Salon.com: Jesus Interrupted. Revealing the Hidden Contradiction of the Bible

[RainDog]

anyone here read this GREAT book? it's out in paperback now. It's one of many that talks about the lack of historic validity of the bible.

http://www.salon.com/news/environment/atoms_eden/2009/04/03/jesus_interrupted

Bart Ehrman's career is testament to the fact that no one can slice and dice a belief system more surgically than someone who grew up inside it. Raised as a not particularly devout Episcopalian in 1950s Kansas, the best-selling Bible scholar had a "born-again" experience as a high school sophomore and asked Jesus into his heart. Eager to study Holy Scripture full-time, he entered the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago -- motto: "Moody Bible Institute, where Bible is our middle name" -- where every professor and student had to sign a statement attesting that the Bible is the inerrant word of God, a divinely inspired document from its first page (Genesis 1:1) to its last (Revelation 22:21).

But almost immediately, Ehrman ran into a problem. It was an intellectual problem at first, but it soon became larger and harder to quarantine. In one of the first classes he took at Moody, he learned that none of the original texts of the New Testament exist. All we have are copies, made years later -- usually, many centuries later. In fact, the copies are copies of copies, and they're filled with errors or intentional changes made over decades or centuries by scribes. Burning with fervor to discover the true word of God, the authentic divine voice that had been obscured or changed by all-too-human writers, Ehrman decided to begin a serious study of the New Testament. He completed his undergraduate studies at Wheaton College, where he began studying ancient Greek, the original language of the New Testament. But there was still no answer to his original question: How could we know what the word of God was if all we had were error-riddled copies?

So Ehrman decided to plunge all the way in and immerse himself in the academic study of the texts of the New Testament. He entered the Princeton Theological Seminary, home to the world's leading authority in the field, Bruce Metzger. His literalist faith in and his devotional approach to the Bible were under increasing strain, but he managed to hold onto them for a while -- until a professor jotted a casual comment on one of Ehrman's papers. Ehrman was attempting to explain a passage from the Gospel of Mark in which Jesus refers to an event that took place "when Abiathar was the high priest." The problem is that the book in the Old Testament that Jesus is referring to states that not Abiathar but his father Ahimelech was the high priest. Ehrman came up with a convoluted argument to reconcile the contradiction, using Greek etymology to prove that Mark did not mean what he apparently said. Ehrman believed that his professor, a beloved and pious scholar named Cullen Story, would appreciate his argument as a fellow believer in biblical inerrancy.

(Erhman found out he was wrong and he had the courage to admit it.)

...Ehrman's demolition of biblical literalism in "Misquoting Jesus" is neatly summed up by an anecdote. "Occasionally I see a bumper sticker that reads, 'God said, it, I believe it, and that settles it.' My response is always, What if God didn't say it?" A lucid, accessible and entertaining guided tour of biblical scholarship, "Misquoting Jesus" makes it indubitably clear -- unless one simply decides in advance that all logic, scholarship, rules of historical evidence and rational thought do not apply to the Bible -- that God did not"say it." A bunch of human beings said a lot of different things over hundreds of years, a bunch of other human beings wrote down different versions of what they said, and yet another bunch of human beings decided -- also over hundreds of years -- which of these writings should be part of the Holy Book and which should not. This is simply the historical truth.

[KonaKane]

1. Religious literalists are in for a tough time.

And for good reason. But then again, there is also an agenda on the other side to demean their beliefs in any way possible, so it's hard to know where the line is drawn.

[RainDog]

2. If by demean you mean "tell the truth"

then, yeah, that's a real problem for some people.

[KonaKane]

6. No, I mean DEMEAN

As in the intention to defame or slur an entire group.

Religion and people of faith are not going away, no matter how much you wish it so. Driving away allies is the dumbest thing imaginable.

[RainDog]

13. I have posted a link to an article from a respected scholar

that provides information for the general public about an issue of great importance in our society at this time, especially considering that literalists (who actually pick and choose their literalism) use their erroneous beliefs to attempt to deny civil rights to others in this nation based upon their religious training.

Education is important in order to make good and ethical decisions in a society.

If it is a slur to an entire group to note an historical truth, the problem is with the group, not the bearer of those facts.

[MajorChode]

23. Reason and faith don't reconcile

If you think about faith it's actually belief in a concept without reason. So using reason to counter someone's faith is generally a fruitless exercise because their faith demands them to abandon reason.

[RainDog]

24. Yes, this is a major problem in the area of science

you hear literalists say, over and over, that they do not "believe" in evolution. They do not understand that "belief" is not required.

Instead, an understanding of the facts of geologic time, the fossil record, chemistry, dna and genetic inheritance, of the way in which mutation and randomness create "fitness," of the way that scientists use the word theory to describe a tested hypothesis about the working of the world that has so much evidence to back it up it is considered fact, rather than the common usage as an idea - these are the necessary educational understandings that make evolution true and creationism and literalism false.

it doesn't matter what they believe. they are wrong, no matter what they believe.

We saw how much of a problem this could be in the Bush administration with their claim that they were creating their own reality rather than adhering to the one the rest of the world knew and lived in.

[tblue37]

25. Gravity. It's not just a good idea.

It's the law.


Some things simply are not a matter of belief or opinion.

[Deep13]

97. +1

[mistertrickster]

39. Good point. I won't tell atheists that they will burn for eternity in a lake of fire if they don't

tell me that my religious belief is no more than superstition.

The FundyCONs however are another kettle of fish. Their heretical "end times" beliefs justifies mass killing in Palestine, among other hypocritical evils . . .

On edit--I don't really believe that atheists will be condemned to hell--it was a "live and let live" statement.

[Silent3]

52. So if I believe a particular religious belief is a superstition...

...I should quietly keep that thought to my self, lest you overhear and take offense? Or does bother you simply that I usually believe most if not all religious beliefs (we'd have to bring up specific examples for me to have specific opinions) are superstitions, and it's somehow wrong for me to even think such a thing, whether I speak it aloud or not?

[mistertrickster]

77. Look at it as a "code of ethics." nt

[Deep13]

95. My ethics require me to find and promote objective fact.

While anyone may disagree with what I'm calling fact, I have no duty to pretend to respect those who only find offense because the implications are too mentally painful for them to contemplate.

