₦airaland Forum

dakmanzero:
robert, richard, u know I keep making that mistake?

I actually put an order out at a bookstore for the blind watchmaker by ROBERT dawkins, and sat there waiting for ages, wondering why it never came! doh.

Thanks for setting me straight, again,

Just download the pdf, you won't need to order anything anymore

dakmanzero:
em, nferyn, many of us here don't know the meaning of 'ad hominem'.

even if you said 'Against the man fallacy' it would still go over all our heads!!!

oh, me so stupid, me velly velly stupid,

If sirwebs can use these eloquent [i]challenges [/i]against evolution, he surely would understand what I'm saying

dakmanzero:
On another note, sirwebs, if you want to understand how evolution comes about producing specialised oragns I'd recommend these books:

The selfish gene
and
The blind watchmaker

by Robert Dawkins.

It's actually Richard Dawkins
Anyway, The Blind Watchmaker is available as a PDF for free on this location

dakmanzero:
The topic is beyond the scope of this forum, but please understand that the process of evolution is by no means random and haphazard- it is self-ordering in an *emergent* way. I'm sorry I had to use that word, but its the only way I can stuff such a topic into such a small place.

dakmanzero:
In any case, I think it shouldnt be hard to accept that the spirit is created by God and the fleshy body is akin to that of an ape. Personally I think that it is even more insulting to religious sensibilities to claim that the body is in the image of God. It is the SPIRIT and not this smelly, sinful, blood-and-sweat-suppurating meat sack that is in the image of God.

It would be vanity of the greatest kind on man's behalf to even think such a thing

Eddy Tells:
@ Fluffy, WORD girl

Ah, the famous Eddy Tells has entered the arena. Care to contribute anything of substance, sir?

sirwebs:
@nferyn keeps pontificating and referring people to the earlier thread in February but even in that thread and in this one too he has refused to answer the question about the specialised organs in the body and how they relate with evolution. Can he tell us how the DNA in the cell came about with the precise information that enables it to design cells? If evolution began in the primordial soup, where did the 'Adamic' DNA derive the information to 'divide', evolve', 'change' etc? Do whatever it is it did?

-sirwebs-

What questions about specialised organs? I haven't seen anyone posing any questions about that. Maybe you want to?
DNA doesn't design cells. What exactly do you want to know?
Evolution began from the simple organic replicators. The information was contained within itself. If you want information on how self-replicating systems work, I'd be happy to provide that. One quite interesting non-organic, self replicating system is the formation of hurricanes.

Anyway, sirwebs, what exactly is your point? Every time someone tries to put up a challenge [/i]against evolution, they get refuted. Creationism on the other hand, does not measure up to even the the simplest type of critical examination. Would you care to provide evidence in favor of creationism? Even I, a non-specialist, could easily refute such [i]evidence

Dear sirwebs, I must say I resent your ad hominem slurs as if I refuse to answer questions. If you want to start a below the belt boxing contest, go and search other adversaries.

Fluffy:
[SNIP]
It teaches against the fact that we came from Adam and Eve and the whole process that took place in the garden of Eden which is actually very sad.

That is either and allegory to explain the relation between God and humankind or it is a fairy tale for children. It is certainly not factual.

Fluffy:
KAG

Please retrace your steps and you will see in aprevious post you clearly stated humans are apes and afterwards that we share a common ancestor with them. So stick to your answers!

We are apes. We are part of the family (biological classification) Hominidae (great apes). Our cousins within that faily are the chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans. Witin that family, you've got the subfamily Homininae, with the tribe Hominini that includes chimpanzees and humans. Under that tribe there are two genuses, pan (chimps) and homo (humans).

KAG is right. We bot are [/b]apes and [b]share a common ancestor with the other living apes.

Fluffy:
I am still not convinced about sharing a common ancestor with apes, baboons, gorrilas or whateva all my ancestors were humans CREATED by God and I don't have monkeys,apes for ancestors.

You do [/b]have apes for ancestors, but none of the living apes. Our ape ancestors were quite different from the living apes. If you want to believe you were created by God, why can't you accept that God created you through evolution. Most Christians accept that answer.

Fluffy:
So [b]KAG and Nferyn you both believe you are apes or that you have the blood of APES running in your veins

I do. As I am an ape (a very peculiar one for that matter), I do have ape blood in my veins.

Fluffy:
Where do your parents fit into this picture, or where they just used as vessels to bring you into the world by the APES?

