The Beast Movie - Atheist Propaganda

atheist · Post by **atheist** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:34 am

"The biggest story ever told" was actually told many times in the same way, I don't see the problem if somebody now tells it from a different point of view. History doesn't belong to Christians and it would be fantastic to have a more objective approach to the whole thing in a movie.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 4:45 am

Objective?

Maybe if you call opinions based on a lack of historical scholarship objective...

Kurieuo.

atheist · Post by **atheist** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:05 am

I didn't mentioned scholarship. There is no historical proofs of the existence of Jesus, as far as I know, and objectiveness should start there. But every movie I ever seen on the subject was aimed to faith, with the comprehensive exception of "Life Of Brian".

Another point of view would be welcome, I think.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:14 am

That is right, as far as you know... And as far as I know you know nothing as you just accept the propaganda you read.

Even the Jesus seminar group don't go to such lengths. You'll be hardpressed to find three credible scholars, even liberal scholars, who advocate Jesus such an extreme position that Jesus didn't exist.

Kurieuo.

atheist · Post by **atheist** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:38 am

But you are changing my words. I didn't say that Jesus never existed, I said that there are no historical proofs of his existence, and I don't see the problem in mentioning scholars that agree with this: Karlheinz Deschner, Joseph McCabe, Earl Doherty, Peter Gandy, Karen Armstrong, Fernando Conde, Gerd Lüdemann, Gregory Riley... the list goes on.

Kurieuo · Post by **Kurieuo** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 7:50 am

atheist wrote:But you are changing my words. I didn't say that Jesus never existed, I said that there are no historical proofs of his existence, and I don't see the problem in mentioning scholars that agree with this: Karlheinz Deschner, Joseph McCabe, Earl Doherty, Peter Gandy, Karen Armstrong, Fernando Conde, Gerd Lüdemann, Gregory Riley... the list goes on.

You may get hung of on my conflating your words but there really is no difference. Scholars would not broadly believe Jesus existed if there was no evidence. Infact many have said there is more evidence for Jesus' existence than any other historical figure. Just do a Google search on that. Now it is apparent you have not researched very much by making the comment that "there are no historical proofs of his existence", or even by stating the list of names you did.

It makes me feel that I'm on safe ground if you have to dig all the way back to Joseph McCabe

. Peter Gandy may be good in the area of paganism, but I would in no way classify his opinions as respected nor credible when it comes to the historicity of Jesus. Now Doherty is one I was expecting you to mention so thanks. Yet, he is also on the fringes, and the ideas he presents in his thesis certainly has no strong support either with references, or amongst scholars. Holding has dedicated some time at http://www.tektonics.org/doherty/dohertyhub.html on Doherty.

Seeing as Karen Armstrong agrees a fair bit with the Jesus Seminar, I don't believe she is really a good candidate to cite in favour of Christ's non-existence. And Gerd Lüdemann definately believed Jesus existed. In a book where he debates Craig on the resurrection he responds to Craig: "First, I think that on the question of the burial, we are in basic agreement. I wouldn't call it an honorable burial, but Jesus was obviously buried." (Jesus' Resurrection: Fact or Figment?, p.52) Obviously if Lüdemann accepts Jesus died, he does not question whether or not Jesus lives. Rather his quibble is with Christ's resurrection, to which he believes mass hallucination is the best explanation for Christ's appearances post-death.

Now I think I've demonstrated most of your authors are found wanting when it comes to crediblity, or they do not believe all you desired them to believe. The others I'm not aquainted with, but I'm sure there would be a similar trend with my debunking if I spent the time. Yet, I think it should now be obvious that you do not know what you're talking about, but rather you are only interested in "any" information, regardless of credibility, which supports what you "want" to believe (which appears to be Atheism over and against Christianity). You do not seek truth on such matters. Rather you just have bias against Christianity, and such bias is driven by emotion rather than reason it seems, since you just grab any piece of information you can find to further remove yourself from Christianity. Hence why a movie such as "The Beast" is important to you despite its lack of credibile scholarly backing.

Kurieuo.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 8:45 am

Nice to see that we're agreeing again for a short time Kurieuo...

Well said, btw.

atheist · Post by **atheist** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:18 am

Now I think I've demonstrated most of your authors are found wanting when it comes to crediblity, or they do not believe all you desired them to believe.