[RainDog]

54. your statement, however, is grounded in lies

while the atheist's belief is grounded in looking at historical evidence (in the case of the original link/post.)

there is no equivalency. the problem is that too many people do not understand that a belief is NOTHING without evidence to back it up. All statements do not hold the same value.

"Live and Let Live" works well when those who have beliefs that have no value to the reality-based world are not allowed to have anything to say about the lives of others. That's the absolute truth.

And it's not just religion that's the problem. Lysenko's political ideology led to mass starvation in Russia b/c he insisted, as agricultural minister, that plants would not compete for resources. Because of this belief, he did not employ good agricultural practice and crops did not survive.

See - the point is that if Lysenko wanted to believe that in the privacy of his dacha - whatever. BUT the SECOND he tried to impose this belief that had no basis in reality - it was a problem.

[mistertrickster]

78. Odd. Pointing to the old USSR which was institutionally atheist, like modern China

as an example of the consequences of irrational policies.

Martin Luther King, Jr. acheived great things--as did Gandhi--motivated by what he called "soul force," an entity which you claim does not even exist.

I'm never going to convince you of the rightness of my position, you'll never convince me, so let's just leave it at that.

[Deep13]

96. That's a nonsense argument and you know it.

Communism takes atheism as an article of faith. It's part of communist dogma and is not what we are talking about here. No one here is advocating a an authoritarian, communist, atheist state. Further King was in large measure fighting against a system that had been promoted and sustained by Christianity since Europeans first settled here. Ghandi was frankly a mixed bag. While he was useful as a public face of resistence, the real credit for Indian independence belongs mostly to Nehru and others like him. The problem here is dogma accepted on faith of which religion is the worst example.

And of course none of these observations is evidence for the existence of god. If atheism leads to abusive systems like communism (it doesn't), that's unfortunate, but there is still no god.

[RainDog]

100. actually there's nothing odd about it all

unless you cannot understand the point that belief is not the equivalent of fact.

Lysenko believed that plants would not compete for resources because it offended his utopian view that competition was man-made. He was vigorously opposed by others who were also communist - but he had the power to make decisions.

his belief - that denied evidence - created mass starvation.

by the same token, a religious belief that has no foundation in reality, such as creationism, that must distort the entire history of modern science, is the same sort of issue. Creationists have to deny science in order to maintain a belief and have to resort to lying to children and hurting their educational lives in order to maintain that fiction.

Or, as in a recent case, Frist had to lie about medicine to placate religious extremists who made a brain-dead woman their cause. These people created great suffering for family members by their intrusion and insistence that they had the right to make private medical decisions for a family based upon their ignorant religious beliefs.

see?

I don't know what "rightness" your position claims but if you would like to state it here I'm more than willing to look at facts to see if it has any relation to reality.

As far as a claim to "soul force." It's interesting that one hundred years, or even 200 years of soul force didn't change racist policy while the experience of serving with African-Americans in the military (even with segregation troops were in contact), combined with media that brought the racist actions of people in the south to the attention of the rest of the world created change within a decade.

Information and education, iow, created change if you look at events of the day.

MLK was a brave man and his view of the righteousness of his cause gave him strength. Nothing wrong with that. What someone does and believes in the privacy of their lives is their concern. Quakers oppose war based upon their beliefs. I have no issue with that.

But if you hold a belief, you cannot tell others they have to shut up to protect your beliefs, either. That's not the way the free exchange of ideas works in a democracy.

[Deep13]

94. Defamation implies falsity.

I'm just telling the truth. If the truth is offensive, then one ought to reexamine ones beliefs to figure out why.

[_ed_]

108. People who "believe" things that are not true

deserve to be demeaned.

Would you consider those of us who criticize astrology as "defaming an entire group?" Astrology is not going away...

Religion is a choice -- a choice of whether or not to accept scientific evidence or cast evidence aside for myths. I respect people; I do not respect their absurd religious beliefs.

[Luminous Animal]

5. I've never understood the difference between believing that the Bible is...

the literal word of God and the Bible is the word of God.

[KonaKane]

8. The Bible is the word of "God" if you are a believer in a certain Near Eastern

grouping of faiths. I'm not personally, but for the life of me I have never been able to figure out why there is this need to attack people who do believe in that set of religions. Live and let live.

[Luminous Animal]

19. Perhaps if the religious would stop proscribing the irreligious...

we could get to the point of live and let live.

[MajorChode]

20. I'd love to be able to do that

In fact, that's really all I expect. The problem with your premise is that a considerable number of people of faith aren't content to "live and let live". They proselytize relentlessly to adults that have no interest and to children who don't understand they are being manipulated. They use their religion to justify xenophobia, homophobia, and other bigotries. They simply assume their ideas of religion and morality are one in the same and force those "moralities" on others. They use their religion to justify violence and war.

Being tolerant does not mean I have to accept the intolerance of others. That is the aspect of religion that I am not willing to "live and let live", and it's a mighty big aspect. As far as what someone choses to believe, I could care less so long as they are not adversely affecting anyone else because of it. That's my concept of "live and let live."

[RainDog]

22. yes. this is a problem

Evangelicals believe something they call "the Great Commission." This, they believe, means they must tell everyone about their beliefs, whether someone wants to hear about them or not.

There are other groups who employ this same strategy, such as Mormons and Jehovah's Witness, Hari Krishnas and The Moonies from the Rev. Moon's Unification Church (he declared himself the messiah a while back.)

Kevin Phillips, in American Theocracy, noted that the Bush family (and other pols have done this as well - I know Harold Ford was one other) have given a platform to the Rev. Moon in return for political contributions. The Republican Christian Fundamentalists were surprised to find that Rev. Moon - whose beliefs are as antithetical to theirs as could be possible, was the sponsor of Dubya's prayer breakfast after his inauguration.

http://www.americanpolitics.com/20060508Scoobie.html

However, there was a great truth in that moment, which is this: politicians will allow religious beliefs that are detrimental to the American public to be inserted into our national political life b/c of the money and votes those people can provide.