As my parents and their ancestors were apes as well, this question is mute. Why is it so difficult to believe that all living things are related through a common ancestory? It's quite remarkable and wonderful to think about the fact that, the further you go back in time, the broader our relationship comes with all living things. We are all connected, even with the viruses that give you the flu.

Fluffy:
Your first question answers itself, the creator can not be created because He is the one that creates get the picture?

Quite clearly, thank you Where does the creator come from, from nothing?

Fluffy:
Second question, so why is birth taking place today while there are apes changing into humans? and how come we never see the actual event of evolution taking place, while everyone has seen birth?

Inform yourself first about what evolution really is, instead of projecting your prejudices about it. Evolution takes place over geological timeschales before it has much visible effect. An ape (as in non-human) giving birth to a human would [b]contradict [/b]evolution, not prove it.
An yes, we have seen evolution taking place, several times. I urge you to read the thread I linked to before you ask more questions out of ignorance. [b]First [/b]inform yourself, [b]then [/b]make up your mind. You have no idea what evolution is, so don't reject something you don't even know.

Who created the creator? Did he come out of nowhere?

It seems that you have made up your mind already and are just looking for confirmation. Why are you even asking the question?

Fluffy:
Isn't the bible proof enough of creation? Or don't you believe in the holy bible?

No on both counts.

Fluffy:
I would rather believe in the bible book called Genesis rather than believe that
we just came from nowhere.

Indeed, you [b]want [/b]to believe in it. That's a correct observation. I would also want to believe that all people are good, caring and beautiful, unfortunately, reality proves that my wishes are just idle.

Fluffy:
Correction monkeys,apes, the sun moon and
stars just popped up from nowhere and then the apes started changing into humans

The Theory of Evolution only deals with life, not with the universe as a whole, and yes, apes and humans share a common ancestor that was more apelike than humanlike. Mountains of evidence in favor of that observation. Just go through the thread I linked to before and start studying [u]before [/u]you make up your mind.

Fluffy:
Why did they stop changing and why would you believe such nonsense people?

They didn't stop changing at all. Where did you get that idea?
It has absolutely nothing to do with what I [u]want [/u]to believe. In face of the overwhelming evidence, there's only one possible conclusion.

Fluffy:
The[b] overwhelming evidence [/b] in favor of the theory of evolution does not neccessarily mean it is real.

No, but it does make it the most reasonable explanation. When there are everal lines of evidence, coming from different scientific angles, using different methods all point in the same direction, the chance of it not being true becomes extremely small. Don't forget that most of the evidence plainly contradicts the other explanation (creationism).

To use an analogy similar to yours, suppose you enter a crimescene. The perpetrator is still one the scene. Two living people are present, a 2 year old baby and a gangster with a huge crime record. The gun contains the fingerprints of the gangster, the gangster has got gunpowder on his sleeves and a burnmark on his hand caused by hot metal and consistent with the shape of the barrel of the gun.
You can say that it is not 100% certain that the gangster shot the dead man, but the likelyhood of the baby doing the killing is very small. It's reasonable to assume the gangster did it, while it is unreasonable to suspect the baby.

Fluffy:
Evidence can be made! For example I can add a gun with someone's fingerprints on it to a crime scene and claim the person to which the fingerprints belong committed the crime, plain and simple and does that make it true?

I don't think so!

When you're talking science, you've got tens of thousands of crime scene investigators all trying to find faults in each others evidence. The evidence they can't find faults with will be very solid, wouldn't you think?
To date, there has been not a single piece of evidence found that contradicts [/b]the [b]Theory of Evolution, while there have been hundereds of thousands pieces of evidence in it's favor.

Fluffy:
Do you believe in what scientist say, that we just evolved (came from nowhere)

That's not what the scientists say, but if you're really interested in the subject, you can read the debate on evolution here.

Fluffy:
or do you believe the bible that states how this world came about and that we
were created by God?

No, as only the Bible points in that direction. There is no evidence in favor of creationism.

Fluffy:
Let me know your reason's for what you believe

Because of the overwhelming evidence in favor of the Theory of Evolution.

dominobaby:
Abortion in evry sense is bad in that u have no right to take a life! That story of foetus/personhood doesnt justify d act of abortion. That foetus had life!

So did the ant you once stepped on.

4get_me,

I think you may unconsciously want to see motivations on my part that are not there. I do not hate Christianity and do not want to discard information in it's favor. I am not arguing from an anti-christian impulse here.

