Originally posted by: theredbaron
The Jesus Seminar was a group of Bible scholars that went through all the quotes, sayings, and teachings of Jesus and decided which ones had more documentation than others. They voted on the authenticity of particular words or deeds of Jesus, based on degrees, using coloured beads. It wasn't a quest to disclaim or disprove Jesus' existence or even to discredit his teachings - it was a quest for the historical Jesus. The Seminar didn't disprove Jesus' existence at all - if anything it probably bolstered it - and you can take that one to the bank.
I never said it was anything different.
My point was that in that quest to find the historical Jesus, pretty much the entire New Testament wilted away as fabricated. What they were left with when the seminar was settled was that hardly any of the acts and sayings attributed to Jesus were actually done by him, if we are to believe he existed at all. That was my point.
To say that all of these religions are 'not much different' from each other is ignorant and ridiculous. I thought you'd studied religion in some capacity. If they were so much the same, you could take a crash course in one and become an expert on them all. Looking at the Greek tragedies and comedies, it is pretty clear to me that a large cohort of the Greek people didn't even take their gods seriously, resigning them to flaws, foibles and human-like drama atop Mt. Olympus. They were the Days of Our Lives of Ancient times.
The Jesus Seminar was a group of Bible scholars that went through all the quotes, sayings, and teachings of Jesus and decided which ones had more documentation than others. They voted on the authenticity of particular words or deeds of Jesus, based on degrees, using coloured beads. It wasn't a quest to disclaim or disprove Jesus' existence or even to discredit his teachings - it was a quest for the historical Jesus. The Seminar didn't disprove Jesus' existence at all - if anything it probably bolstered it - and you can take that one to the bank.
I never said it was anything different.
My point was that in that quest to find the historical Jesus, pretty much the entire New Testament wilted away as fabricated. What they were left with when the seminar was settled was that hardly any of the acts and sayings attributed to Jesus were actually done by him, if we are to believe he existed at all. That was my point.
To say that all of these religions are 'not much different' from each other is ignorant and ridiculous. I thought you'd studied religion in some capacity. If they were so much the same, you could take a crash course in one and become an expert on them all. Looking at the Greek tragedies and comedies, it is pretty clear to me that a large cohort of the Greek people didn't even take their gods seriously, resigning them to flaws, foibles and human-like drama atop Mt. Olympus. They were the Days of Our Lives of Ancient times.
Yes, i am aware of that. You are misunderstanding my point again. I know that Hinduism is nothing at all in its myths as Christianity. The point i was making was that they are both filled with equal absurdities, but for some strange reason people dismiss the religious of the Egptians as false but accept the religion of Islam or Christianity as valid. My point was, what is the difference between the cult of Osiris and the cult of Christ in regards to realism, evidence or probability? My answer was, not much. People write off ancient religion as myth but accept modern myth as religion. They are the same thing.