Robert Parry, in his book, Lost History, about the Reagan and Bush eras (another GREAT BOOK - Parry is a Pulitzer-prize nominated former Newsweek reporter) also reported that the Rev. Moon helped to finance and sponsor death squads in Bolivia during the Reagan era. These groups created death squads that slaughtered civilians who wanted self-determination in their nation rather than a puppet regime. really sad stuff.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/moon.html

[Silent3]

53. While the urge to comment wouldn't be as great...

...if a hypothetical group of believers kept quietly to themselves, never proselytized, stayed out of politics and public policy, but believed that Elvis was a Divine Being and listening to His Music was The Path to Salvation, or they believed the Earth was 77,000 years old and made out of marshmallows, I'd still feel there was nothing wrong with stating that those beliefs make no sense whatsoever, that they are in fact ridiculous, and stating that knowing people believed such things made me feel a mix of laughter and sadness.

[RainDog]

27. Let and let live - tell that to the American fundamentalists with political power here

who supported the execution of HIV positive males in Uganda.

http://rawstory.com/2009/2009/11/author-the-family-proposed-ugandan-law-execute-hiv-men/

this is a hate group - a very powerful religious fundamentalist group that provides cheap housing for members of the legislature here - and hides their affairs (Mark Sanford) - and segregates women from its power - a group that also urges, in their words, "Hitler-like" and "Stalin-like" tactics to force their beliefs on people here.

" legislator that introduced the bill, a guy named David Bahati, is a member of The Family," he said. "He appears to be a core member of The Family. He works, he organizes their Ugandan National Prayer Breakfast and oversees a African sort of student leadership program designed to create future leaders for Africa, into which The Family has poured millions of dollars working through a very convoluted chain of linkages passing the money over to Uganda."

And how did Sharlet discover the connection? "You follow money," he said. You look at their archives. You do interviews where you can. It's not so invisible anymore. So that's how working with some research colleagues we discovered that David Bahati, the man behind this legislation, is really deeply, deeply involved in The Family's work in Uganda, that the ethics minister of Uganda, Museveni's kind of right-hand man, a guy named Nsaba Buturo, is also helping to organize The Family's National Prayer Breakfast. And here's a guy who has been the main force for this Anti-Homosexuality Act in Uganda's executive office and has been very vocal about what he's doing, in a rather extreme and hateful way. But these guys are not so much under the influence of The Family. They are, in Uganda, The Family."

Under current Ugandan law, homosexuality is a crime punishable by life in prison. The proposed law would not just condemn HIV positive gay men and "repeat offenders" to death, it would also jail for three years anyone who knows a gay man but refuses to report them to authorities. Further, anyone who defends in public the rights of gays and lesbians would be subjected to a seven year prison term.

"The Family identified back in 1986 as a key man for Africa," he said. "They wanted to steer him away from neutrality or leftist sympathies and bring him into conservative American alliances, and they were able to do so. They've since promoted Uganda as this bright spot - as I say, as this bright spot for African democracy, despite the fact that under their tutelage, Museveni has slowly shifted away from any even veneer of democracy: imprisoning journalists, tampering with elections, supporting - strongly supporting this Anti-Homosexuality Act of 2009."

Jeff Sharlet's book on The Family is really essential reading for anyone who wants to claim that religious fundamentalism is benign. The book stems from this article: "Jesus Plus One: Undercover With America's Secret Theocrats."

here are the cached pages-

http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:b0W8suYL140J:harpers.org/JesusPlusNothing.html+jesus+plus+one&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=safari

[trotsky]

28. So you don't take any parts of the bible literally? n/t

[Hydra]

64. Good religions stand on their own

Just like the truth.

If you are attempting to prop up people who need to fall, where does that put you on the matter of the "line"?

[Robert DAH Bruce]

3. Will Hilary Swank be in the movie?

If not, the cinema ain't getting MY money!

[Vickers]

4. My mom, probably the most religious person you could ever meet. does not

believe in a literal reading of the Bible.

She says, "It tells you that you need water, but doesn't give detailed well-drilling instructions.".

[KonaKane]

7. Your mom is a smart lady.

She understands the meaning of metaphor.

[RainDog]

9. Yeah, there are a lot of great teachers of ethics from various cultures

they have a lot to tell us about how to govern with humility and decency toward those among us who suffer the most by employing those ethics in our decisions.

[KonaKane]

11. Totally agree.

And dismissing those who happen to be aligned with the predominant culture really doesn't serve anyone. They are all valid to some extent.

[RainDog]

15. How is posting an article about an historic truth a dismissal? n/t

[Goblinmonger]

102. Does she believe the

"Jesus is the son of God" part or does she read it all as fiction?

Because once we start drawing lines as to what we are going to take literally and what we aren't, we get into the problems we have today.

[ORDagnabbit]

10. if you ever wanna see a christian's head spin...put the 4 versions of what happened at the tomb side

by side and ask them what happened on that first Easter Sunday when people went to the tomb of jesus?

the bible is very explicit in the differences between the four books Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. They all have different people going to the tomb and seeing different things and then reporting back to different people. I’ve had children read this and they recognize that there are 4 different stories that don’t reconcile with each other.

which one happened?

A. did only mary go? John 20:1

B. did both mary's go Matt 28:1

C. was it both mary's and salome? Mark 16:1

D. was it the women and others? Luke 24:1


when whomever got there what did they see?

A. Both Mary's saw an earthquake and an angel who rolled the stone away
Matt 28:2

B. Mary by herself saw the stone rolled away, saw no one and nobody told
her what happened to the body and ran for peter and others John 20:1

C. The stone was rolled away when they got there and there was a single
young man in white inside who told them what happened and they ran
away and said nothing to anyone until jesus appeared to her at some
undisclosed time Mark 16:5

D. They and some others went and found the stone rolled away and there
were 2 men in dazzling clothing who told them what happened. They then
went and told the eleven and everyone else. Luke 24:2


Just like the sesame street song "One of these things is not like the others," except its all of these are not like the others.


JOHN
20:1-the end. NOBODY in the tomb

MATTHEW
28:1-the end. NOBODY in the tomb an angel descends from heaven.

MARK
16:1-the end. ONE person in the tomb. A young man all in white in the tomb

LUKE
24:1-the end. TWO people in the tomb. two men in shining garments appeared while they were in the tomb






The truth is the bible was put together by humans to control other humans. Books were left out, other religions mythologies were put in. Hell it even starts out laughably....you have TWO entirely different stories in genesis.