It's historical research that either validates or disproves historical claims in religious literature. I am in no way advocating that the claims from religious literature should be a priori discarded, on the contrary, they should be examined using proper historiographical methodologies. These texts are primary source material and should be regarded as such, but they should in no way be treated differently from non-religious source material.

M claims are based on historical research and when I use the term mythical, I mean that these claims have not been historically validated.

I will be making the case that anti-judaism (mainly originating in the Christian p.o.v. regarding Jews and their religion) led to anti-semitism (racially motivated). There would not have been a Holocaust without the Christian anti-judaistic antecedents.

Does this mean that all Christians or a majority of Christians are anti-semitic? Not in the least.
Does this mean that Christianity necessarily had to lead to the holocaust? Neither.
What made the holocaust possible was a cascade of events, interpretations, policies, , some religiously motivated, some not, but the religious justification was [b]paramount [/b]in the perpetuation of anti-Jewish feelings among the European poulations. It's a classical abuse of religion to justify ostracism and persecution and many prominent Christians have to accept their part of the blame. You cannot shout fire [/i]in a crowded theatre and afterwards reject responsibility for people being trampled to death. Christians have historically been shouting fire too many times to put all the blame on the Nazi [i]tramplers

4get_me,

I accept you apology. I have several friends and acquaintances that are negatively affected by the Holocaust. It is a touchy subject for me. The fact that you casually used a Holocaust denier to bring your points accross would indicate that you do not fully appreciate the sensitivity of the subject. I would be surprised if a gentleman like yourself would willingly make that connection.

Anyway, when discussing history, you use data from historical research. The religious angle is relevant in discussing Jewish history, but mainly to provide context to their worldviews and experiences, not as having a factual relevance, unless either other sources support the statements made in the religious literature or they have a certain level of probability to have occured within a given historical context. Precisely because of these reasons, the Torah cannot be considered to be a factual transcript of Jewish history (even without it's religious context).

So, let me be clear: I do not throw the Torah overboard when it comes to examining the historical context and worldviews of the Jewish people. That would be a foolish thing to do. As a student of history though, I do not consider the Torah as factually very relevant.

As to the European anti-semitism, I precisely want to show that, even though it had religious roots (in the NT, but more in the way Christian positions concerning Judaism and Jews evolved in Europe), in a largly secular Europe, it no longer needs it's historical roots to perpetuate.

By the way, I do not turn to the church fathers for factual historical data, that would be a foolish thing to do. The authenticity of those religious books and writings lies in the experience they represent, not in their factual accuracy. Factuality cannot be taken as an a priori, but needs to be established first.

4get_me,

I find rather distasteful to say the least to compare me with the revisionist historian and Holocaust denier David Irving. I do hope you find the courage to excuse yourself for casting me in the same basket as such a vile figure.

1. I do not say that Jewish history is fictional. You seem to say that the old testament is Jewish History. Very different things
2. The Old Testament is not a historiographical work. It contains some historical truths, but taken as a whole, it cannot pass the test of historical criticism
3. Exodus is entirely mythical. There is no evidence that confirms the existence of Moses, the enslavement of the Jewish people in Egypt or the return of all of them back to Israel.
4. Comparing the rejection of the historicity of the Old Testament with the rejection of the historicity of the Holocaust is showing your lack of understanding (and empathy) of the Jewish experience. Talk to any not strictly orthodox Jew and you will know why
5. For a history of the Jewish people, turn to a history book, not to a religious one. The Sacred Chain by Norman Cantor would be a good start.

Just a quickie

TayoD:
"Thus, my next two posts are just there to clarify my position and to explain why anti-semitism does have new testamentic roots, "

nfern,

How can you claim that anti-semitism has a new testament root when we see clearly from the Old Testament that it existed as far back as the days of Esther the Queen and Modecai her uncle. You'll get the details in the Book of Esther.

Contrary to the context of the New Testament, The Old Testament is either entirely mythical (Exodus) or events are blown way out of proportion (2nd captivity). The Old Testament can hardly be called a reliable history book. The hardships the Jewish people had to endure before the 2nd destruction of the Temple were very comparable to what other peoples had to endure and the anti-Judaism that predated Christianity was mainly directed against monotheism in general, it was very different from the Christian anti-Judaism and not really relevant, because it did not lead to the the racial concept of anti-semitism.

TayoD:
If not for God's intervention, the Jewish people would have been wiped out by then. The anti-semitist spirit at work in those days was the same at work in Hitler, and it is the same one still at work today.

No. Aside from the mythical aspects of Jewish history as depicted in the Torah, it was very different in nature. I will further establish that in the other thread.

