using the word extrapolated.

Originally posted by twhitehead
Lets see what you are saying:
1. There is such a thing as "original Christian doctrine".
2. There was such a thing as the Bible before it got infiltrated and corrupted.

How do you know what those original doctrines and original Bible are? How do you know that they too aren't corruptions of earlier doctrines and Bibles?

That does seem to be the problem: It seems that the Tanakh (the Jewish Bible which is incorporated into the Christian 'Holy Bible'😉 was edited by the Scribes. Maybe the Dead Sea Scrolls comes a little closer to being accurate, but I defer to a Biblical expert, which I'm not....

Originally posted by stocken
The body of a primitive people's beliefs concerning its
origin, early history, heroes, deities and so forth, as distinguished
from the true accounts which it invents later.

So, uh... is, uh... is... christianity perhaps... uh, based on mythology?

Mythology is very interesting! I took a class in mythology is college. The most impressive 'myth' was the Flood Myth, and the realization that other cultures, thousands of miles away from Israel have record of the FLOOD!

sorry to jump in late, I hope someone gets to see this post.

Anyoneone interested in understanding Christianity MUST include in their reading a book called "Misqouting Jesus". It gives a very objective view of the Gospels, and when and by whom they are written. Many people do not know that the majority of the New Test., was written 150-300 years after the death of Christ. The were likeky written down by scribes listening to an orally transmiited teaching. Hence many errors.

As far as mythology in Judeo Christianity...All religions are a myth. That doesn't mean that they are not true, it just means that they can't be proven true. It's a matter of faith. I personally attend church every sunday, and believe that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour

Originally posted by duecer
Anyoneone interested in understanding Christianity MUST include in their reading a book called "Misqouting Jesus". It gives a very objective view of the Gospels, and when and by whom they are written. Many people do not know that the majority of the New Test., was written 150-300 years after the death of Christ. The were likeky written down by scribes listeni ...[text shortened]... ith. I personally attend church every sunday, and believe that Jesus is my Lord and Saviour

I agree this is a good entry point, but I can tell you as someone who has both read his books and listened to his lectures in person that Bart Ehrman is not on objective historian, if for no other reason than that he frequently inserts asides that are intended to poke at conventional theological discussions.

His book Peter, Paul, and Mary Magdalene is perhaps the most egregious example of it. It's like he can't help himself.

That said, the historical details are accurate and well worth reading. I just wish he could be a bit more even-toned in his presentation.