[Cleita]

14. There was no Easter Sunday.

It's a pagan holy day in honor of a Nordic Goddess of fertility known as Oestra. The eggs and bunnies honored her for bringing spring about.

[struggle4progress]

29. Throughout most of the world, the holiday is called by names derived from the Hebrew "Pesach"

(for Passover)

It's idiotic ethnocentrism to start from the fact that the English-speaking world says "Easter" and to conclude thence that the holiday derived from Germanic goddess worship. The date of our Easter was set in the Mediterranean world long ago and is linked crudely to the date of Passover, which (if I understand correctly) usually begins with the first full moon after the first new moon after the vernal equinox, a formula one can understand as a precursor for the ancient definition for Easter as the first Sunday after first full moon after the vernal equinox

[darkstar3]

31. That is entirely untrue.

Passover or Pesach always occurs on the 15th day of Nissan according to the Hebrew calendar. The moon doesn't enter into it.

However, the moon WAS sacred to many Germanic Pagans, and the original feast of Eostre or Eostara occured on the night of the first full moon after the vernal equinox. The date and name of Easter in Western Christianity were chosen specifically to co-opt this feast and ease the Germanic tribes into the fold. It had worked before with Christmas and Saturnalia, why couldn't it work again?

[struggle4progress]

37. ... In the ancient Hebrew calendar, each month began with the first observation of the first sliver

of moon after a new moon ... http://www.shirhadash.org/calendar/abouthcal.html

... The first month of the festival year is Nisan. 15 Nisan is the start of the festival of Pesach, corresponding to the full moon of Nisan ... Since the adoption of a fixed calendar, intercalations in the Hebrew calendar have been at fixed points in a 19-year cycle. Prior to this, the intercalation was determined empirically: The year may be intercalated on three grounds: 'aviv <i.e.the ripeness of barley>, fruits of trees, and the equinox. On two of these grounds it should be intercalated, but not on one of them alone ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebrew_calendar

The vernal equinox from http://aom.giss.nasa.gov/srver4x3.html
2007 3/21 0:14
2008 3/20 6:04
2009 3/20 11:53
2010 3/20 17:42
2011 3/20 23:31
2012 3/20 5:20

The vernal equinox from http://ns1763.ca/equinox/eqindex.html
2008 20 05 48
2009 20 11 44
2010 20 17 32
2011 20 23 21
2012 20 05 14

The next sliver of moon after the next new moon after the vernal equinox from http://stardate.org/nightsky/moon/
4/7/08
3/28/09
4/16/10
4/5/11
3/24/12

Now let's try the date converter from http://www.hebcal.com/
1 Nisan 5768 = 4/6/08
1 Nisan 5769 = 3/26/09
1 Nisan 5770 = 3/16/10
1 Nisan 5771 = 4/5/11
1 Nisan 5772 = 3/24/12

For two years I find 1 Nisan exactly by this method, in two more years I'm a day or two off, and for 2010 I'm a month off, which appears to be based on the 3/17/10 moon sliver. There are issues, such as exactly what time of day the vernal equinox or new moon occurs, or exactly when the new day begins in the Judaic calendar, which differs from the Gregorian calendar on this issue; the algorithms differ a bit, and I don't know exactly what mathematical algorithm the current Judaic calendar uses

[darkstar3]

40. Which hasn't been the case for thousands of years.

The Hebrew calendar started based on the moon for the specific reason that the tracking of the full moon was a great way to tell when it was time to plant and when it was time to harvest. But the calendar has been set for a very long time, and as you yourself admitted, the drift from the full moon is quite severe at this point, and has been for a while.

This is exactly why Easter in the Eastern Orthodox churches falls on a completely different date from Easter in the West. We still use the Sunday after the full moon after the vernal equinox, and they still use the Hebrew Calendar and the 15th of Nissan.

[struggle4progress]

38. Here are some European Easter greetings:

Gëzuar Pashkët
Pasxa bayramınız müqəddəs olsun
Pask Seder
Bona Pasqua
Pask Lowen
God påske
Zalig Pasen
Hyvää Pääsiäistä
Joyeuses Pâques
Boas Pascuas
Gleðilega páska
Feliz Páscoa
Paşte Fericit
¡Felices Pascuas!
Glad Påsk
Paskalya yortunuz kutlu olsun
Pasg Hapus

from http://www.omniglot.com/language/phrases/easter.htm

[darkstar3]

42. When in doubt, flood with tangential and nearly useless information.

Does the word "Etymology" ring a bell?

Hebrew - Pesach - which led to the
Greek - Pascha - which led to the
Paschal Full Moon - name of the lunar state preceeding the festival, which in turn led to most of what you see here.

Of course, not one bit of this distraction changes the fact that we in the west call it Easter, and there is a very specific reason for that. I dare you to Google that reason.

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Well, yes, that's the point - the etymology shows that the derivation is from the Hebrew festival

not from an unknown Germanic goddess's festival. "We in the west" do not call it 'Easter'; those of us who are English-speaking call it Easter. The French call it 'Pâques'. The Spanish 'Pascua', the Portuguese 'Páscoa', the Dutch 'Pasen'/'Paasfeest', Italians 'Pasqua' and so on.

The date of Easter has absolutely nothing to do with the northern European languages such as English and German that do use a word for it derived from 'Eostre' or similar. The method of calculation was set around the time that Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire.

Easter Sunday is the date of the annual celebration of Christ's resurrection. The aim of the Easter Dating Method is to maintain, for each Easter Sunday, the same season of the year and the same relationship to the preceding astronomical full moon that occurred at the time of his resurrection in 30 A.D.

This was achieved in 1583 A.D. using skill and common-sense by Pope Gregory the 13th, and his astronomers and mathematicians, predominantly Lilius and Clavius, by introducing their new larger (revised) PFM Gregorian dates table. This replaced the (original) 326 A.D. "19 PFM dates" table in the Julian calendar.

Easter Sunday, from 326 A.D., is always one of the 35 dates March 22 to April 25.

From 31 A.D. to 325 A.D. Easter Day was celebrated either:
(a) on or just after the first day of the Jewish Passover (no matter on which day of the week that Easter Day occurred), or
(b) on a Sunday close to or on the first Passover Day.
Both of these methods existed continuously throughout this period.