TayoD:
From a spiritual point of view, the Jews are very necessary in God's plan for the birth and the final establishment of Christ's earthly kingdom on earth (first and second coming respectively). With this insight, I believe the spirit of anti-semitism is actually the spirit of the Anti-Christ, because the ultimate goal is to resist Christ and the fulfillment of prophecy.

Eactly. That's why the Jews in Christian Europe under the bane of anti-judaism were persecuted, excluded, ostracised, , but never was there an intention to exterminate the Jews or even convert them all. It wasn't untill the Spanish Inquisition and the reconquista that the traditional Christian anti-Judaism gained a racial undertone and slowly developed into an anti-semitism with genocidal undertones.

Well, you'll have to wait a little more. As you don't seem to take my word for it, I've got to get my sources together and dive into the nity gritty details. The other thread takes my priority, though.

I will handle the issues you all raised on the New Testamentic roots of anti-judaism here

Reply's to concerns by 4get_me, nightrider and tayoD in the thread Why Did Adolph Hitler Hate Jews So Much?will follow here.
Stay tuned

nightrider and 4get_me, thanks for your contributions. I will reply to them in one post that will follow his one, but I do not wish that this thread is dragged down in a debate over just one of the factors leading to anti-semitism. Thus, my next two posts are just there to clarify my position and to explain why anti-semitism does have new testamentic roots. I do not want to drag this discussion any further in this thread. If wanted, we can start a new thread on this issue.

This is a quick reply, the detailed one follows.

4get_me,

Dr. Hans Jansen does certainly not come from a secular background. He was a Catholic priest who got his Doctorate in Theology at the Vatican for his work Christelijke Theologie na Austwitz (2 vols). Later on he left the Catholic Church and became a pastor in the Dutch Reformed Church.

a. This is a post-factum reading that fails to recognise that Christianity was considered a Jewish sect in the classical world in the first two centuries of the first millenium. It is only after the compilation of the New Testament that Christianity set itself completely apart from Judaism. This is still visible in the 'ping pong' between Paul and Peter over whether or not gentile Christians should follow mosaic laws.

b. Christianity was considered a branch of Judaism during the first two centuries. Phariseic Judaism was not the only expression of Judaism and it only became victorious after the destruction of the Temple. It's mainly because of Paul and his insistence that the laws need not to be followed by gentiles that it separated from mainstream Judaism. Animal sacrifices were even at that time no longer not essential to Judaism.

c. There were many virulently anti-judaistic readings of the New testament by the chuch fathers. I can quote several passages by a.g. Augustinus and Chrysostomos just to name a few.

d. Midrash is part and parcel of Thoraic Judaism and was also applied by Christianity. Fulfilled prophecies mean very little, as all event were interpreted to have precursors in the Thorah. I'm not saying that the NT completely exonerates the Roman authoritie, but their role is de-emphasised. Crucifiction is a punishment that would never be handed out by the Roman authorities to Jesus in a purely Jewish internal struggle.

As to the other angles, I will touch on these in my next posts.

nightrider,

As explained in (d), you should get some background in how midrash is applied in the Old and New Testament. It would give you a different perspecive on fulfilled prophecies.
I agree that there was no grand plan to exonerate the Romans, it grew orginically out of the power struggle between Christians and mainstream Judaism and is reflected in the New Testament and even more in the writings of the Church fathers.

Extremely intelligent people can be religious, so in 99% of the cases I would say that it has little influence.
What it does do is limit the application of that intelligence. For religious people, rationality does not take you all the way.
Either some fields are closed for rational inquiry or rationality cannot be taken to it's full conclusions, because an a priori position of faith needs to be maintained at all cost.

Theological roots of anti-semitism

Anti-semitism in it's modern meaning is the ugly stepchild of ago old Christian anti-judaism, where existing prejudices that were justified on theological grounds got a new racial underpinning. I want to distinguish between anti-judaism and anti-semitism because the motivations of these prejudices were different. Anti-judaism in Europe grew out the central role the Jews apparently played in Christian theology. It were the Jews that killed God, so to speak, and within that context, it is obvious that a certain level of hostility against the Jews was needed to maintain the a coherence in the interpretation of the New Testament.