I'm afraid you are changing words on purpose and conducting them to fallacies like "Scholars would not broadly believe Jesus existed if there was no evidence". There was a time when your Christian scholars broadly believed the earth was flat and were eager to burn people at the stake to prove it. I don't care about the authority criteria, and of course you need to rely in what people "believe" and not on the point. What scholars say is only important in relation to facts, I'm not interested in discussing if Lüdemann or Armstrong actually "believe" in the historicity of Jesus, but if they declare the existence of proofs. So, I think it's easier to cut to the chase and tell what proofs are there to show. Perhaps it is material for another topic, of course.

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 10:51 am

atheist wrote:So, I think it's easier to cut to the chase and tell what proofs are there to show. Perhaps it is material for another topic, of course.

The proof is in the history of the writings which are left behind. We have accurate accounts of the gospels and when they were written. This is less than 100 years after the departure of Christ, written by those who knew him. What, do you really think a bunch of people got together one day and said: "Let's create a new religion based upon a person who is God, and who lived 20 years ago"? Don't you think the Romans of the first century would have known whether all these texts were based on a hoax, rather than a person that lived a mere 50 years back? People of the time could go talk to Joseph or another of his sons or maybe grandsons... It's not like you could just fabricate these claims out of thin air, esspecially when the claims are that Jesus touched so many lives across such a wide region.

And also remember that Christians were heavily persecuted following Christ's departure... If the opposition could have refuted their claims, rest assured they would have.

And beyond all that there are numerous non-Christian writers (some Jewish, for instance) that discuss Jesus and who he was.

Just think about it reasonably for a bit...

atheist · Post by **atheist** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 12:01 pm

The proof is in the history of the writings which are left behind. We have accurate accounts of the gospels and when they were written. This is less than 100 years after the departure of Christ, written by those who knew him. What, do you really think a bunch of people got together one day and said: "Let's create a new religion based upon a person who is God, and who lived 20 years ago"? Don't you think the Romans of the first century would have known whether all these texts were based on a hoax, rather than a person that lived a mere 50 years back? People of the time could go talk to Joseph or another of his sons or maybe grandsons... It's not like you could just fabricate these claims out of thin air, esspecially when the claims are that Jesus touched so many lives across such a wide region.

Yes, that make sense to me, and there are many theories about it, plus centuries of fabrication and forgery on the side of Christians. None of these are proofs of historicity, and it is no use to confound a religion with the mentor of that religion. We all know that orphism existed as a religion in Ancient Greece, but even the Greeks doubted the existence of Orpheus as a real person. We don't even have contemporary comments about this Jesus, all claims of him derive from hearsay accounts.

And beyond all that there are numerous non-Christian writers (some Jewish, for instance) that discuss Jesus and who he was.

Really? Who?

Felgar · Post by **Felgar** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 2:02 pm

atheist wrote:Yes, that make sense to me, and there are many theories about it, plus centuries of fabrication and forgery on the side of Christians.

And beyond all that there are numerous non-Christian writers (some Jewish, for instance) that discuss Jesus and who he was.
Really? Who?

Centuries of fabrication? The writers of the gospels had no time to fabricate, as I've already pointed out. I'm inclined to agree with Kurieuo; you need to do a lot more research on the matter before attacking our views on Jesus and his life. Really I don't feel any obligation to prove to you anything, because it seems to me that you're not sincerly seeking the truth at all. But just in case you are, you should read through this documentation on the New Testament and how it has come about. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html

Regarding secular authors, I leave it up to you to flush some of those out. Trust me, they are there.

bizzt · Post by **bizzt** » Wed Mar 23, 2005 3:09 pm

atheist wrote:
Now I think I've demonstrated most of your authors are found wanting when it comes to crediblity, or they do not believe all you desired them to believe.
I'm afraid you are changing words on purpose and conducting them to fallacies like "Scholars would not broadly believe Jesus existed if there was no evidence". There was a time when your Christian scholars broadly believed the earth was flat and were eager to burn people at the stake to prove it. I don't care about the authority criteria, and of course you need to rely in what people "believe" and not on the point. What scholars say is only important in relation to facts, I'm not interested in discussing if Lüdemann or Armstrong actually "believe" in the historicity of Jesus, but if they declare the existence of proofs. So, I think it's easier to cut to the chase and tell what proofs are there to show. Perhaps it is material for another topic, of course.

Could you please backup your claims when you post then?
Many people who were Atheists Believed the earth was flat as well!