From 326 A.D. to 1582 A.D. Easter Sunday date was based on the Julian calendar in use at that time. It became defined as the Sunday following the Paschal Full Moon date for the year, using a simple "19 PFM dates" table. Precise information on this subject can be found on pages 415 to 425 of the Explanatory Supplement to the 1961 Astronomical Ephemeris.

The Julian calendar was replaced by the Gregorian calendar in October 1582 to re-align March 20 (and therefore Easter) with the seasons by removing 10 dates October 5 to 14, 1582. This replacement did not occur until later in many countries e.g. in September 1752 in England. See GM Arts Easter Date Calculations for more information. ENGLISH Easter Sunday dates for 1583 to 1752 can be calculated using information near the end of this Easter Dating Method document.
...
Orthodox churches became fully autonomous in 1054 A.D., and celebrate their Easter always on the basis of the Julian calendar and the "19 PFM dates" table. The Julian calendar date Thursday October 4, 1582 was followed by the Gregorian calendar date Friday October 15, 1582. The 10 dates October 5 to 14 were removed.

Consequently, their Easter Sunday dates are identical up to 1582, then from 1583 onwards often differ from those of Western churches.

http://www.assa.org.au/edm.html

As for your "dare to google it" challenge, the consensus of results is that some Germanic calendars called the time around about April as the month of 'Eoster' or similar; and Bede said it was named after a goddess. And that is all we know about 'Eostre'. No information about her worship, about a particular day for worship of her (did the pagan nothern Europeans even use a seven day week before adopting the Christian one? I can't find any evidence they did).

[darkstar3]

79. French, Spanish, Portugese...

all of the languages you cite here come from a single language family (the romance languages), while English derives from the Germanic family. Your examples are moot.

As for your claim that you can't find any info on Google, well...

Search - origin of Easter:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/easter.htm - 3rd result (I skipped the allaboutjesuschrist.org links)

Other search results show that, while research is difficult on the topic of Eostre/Ostara, it is commonly accepted that she was worshipped by Germanic Pagans with a feast in her honor on the night of the Vernal Equinox. The bunny and the eggs, obvious fertility symbols, were a part of this Pagan celebration of new life, fertility, and basically just being happy that their nuts weren't freezing off anymore for another year or so.

The etymology of the word "Easter" in English, the continuation of the usage of Pagan fertility symbols, both of these are strong evidence that Easter as celebrated by Western Christians is about a whole lot more than simple Passover tradition or Christ-myth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

82. Far from 'moot', my examples define 'the west' far better than Germanic ones

Get an atlas of Europe out. Note the directions 'west' and 'north'. Now look at where the languages that use 'pasca'-derived terms are, and those that use 'Eoster'-derived ones are. You'll note the latter are in the north. The 'west' (eg Italy, the centre of the 'western' church', and Spain, Portugal and France) uses 'Pasca'. And no, Dutch is not a Romance language. It's Germanic, but they still use a pasca-derived word.

We have a clear source, Bede, from close to the Christian conversion of the Anglo-Saxons, that Eoster was an Anglo-Saxon goddess after whom their April (or so) was named, and that she had a festival some time then. That's it. No details of what the festival was, or whether it was on a single day or multiple ones, what was done in it. In contrast, we have extensive written documentation of how Easter is a commemoration of the death and resurrection of Jesus, said to happen at the Jewish passover, and how the date calculation was based on that. The majority of the Christian world uses a word derived from the Hebrew for passover. Please, take off your anglocentric blinders for a moment. It's not all about us Anglo-Saxons. Why ignore the real, straightforward evidence for how Easter originated in favour of made-up stuff?

I didn't say I couldn't find any information on Google. I said what I found, and, unfortunately for you, it doesn't back up your claims.

As for the Religious Tolerance site - they are making the claim about Eoster without any evidence. The Germanic goddess of fertility was actually Freyja, after whom 'Friday' is named in English and German (as opposed to Venus for 'vendredi' in French; but note they are both goddesses of fertility). Grimm speculated on the derivation of the name Eoster, and a connection to root words for 'east' or 'dawn', but that's all he had. No information about the worship at all. There are no myths about Eoster, no archaeological evidence for how she was worshipped.

Here's a good summary, with references, of what is known about 'Eoster'. http://www.manygods.org.uk/articles/essays/Eostre.shtml Note this is written by a neopagan, who cheerfully says there are no traditions for worship of Eoster, and they just does what 'feels right' as a celebration.

"a feast in her honor on the night of the Vernal Equinox". Link, please. And make it one with a decent pedigree, ie not just one that a different neopagan has made up. Something from Germanic mythology or archaelogy would do. And notice that the vernal equinox falls in March, not April, so there may be problems with attempting to claim the equinox as her festival.

And notice that the European rabbit is native to the Iberian penninsula, and was spread from there by the Romans and then others. So claiming it's part of the old Germanic celebration of Eoster is a stretch too. And also remember that 'the easter bunny' is not part of Christian Easter. It's just a bit of fun for the kids, like Santa Claus. My mother, a Christian (and fairly well read) would turn her nose up at doing anything with 'easter bunnies'.

[darkstar3]

84. Clearly we are at an impasse.

You don't like my links, and I don't like yours, and the problem is that there isn't enough evidence, as I clearly stated earlier, to know anything about Eostre for certain. Let's leave it at that, then.

I will say this, though, about your final claim: Just a bit of fun for the kids, like Santa Claus? Um, no. Both have history and tradition, and have survived to this day specifically because the holidays that they were associated with were co-opted and not destroyed by the dominant Christian faith.

[muriel_volestrangler]

85. Exactly - there's not enough evidence for these claims about Eoster

while there's mountains of evidence that Easter Sunday comes from the Jewish Passover. So why are you so keen to ignore the real evidence, and believe the made-up stuff? It's not like you.

Yeah, a bit of fun for the kids. First associated with Easter in the 1500s, in Germany (so, about as old as Protestantism). Nothing to link it with a goddess from about 1000 years earlier.

[provis99]

105. you don't know your Germanic gods very well.

There was more than one god of fertility in the Germanic pantheon. Frey for example, was also a god of fertility, in addition to Freya and Oestre. there was more than one god of war, too, for example: Odin was a god of war, as was Tyr.