The moment the Christians sects separated from mainstream Judaism, a bitter competition was started between these two religions on who could claim authority over matters of truthfulness. The Torah (old testament) prophecies were very differently interpreted and the mainstream Judaism strongly oposed the fact that in Christianity:
1. Jesus is considered God
2. Jesus in the Messiah (which has a more political meaning regarding the role of the Jewish people in Judaism)
3. The concept of the Jews as chosen people is rejected (In Judaism, the term [i]chosen people [/i]is in no way a reflection of superiority)

This in itself would not be sufficient to warrant the anti-judaism as it grew in Europe, but the political context of the time ensured that what was once a struggle between two different interpretations of what was basically the same faith into two religions that were quite hostile to each other.

1. Christianity growing out of it's Jewish roots needed three things to spread in a gentile environment:
a. an acceptable message for the gentiles
b. a clear distinction from Judaism
c. an explanation for how Jesus could be crucified by the Roman autorities (crucifiction was a punishment that could only be carried out by the Roman authorities and only for crimes of treason)
It must be noted that, even though few pasages in the New Testament are explicitely anti-judaistic, the virulent anti-judaistic reading of the New Testament by the church fathers has instilled a strong hostility among Christians for the Jewish people.

The main idea here is that to gain acceptance in the Roman world, Christianity had to shed of it's Jewish origins (very clear in the Pauline writings) and be acceptable to Roman citizens. What was a first a conflict over intrpretation of the Torah turned into situation were Judaism altogether had to be classified evil. It was not just the Pharisee clergy that condemned Jesus, it was the whole of the Jewish people that had murdered him. It was not just Pontius Pilatus that had Jesus crucified, it was the Jews that collectively rejected Jesus. This presentation of events, even though it contradicts Jewish traditions, laws and customs, was need to exhonorate the Roman authorities and make Christianity acceptable to a Roman audience.

The fact that after the destruction of the Temple the Jewish people were dispersed among the Roman empire ensured that:
1. The Jews were present as the only foreign element in Christian Europe
2. The church father could point to that fact as a fulfilment of prophecy and to the eternal damnation of the Jewish people
3. The variety among Jewish beliefs declined dramatically and Rabbinical Judaism (from the Pharisees) became the mainstream component of Judaism

But that's for a next post

Well, I finally went after my new car this afternoon. I'm wasted, so my first in depth post follows tomorrow morning.
I don't mind celebrating. If you ever find your way to Belgium, you can always come over for a drink

Finally I've got y new car, a Ford Focus Clipper 1.8TDci. Sweet ride and spatious enough for the kids.
Here's a photo I just took

I've got to go after my new car this afternoon. This evening or tomorrow morning latest.

I see that there is a need for information on this subject, as not all posts here are well informed.

Firstly, I wouldn't focus this on Hitler alone, it was almost the whole of Germany (and large parts of Europe) that were involved in one of the biggest crimes against humanity ever. You could delve into the personal motivations of Hitler, but that wouldn't accomplish much. There have always been psychopatical madmen in history.

I will try to answer the question how it was possible that the holocaust happened in Europe and why the Jews were targeted.

You have to realise that anti-semitism is a uniquely European phenomenon in it's origins. Even though it has now spread over the globe and it is especially virulent in the Arab world today, it's roots lay in Europe.
I will try to summarise the root causes under headings. These explanations do not exist by themselves alone and enforce each other strongly.

1. Theological roots of anti-semitism (from anti-judaism to anti-semitism)
2. Developments of the Jewish diaspora and impact on anti-semitism
3. Development of Eurocentric racism and the Jew as racial stereotype
4. Impact of the formation of nation-states on the nature of anti-judaism
5. The formation of the capitalist/communist divide and it's impact on the perception of Jews
6. Perpetuation of anti-semitism after the formation of Israel (how is anti-semitism still possible after the holocaust?)

I will borrow heavily from the time I studied under the guidance of Dr. Hans Jansen, who is now working for the Simon Wiesenthal institute in Brussels. I will try not to quote extensively from the literature but try to build up my own argumentation. If asked, I can provide a literature guide for those that are interested in the subject.

Each point will require a different post, so stay tuned.

[quote author=4get_me link=topic=10832.msg298911#msg298911 date=1145384672]You both have not answered the questions gentlemen - you've only vented your perennial pent up misgivings about religion, with the weathered appeal to "indoctrination of children". Diatribes like that fail to look at issues objectively.[/quote]You are correct, I did not reply to the question directly, but only added some context to exu's reply. That doesn't mean that bringing young children upwithin a religious framework while closing them off from rational beliefs is a good thing. Young children do not have the means to distinguish between truth and falsehood and these questions should be left for them to answer at an age in which they posses the intellectual maturity to answer them.

