Well, I appreciate the compliment. I have spent a lot of time and money in researching this field. I am however a part of no movement expect to try and eliviate ignorance and help people seperate from their superstitions whenever I can.
When we talk about this, "here is a big
academic religious movement bent on saying that nothing in Jewish or
Christian history can be accepted with certainty. "
Please remember that the historical study of the bible is only a couple of hundred years old. It was punishable by death, torture, banishment and a host of other nasties to even question Christian (or Judaic) dogma. That is why the meme of Christianity is so heavy with us still. We are fortunate to live in a time when so many archeological data and historical documents have been found and translated. For instance the Nag Hamadi library with early Christian writings that share a lot of common threads, but no historical Jesus.
When we talk of a trend, I see it more as the natural evolutionary response from free thinking individuals to investigate and refute these age old myths. To be able to use logic and reason in attempting to piece together this Judeo/Christian history.
I refer again to the amount of significant data recovered over the past 100 years that leads to a more realistic accounting of these times rather than simply accepting the, "you must believe because it is written" rhetoric. Remember, that brain washing begins in the crib. Of course there are religious conversions, but most people are a product of their spiritual upbringing. What I mean is that if you are from the Punjab, you are probably going to be Hindu. If you are from Tel Aviv, Jewish and from Birmingham, Alabama a Baptist or some such denomination. Of course these are generalities, but the gist is that parents start that process of belief in their offspring.
I think that you presume to much in thinking that free thinking people are only exercising their options in regard to historical study in order to establish a new world order of secular zombie's or whatever.
n a message dated 4/22/02 3:55:31 AM !!!First Boot!!!, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Hammurabi did a nice academic presentation of what some academics know about
that part of history. Those who read here should know that there is a big
academic religious movement bent on saying that nothing in Jewish or
Christian history can be accepted with certainty. No Jesus, no apostles, no
Abraham, no King David, no Exodus, no Moses, etc. There is no indication
that Hammurabi is part of that movement, but he may be influenced by it. Why
the trend? Well, if we are to move into one world religion, people must be
convinced that humans all have some sort of good sweet center, kind of like
a Fannie Mae chocolate, that has come out in every religious group to form
the core of their beliefs. If we could just discard all of the outside
shells, all of the sweet centers will come together to form a single candy
that everyone can nibble from.
As to:
<That the core of Christianity should be belief in a person makes it
difficult.� I don't believe in Christianity, but I also don't think the
movement would have come together without a focal point.>
This is a weak argument. I like the quote from one of the Coral Ridge Ministry bigwigs that said the grand canyon was not made by a Hopi Indian dragging a stick and something as large as Christianity was not built on a myth.
Well, he was wrong.
There have been many cults that were powerful and far reaching that were based on religious texts and nothing more. Take Greek mythology for instance. Take Paganism. Take basicaly any religion and you must use the same criteria on them. People believe. People have holy text's. Therefore there must be historical God Men/Women at the core of their beliefs.
In studying the history of Christianity, one must study it. Simple statement made here about Christianity must have had a focal point and that focal point was a living, breathing, tried, convicted, crucified and reborn Jesus is not an educated statement.
The history of Christianity is a metamorphasising one sprung from Jewish cults and was a product of the times and events that transpired in Judah during the period of bout 200BCE (maybe further) to the canonization of text's by Constantine in the 4th century. From the advent of Greek influence with the invasion of Alexander in 330CE (or there abouts) to the Orient to the partial destruction of Judah in 70Ce and then total destruction in 135Ce by the Romans and onwards to the gathering of miscellaneous letters from religious communities (pauls epistles) and the writing of the Gospels from 100CE onward. There was a period in time that Paganism almost won out and we would be worshipping Mithra right now. These texts were not heavenly ordained, they were the product of men and women responding to their beliefs and the political and theological events of their time.
And to this:
<We should look carefully at the promotion of Judaism without Torah historical
figures and Christianity without Jesus.>
Well, I agree absolutely. Look to what the people said. Who said it. Who wrote it. What audience was it said or written to. WHEN was it written? This is perhaps the biggest question in regard to scripture. What was the political, theological and historical context that it was written or said in. What is the status of the documents, texts or scriptures in regard to authenticity in regard to era that it was supposed to be written and the material of the document itself and the inks used. There are many consideration and that is the point. Simply taking scripture and using it to base ones beliefs is shallow and easy. When serious questions are raised though the cry goes out, beware! What evil lurks at the heart of these inquiries? Fortunately we live in a time where we can question and use reason to sort these things out and damn the damnation to hell (if it existed : ) ).
db