[Petrushka]

106. The Anglo-Saxon "Eoster" is a jenny-come-lately compared to the Babylonian "Ishtar" --->

http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-t020.html


:shrug:

[struggle4progress]

43. Here's a nice table comparing vernal new moon to Passover dates

Table for finding Easter/Pascha dates
http://www.oikoumene.org/en/resources/documents/wcc-commissions/faith-and-order-commission/i-unity-the-church-and-its-mission/towards-a-common-date-for-easter/towards-a-common-date-for-easter.html#c10576

[darkstar3]

44. Tangential. n/t

[Cleita]

47. So how do you account for the tradition handed down from pagan times

of Easter eggs, bunnies and baby chicks? Did the Hebrews do the same? I don't think so.

[struggle4progress]

49. LOL! Is that what you've got?

[darkstar3]

50. Whassamatter, Googlus, can't find an answer you like to that question?

After all, the traditions are incredibly Pagan and have nothing whatsoever to do with Passover or Christ. Where DID they come from and how DID they come to be part of our Western Easter celebration?

[muriel_volestrangler]

76. You think that eggs, an obvious symbol of birth, have nothing to do with Passover or a resurrection?

The first is a festival marking the mythical start of the independence of the Israelite nation; the second is about rebirth.

There seems a strange idea that only northern European pagan religions were capable of having metaphorical ideas; and that any that exist now must come from those clever Anglo-Saxons and Germans. Really, myths and symbols can be invented by anyone.

[darkstar3]

80. Then why do the Jews,

even the most Orthodox of Jews, never include eggs in their Passover celebration? I've known many Jews in my life, ranging from the Chassidic to the self-styled "lapsed Jew", and I've never once seen them or heard of them including eggs in their celebrations.

You ARE correct, however, that eggs are an obvious symbol of birth, but they are also an obvious symbol of fertility. Do the Jews or Christians have festivals celebrating fertility? Not that I'm aware of. But I do know of various people who DID. They were called Pagans.

[muriel_volestrangler]

83. Eggs and the Passover:

http://www.chabad.org/holidays/passover/pesach_cdo/aid/2000/jewish/The-Egg.htm

http://people.ucalgary.ca/~elsegal/Shokel/000420_PassoverEgg.html

Christianity doesn't go so much for fertility festivals, it's true - it tends to regard sex as a bit icky, and something to be confined to couples already safely married, with total abstinence. But they're not claiming Easter is a fertility festival (and if you want an ancient fertility festival in England, you'd do better to look at Mayday, anyway).

Let's remember how this subthread started . Cleita made the assertion " There was no Easter Sunday. It's a pagan holy day in honor of a Nordic Goddess of fertility known as Oestra". This has been disproven - it's just that the English, German and a few other languages have used a different name for the widely-documented Christian festival known as 'Pasqua' etc. struggle4progress pointed out Cleita was wrong, and then you jumped in with more made-up stuff of "the original feast of Eostre or Eostara occured on the night of the first full moon after the vernal equinox" (though you have since claimed in was on the night of the vernal equinox - make your mind up).

It may be very important to you to think about the Easter Bunny. But its origin is not documented, and almist nothing is known about Eoster either. I'm sorry if this shatters yours beliefs about the Bunny.

[RainDog]

16. yes, I remember noting those inconsistencies too, when I was a kid

one I hadn't paid attention to but which is important is that the genealogy of Jesus' ancestors varies from gospel to gospel, depending upon the the audience the writer wanted to influence.

[MajorChode]

26. There's actually a much bigger contradiction

The core of modern Christian dogma is the concept of the Trinity. This is the foundation that Christianity is based. If Jesus, and God, and the Holy Spirit are not one in the same, the foundations of their religion buckle and the whole religion comes crumbling down. The Romans knew of this problem in the 4th century. They had some people worshiping Jesus, some people worshiping the Father, and some worshiping the Holy Spirit. So Christianity was in danger of splitting into 3 factions. The whole point of the Romans adopting Christianity as a state religion in the first place was to unite everyone under the same system of belief. That's why the First Council of Nicaea adopted the doctrine of the Trinity. So it's important to remember than the concept of the Trinity never coalesced until almost 300 years AFTER the death of Christ.

The problem is, the basis of the Trinity in the Bible itself is flimsy at best and quickly falls apart even with a cursory examination of just the gospels included in the New Testament. Most of the gospels never put Jesus on an equal footing with God and almost none of them went so far as to deify Jesus. The best argument those who favor the Trinity have is in the book of John, but even if you look at what is found there you find contradictions such as in John 14:28:

Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.

These are the words of Jesus recorded by John. Clearly Jesus is defining God and himself as separate entities (and this is repeated other places as well). So Jesus himself didn't believe in the Trinity, yet modern Christians expect everyone else to do so because that's what the Romans TOLD them to believe almost 2 centuries ago.

[mistertrickster]

41. Yup. The letter of the law killeth. The spirit giveth life.

This is an old, old debate. And just to make it more complicated, the Old Testament God apparently said that "Ye are all Gods and sons of God." Was he speaking to other gods? To the god that is in every human?

The essence of God cannot be apprehended by the mind of man. That's why God is "ineffible."

One has to break out of the cage of logic to approach any kind of understanding . . .

[ironbark]

71. Nice post. n/t

[ProfessorPlum]

73. Yeah, it's that whole "breaking out of the cage of logic" that

always trips me up. Check your brain at the door . . .

[mistertrickster]

81. Or open your mind to the possibilities of the infinite. When astrophysicists first heard

about "black holes," they refused to believe it.

Black holes distort space-time so much that from our perspective nothing is actually sucked into one. As matter approaches the event horizon, time dialation becomes so profound that time from our point of view stops. From the point of view of a piece of matter getting sucked into the black hole, time is normal. From our point of view, it takes an infinite amount of time for the matter to cross into the black hole.

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamed of."

[ProfessorPlum]

86. Yes . . . but

the difference is there is actual evidence for black holes that could be predicted, searched for, and now, found.

So, it's not a matter of faith anymore.

Let me know when similar predictions are possible for other subject matter and I'm all ears.

[Cleita]

48. The Trinity was originally the triple goddess personified by the

maiden, the mother and the crone. Each had a function, much of it to do with the harvest, fertility and finally death. Even in the original Christian Trinity, the Holy Spirit was feminine and signified wisdom or sophia.