Anyway, I cannot see what reforms to religions themselves would do to better mankind. Reforms or changes to the way practitioners of religions behave towards people of other religions or without religious beliefs would improve things drastically. Tolerance and acceptance of different opinions is key here. It's not because people believe that they possess the truth that they should behave accordingly to others that are not sharing that opinion.

That would probably be the end of religion. I cannot see how religion could sustain itself when it has not been seeded into the gullible mind of children. I am yet to see the first person that didn't grow up in a religious environment and turned to religion later in life.

nightrider:
do you believe you have a spirit?

I cannot answer that question, as I do not know what a spirit is.

nightrider:
nferyn

you are so widely read, but i fear for you.
your search for truth has lead you so far from that which is true.
Never trust your intelligence, you're just a man and when you die you'll be forgotten like all men.
sit still he will come to you.

Nightrider, thank you for your concern, but you don't need to worry. maybe we just have different ways of establishing truth. Mine is based solely on the application of my reasoning skills on the material available to me.
Logic and the scientific method suit me perfectly. Anything that is beyond that quickly becomes too intangible to call it more than speculation.

PS: I do not categorically exclude the divine, it just hasn't been very convincing uptill now.

welborn:
My dear nferyn,

That was a good rejoinder you posted, and I'll be first to concede that we are seeing things and interpreting historical antecedents from differing frequencies of application. Let me make the following observations as well:

(1) There are several 'scholars' besides Earl Doherty and Elaine Pagels who posit such hypotheses as Paul's writings being gnostic in nature and the error insertions in translations. What is interesting is that such scholars, including Earl Doherty himself, would come back to counter those claims in other 'researches' they conduct and postulate. I've read quite a few and if you have the time you may want to read other non-Christian authors/works on the same subject like:

¤ The Christ Conspiracy: The Greatest Story Ever Told - by S. Acharya.
¤ Challenging the Verdict: A Cross-Examination of Lee Strobel's "The Case for Christ" - by Earl Doherty.

In the latter case, Doherty leaves more questions than answers as he failed to give any hint about any academic or legal proficiency on his part at all. Observe carefully that the authorities he refers to are mostly folks of the Jesus Seminar group, whom even other non-Christian scholars can't trust in any erudite scholarstic sense! Not only so, but by appealing to these latter groups for proving his point, he actually defeats himself because his working hypothesis is that Jesus was a myth, whereas the Jesus Seminar believed that He existed (even though they debate the accuracy of the NT).

Can you please ellaborate on what you consider appropriate academic proficiency, as this is not clear to me. The same goes for trusting in and erudit scholaristic sense: the meaning of that sentence somewhat elludes me.
Pointing out that Doherty defeats himself [b]because [/b]he uses sources that do not subscribe to his hypothesis is incorrect. There is no logical connection between the two.
If I can find the time, I might consider reading those books you presented, but I would rather see convincing positive evidence in favor of the existence of a historical Christ than to delve into apologetics and counter apologetics. It is not a very productive use of my time.

welborn:
Now the question is, if errors were inserted in later translations, what were the original words in the texts? You ought to have the 'original texts' to prove that something was an error. This is something that the likes of Elaine Pagels, Earl Doherty, the Jesus Seminar group, S. Acharya, and several others have not been able to answer. You're more likely to get a migraine from the excuses they banter about than have a straight answer as to how they came about the 'error insertion' hypothesis.

You indeed need to have access to the original text to prove [/b]that something is in error. Science never works with definive proofs, but rather with convincing evidence. Anyway, could you expain what excuses they come up with, as the methods of historical criticism and textual interpretation do give some hints concerning the likelyhood of insertions and copying errors.
Fact remains that the historical authenticity and accuracy needs to be established first, before you can start talking about truths. External evidence is needed in these cases, something that is missing when you consider the accuracy of events as depicted in the gospels (canonical or apocryphical for that matter). The only definitive thing that can be said is that it is not entirely unikely that a historical Christ did exist, anything that goes beyond that is pure speculation.

welborn:
Let me even ask [b]you, nferyn - have you studied Paul's writings for yourself before agreeing that they are gnostic in nature? I'd be interested to see a concise outline of your own scholarship on this.