[MajorChode]

51. There's quite a bit that Christianity borrowed from the Pagans and other religions

The concept of virgin birth was not unique to Judaeo–Christian belief and neither was resurrection and many of the other concepts from the New Testament. That's the biggest reason why Christianity was so popular. It bridged the gap between Judaism and Paganism. John the Baptist was believed to be resurrected before Jesus, so it really comes as no surprise that some of Jesus' followers would also believe he was resurrected also.

[_ed_]

109. Not to mention that none of the gospels were written until

70 years after "Jesus'" supposed death and "resurrection."

I mean, if a human being had (1) claimed to be God and (2) rose from the dead, you'd think someone would write that down immediately.

Jesus is a myth.

[Cleita]

12. Anybody who has read the Jesus era bible are aware of the contradictions.

Also, there are all the rejected writings known as the apocrypha. All those writings both accepted by Christians and the apocryphal ones, which weren't, were about Jesus, the persons involved in his life and afterward. I don't know if they were made up, but they seem to be like stories passed by word of mouth that change as they are passed along, not deliberately, but that changed the story, embellished it and made it better. Of course depending on which part of the Roman Empire the story was carried, it was corrupted slightly by geographical separation and being repeated again, which could account for the differences.

I personally doubt if the Jesus of the Gospels even existed. There might have been a person who stood out, and maybe minor persons who also were preachers in that environment. When the person who was crucified became Jesus, I believe the stories about all of them got merged. It could be easy since one of them died. Maybe another carried on for awhile as the resurrected Jesus, not because he was being deliberately false, but because others wanted to believe he was the crucified guy who was resurrected.

Oh btw, the biblical stories have no validity historically, whatever. I mean there are no corroborating contemporary documents written by Romans or others who would offer an unbiased version.

[struggle4progress]

35. Be careful, or you will live in a world with no history at all

What manuscripts, for example, do you think we have of Caesar's Commentarii De Bello Gallico?

Our knowledge of the classical Greek and Roman worlds is essentially nil if you completely reject texts known to us only through medieval copies or through printed editions of medieval copies that have since been lost

[glinda]

45. Evangelical Holly Lobby Family buying up all the Bibles that they can

for a Bible Museum. But that is not the real point, which is, they will allow people to study them. All people? Some people? Who will interpret?



http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/business/12bibles.html

[Cleita]

46. But the copies are there and there are corroborating writings by different

writers. Because of Seutonius and others who wrote independently and whose manuscripts were copies that came down to us, we know Julius Caesar was a real person. We have no such outside verification by other contemporaries of Jesus other than what's in the New Testament and those writings were within a religious community.

[ironbark]

72. For "Our knowledge of the classical Greek" I bow my head to Tolledo...

...and to the Muslim libraries that preserved our Western heritage and instigated our Universities in the translation of the treasures they protected and preserved.

As a human being with a rich heritage living in a democracy….I give thanks to Islam and Islamic scholars for preserving the knowledge that made it possible.

[DaveinJapan]

17. I wonder if all those copies are also "divinely inspired". k&r, nt

[RainDog]

18. divinely inspired errors?

like planting fossils to challenge people's faith?

[DaveinJapan]

21. I thought the Devil did that. nt

[struggle4progress]

30. People in the early Christian era were probably not stupider nor

less intellectually competent than ourselves and so noticed various contradictions between the various texts even then

It is, of course, entirely clear that the first Christians understood their religion in some way other than as a historical research project

And if subsequent generations of Christians had primarily desired a consistent "history book," one might have expected an widespread effort to amend and then recopy the various texts in order to eliminate any contradictions

The fact, that the contradictions remain, might actually provide some evidence that copyists typically made good effort to copy accurately

From a scholarly point of view, there's nothing wrong with asking Abiathar or Ahimelech? But I think most people who read these texts looking for wisdom would simply say, Abiathar or Ahimelech? Who cares?

[trotsky]

32. They probably weren't stupider, but they also probably couldn't read.

Nor did they have the contradictory texts bound together in one "bible."

But I think most people who read these texts looking for wisdom would simply say, Abiathar or Ahimelech? Who cares?

Then those people aren't very intellectually curious, and are exhibiting a classic Christian trait: ignoring the parts of the bible they don't like, embracing the parts they do. For no other apparent reason than personal preference.

[darkstar3]

34. That's a lot of speculation.

But even if I don't dispute your points, there's still a major problem with what you're saying:
Even if a good faith effort was made to copy the individual books in as true a matter as possible, the incredibly irreconcilable contradictions between the books show clearly that the bible is an unreliable source of information, and could very well include much fiction and embellishment.

[DeSwiss]

36. And let's not forget the plagiarism.

;)

"The Halo You See Behind
Jesus' Head -- Is The Sun"
http://www.archive.org/details/biblemythsandthe00doanuoft">
"Because From The Start That Is
What Mankind Has Always Worshiped"

[ironbark]

74. "From The Start That Is What Mankind Has Always Worshiped"?

Not as reflected in the earliest, most common and widespread art and artifacts-





Venus von Willendorf

[MajorChode]

58. Exactly, which is why organized religion exists in the first place

2,000 years ago, people may or may not have been dumber, but one thing is for sure. They were almost exclusively illiterate and somewhat easier to manipulate. The purpose of organized religion is generally to manipulate people. That's why the Romans spent so much resources controlling and regulating it. Religion is without a doubt THE most significant invention to both pacify the masses and focus them militarily (or for whatever other purposes they wished). It has been used for these purposes centuries before the Romans ever came along.

[TZ]

33. I wish I could remember the name of the book

Sons of Abraham or soemthing like that...It illustrates how the Bible was INTENTIONALLY re-written numerous times to match certain current political leanings at different times...It kind of makes the point that the bible is in no way shape or form accurate.

[ProfessorPlum]

55. K&R. I love Ehrman's books and recommend them to everyone

I can. Thanks for the thread.

[RainDog]

56. You're welcome! n/t

[hippywife]

57. I read another of his books:

God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer

I agree with him. Either God is all powerful and can stop suffering but doesn't which means he isn't a loving God. Or he can't and is not all powerful.

When I was a believer, I swallowed the excuse that suffering is due to free will of man, but not all suffering is caused by the evil of man, so that doesn't wash with me any more.

Actually, none of it does.

:hi:

[girl gone mad]

59. You might be interested in the work of Randel Helms.

He's written three books on the origins of New Testament, "Gospel Fictions", "Who Wrote The Gospels?", and "The Bible Against Itself".

I'm not that interested in this topic, but he offers absorbing, scholarly explanations for why the New Testament is so contradictory and confusing.

ETA: Here's the Amazon write up for "Gospel Fictions":

Are the four canonical Gospels actual historical accounts or are they imaginative literature produced by influential literary artists to serve a theological vision? In this study of the Gospels based upon a demonstrable literary theory, Randel Helms presents the work of the four evangelists as the 'supreme fictions' of our culture, self-conscious works of art deliberately composed as the culmination of a long literary and oral tradition. Helms analyses the best-known and the most powerful of these fictions: the stories of Christ's birth, his agony in the Garden of Gethsemane, his betrayal by Judas, his crucifixion, death and resurrection. In Helms' exegesis of the Gospel miracle stories, he traces the greatest of these - the resurrection of Lazarus four days after his death - to the Egyptian myth of the resurrection of Osiris by the god Horus. Helms maintains that the Gospels are self-reflexive; they are not about Jesus so much as they are about the writers' attitudes concerning Jesus. Helms examines each of the narratives - the language, the sources, the similarities and differences - and shows that their purpose was not so much to describe the past as to affect the present. This scholarly yet readable work demonstrates how the Gospels surpassed the expectations of their authors, influencing countless generations by creating a life-enhancing understanding of the nature of Jesus of Nazareth.

http://www.amazon.com/Gospel-Fictions-Randel-Helms/dp/0879755725/ref=pd_sim_b_1

[RainDog]

60. actually, I'm not that interested in this topic either

however, when people want to insist that lies be given the same level of respect as 100s of years of scholarship, I generally feel the need to say something.

[girl gone mad]

61. Funny that..

so many of those people have absolutely no intellectual curiosity about the Bible and care little for the text, outside of a few cherry-picked passages that affirm their superiority complex.

[RainDog]

62. I grew up reading and memorizing the bible

and found it horrific.

[girl gone mad]

63. Which part?

The one where God has a temper tantrum and wipes out almost the entire population?

Or maybe this one (courtesy Gustave Moreau)?:



:scared:

[darkstar3]

65. Fuckin' ew!!

Did you HAVE to illustrate that particular story?

[Hydra]

66. Gods, I love that story

Whole cities of attempted Angel rapers, A devote man who offers his daughters in place of said angels, everyone turned to pillars of salt, and the daughters in the end raping Dad...

What did we learn today, kids?

[charlie]

68. Then you'll love the remake in Judges 19

Just when you've settled in to enjoy the old story, it takes a wrenching turn into NEW freakish territory:

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Judg%2019:22-29&version=NIV

[Hydra]

69. Ah...wow?

I take pride in not being easily disturbed...but that was beyond disturbing.

Kinda makes my unspoken point- who the hell are these people and why is it considered "holy"?

[charlie]

70. Mostly people who oughta be told

"Maybe reading it would be a good idea, before you get to jamming the Operating Manual for Silliness into everyone's face."

I suspect, anyway.

[RainDog]

67. yeah, those

it wasn't until I read Kierkegaard that I truly understood the story of Abraham's sacrifice.

that god is a mofo and you have to be crazy to believe in him. not exactly what fear and trembling had in mind, but the only way I could come to terms with the barbarity.

[onager]

87. I've heard Helms lecture in person...

At a Skeptics Society meeting, here in Los Angeles.

He's a great speaker, and provided us with the best advice I ever heard on reading the New Testament:

"When you read the NT, remember that you are not reading history or biography. You're reading propaganda, meant to launch a new religion."

[struggle4progress]

88. "meant to launch a new religion" may be inaccurate. The Pauline letters

suggest a split in the early Christian community about whether or not adherence to the Jewish religious law was important

[onager]

89. You should argue with that with Mr. Helms.

I'm sure he would apreciate your input...

[struggle4progress]

90. He's an English professor, isn't he? Who writes on the Bible and Tolkien?

Meh. That doesn't translate into anything much by itself: in particular, it doesn't suggest he has the classical scholarly competence to evaluate how the texts arose and were assembled

Don't misunderstand me: I have in principle no objection to work that doesn't take the New Testament seriously as history or that wants to set aside all supernatural claims when evaluating such texts. The very natural objection that this is all superstitious fiction is as old as Christianity itself, and the objection cannot have failed to cross the mind of anyone who seriously considered the matter in the last two millennia. So it seems likely to me that there is something more to say about the matter, whether or not one takes the texts literally

[darkstar3]

92. I am flabbergasted at the level of arrogance and self-gratification of your first paragraph. n/t

[PassingFair]

99. How DARE you speak thusly to that Courtier!

Knave!

[Goblinmonger]

103. Yes, because Tolkien and the Bible have NOTHING in common.

I don't even think Tolkien knew there was such a thing as a bible.

You aren't an English professor, are you? You haven't read any of Tolkien's essays have you (and likely not any of his fiction, either, if you don't think there is a connection).

[muriel_volestrangler]

91. Adhering to Jewish religious law or not, it's still a new religion

Neither side thought the religious law details were the most important thing. The nature of Jesus was, to both of them; and that was the fundamental break with Judaism.

[Leontius]

93. New Religion, yes, but

I do believe that the major difference between the Jerusalem church and Paul's followers was their claim that Jewish law and custom was not binding on Gentile members, not the nature of Jesus.

[MountainLaurel]

98. Thank you for reminding me

This has been sitting on my shelf for a year now. I really need to get to it.

[RainDog]

101. It's a really good book to read

It should be required reading for all literalists.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

104. He just found this out??

I took religion courses at Trinity University from a Princeton Seminary graduate (Dr. Frank Garcia) and learned that all of the bible has been written at different times by different people. It's a complete hodgepodge. They were starting to use computer linguistic analysis back then.

That was back in 1973. This is not news to any bible scholars I know.

[ZombieHorde]

107. I doubt Biblical Literalists actual exit. All Christians seem to pick and choose.

Those who claim to take the Christian Holy Bible literally don't know themselves very well in my opinion.