No, not extensively. My scholarship is limited to a an overal knowledge of the scientific method, some insight into historical criticism and a more in depth knowledge of the methods used in the social sciences. Of course, if you want to consider basic knowledge of proposition logic, philosophy and argumentation techniques scholarship, you can count that as scholarship as well. In short, I'm reasonably well read and have a functioning brain.
I am not really in favor of argumentations ad verecundiam. I am fully capable of examining arguments on their merits without having to rely on authority.

welborn:
(2) The secondary sources which you claim are highly dubious are the same sources that Elaine Pagels and the Jesus Seminar group reference in most of their works.

So? in the absence of evidence, one cannot state a position with any authority. The absence of positive evidence is an indication of the rationality of the contrary position though.

welborn:
For the infidels.org sources in reference to the historicity of Christ, I've read statements like, "such an idea has been abandoned by every independent thinker in the world -- by every thinker who relies on reason and experience rather than mere faith -- by every man of science who places the integrity of nature above the challenge of ancient religious tales." (by Marshall J. Gauvin). What you should understand is that Gauvin is being arrogant and does not have the facts before being so garrulous.

What facts are you talking about here? I do not follow your reasoning. I've read the text and even though the polemic style may be a bit overblown, I do not see anything of substance I would not agree with. Could you bring any contrary evidence?

welborn:
Excuse me, but what does he mean by "every independent thinker in the world"? Does he really know every independent thinker in the world? Is that what one would call scholarship? And when he posits that these thinkers rely on experience, you'd hardly find Gauvin himself relying on experience but just playing cacophony.

Please do not turn this into an ad hominem attack based on Gauvin's polemic style, but rather provide contrary evidence. The level of argumentation you have displayed thus far would only merit such an approach.

welborn:
When a person is stating facts based on historical antecedence without prejudice, perhaps that's one mark of scholarship; the rest is left to anyone's interpretation.

What facts are you referring to here?

welborn:
Fact: Jesus actually existed.

I would rather say that it is probable that a historical Jesus did exist. This is not a historical fact. Napoleon Bonaparte existed. That is a historical fact. Jesus' existence does not have sufficient evidence to merit the label fact.

welborn:
Prejudice: There was no mention of him anywhere! Research: what do the archeogical findings by non-Christian scholars show? - There was such a figure known as Jesus.

I am not aware of these findings. Can you show me where to find them?

welborn:
Otherwise the Romans would be a myth and Pontus Pilate would be a fairy tale.

Why? There is nothing that merits such a conclusion.

welborn:
(3) Well, then I'd ask you to do just one simple thing: what was the message of Christ? Did the gnostics preach that message? "After the orthodox gained power" is always the reference appealed to by some who want to legitimize the gnostics as apostolic Christianity. It's all here a matter of interpretations, and the persecution you're referring to did not arise from apostolic Christianity.

Actually the persecution did come from apostolic Christianity, but only after it had been established as State religion.
Whether or not gnostic Christianity is legitimate is indeed a matter of perspective, but the fact that only apostoic Christianity survived should not be the measure of this dispute.

welborn:
The gnostic movements were a distinct group (legitimate in the sense that they existed in history) from apotolic Christianity; they were not persecuted by the apostles or thrown out of Christianity - they left on their own accord (cf. 1 John 2:19 "They went out from us, but they were not of us; for if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us: but they went out, that they might be made manifest that they were not all of us.".

This is obviously writen from an orthodox perspective and does not settle any claims to legitimacy. It would be like claiming that only Islam represents the true message of God and that Christianity and Judaism are not legitimate.

welborn:
Please don't try to confuse the facts: 3rd century persecution is not the same as 1st century persecution. Apostolic Christianity was not tolerated by the various secular governments of the day; and only later did the Roman civil leaders try to use it to their political advantage.

I would not call the governments of that time secular, not by any stretch of the imagination Anyway, it would be unfair to call the persecution of non-christians in the late Roman empire a civil affair. Religion and politics were very much woven together and aiding each others objectives.

welborn:
(4) and (5) - great.

(6) oh, you bet - more source material are bound to surface. To date I've read over 39 English translations of the Gospel of Thomas; 43 other 'Gospels' of gnostic affiliation, and I've just obtained a copy of the Gospel of Judas in English which I'm yet to touch because of my busy schedules. But I agree with you that we probably won't make much sense of the gnostics as we all have various perspectives of looking at the issue.

You have my admiration for your intellectual labour. I'm too much of a rationalist to delve into this mystical realm, except out of historical interest.

welborn:
Thank you for your patience and tolerance. Not many people with atheistic or agnostic leanings (sorry if I'm gravely mistaken about your position) have displayed the level of rationality and sensible discussion as you have.

I am very much in your debt for debating these issues on their merits, instead of altogether refusing the debate with an atheist. I am really surprised though that you have not yet found atheists that would debate these issues rationally and sensibly. I would have expected the opposite. Civility and openness go a long way

welborn:
Warmly.

Most definitely very enjoyable and insightful.

@ welborn

Thanks for your prompt reply. Anyway, let me address the issues you raised. Most seem to stem from having different perspectives, rather than a disagreement on the facts. The premacy and role of the figure of Christ is indeed one of the fundamental elements which separate Christian Gnostics from orthodox Christians.

1. In many cases Gnostics did not regard Christ as a historical figure, but rather as a pure aetheral force that allows them to bridge the Gap between the divine and the material world. Earl Doherty in his J[i]esus Puzzle[/i] even goes that far to hypothesise that Paul's writings were gnostic in nature and that portrayals of Christ as a historical figure were later (deliberate) translation errors or insertions (unfortunately, I am in no position to judge the merits of his claim).
The way the New testament was codified (e.g. the struggle between Arius and Athaniasus over the divinity of Christ) shows that what actually ended up in the New testament was very much an outcome of political meandering and that the search for the divine inspiration in these writings was a very earthly matter.
In that context stating that knowledge of Christ made it possible to reach an understanding of the divine is very much a Christian gnostic point of view. Orthodox Christianity can label this as knowledge of self, but it is mainly a rejection of the position of the orthodox church as arbiter.

2. You talking about a recycled theory is a bit of the mark. When you take a position (Christ is a historical figure), you need to bring sufficient affirmative evidence. The evidence available for the historical existence of Christ does not meet contemporary standards of historical evidence. There is no archaeological evidence of Christ' existence and the secundary sources are highly dubious.
I really don't understand what standards you apply to consider infidels.org a priori a source of non erudite scholarship? Do you care to ellaborate on what your standards are and why you think they don't match your standards?
If you do have facts attesting to the historicity of Jesus, please do bring them to the table, I would be very interested to know about them.

3. You categorisation of Christian Gnosticism as less Christian is an a posteriori labeling based on who is the victor of the struggles between the different sects of early Christianity. I agree that they are less Christian in our current understanding of Christianity, but that does not lessen their claims to the message of Christ in their time. The fact that the orthodox Christians were persecuted prior to the adoptation of Christianity as state religion does not wipe away the fact that what remained of the gnostic movements were vigorously erradicated after the orthodox gained power. It is only relatively recently that many of the original writings of gnosticism have been rediscovered. Most copies were burned together with their owners.

4. No disagreement here. It's a matter of perspective.

5. Fully agree, it's only sad to see that the orthodox became persecuters themselves after they gained power.

6. It is probably impossible for us to really have a proper understanding of these gnostic texts in context. As our ways of thinking are so different from what was common at that time and because of the hermetic nature of these writings, we probably won't make much sense out of them, as long as not more source material surfaces.

Anyway, I very much enjoy your contributions. they always make you think deeper about your positions.

Best Regards

@ welborn,

Thank you for your insightful contributions, but you seem to be missing the the gist of my arguments because I did not provide a proper context.
1. Obviously I was talking about the Christian gnostics, not about the gnostics in other religious traditions, the fact that gnostcism predates Christianity is irrelevant, Judaism also predates Christianity.
2. I do not favor the gnostic interpretations over the orthodox interpretations. I find both equally unsubstantiated. There is no convincing evidence even for the mere existence of a historical Christ. The only contemporary source outside of the Christian apologetical literature that mentioned Jesus is Flavius Jospehus and it is not unlikely that these texts were doctored to suit an orthodox Christian political agenda.
3. My arguments only touch on the relative legitimacy of Chrsitian gnosticism in relation to orthodoxy. When people make it look like these documents originate in a fringe movement that is anti-Christian and has less right to be call Christian, they are categorically wrong. It's the same kind of reasoning that would label Catholicism non-Christian.
4. Christian gnostics did reject the authority of the pontificate and the premacy of Peter and his followers. It was diametrically opposed to their beliefs.
5. There is no justification for the relentless and violent persecution of the Christian gnostics, regardless of their beliefs. The main reason for this persecution is the challenge they posed to absolute autority of the orthodox church
6. When reading Gnostic texts, you cannot just treat them in a literal sense. The heart of gnosticism lies in the deep study and inner knowledge thus obtained. A casual, decontextualised reading of these texts really does not make sense, especially when you use the canonised texts as your yardstick (not that I'm interested in doing so, my interest is merely historical.