Devout Christianity! Living the Myth!

[farmgirlshelley]

so are you saying that Jesus never even existed? even the History channel acknowledges that he lived and had an impact in his time and none of them are Christians at least not from what I have seen

[johnson1010]

Jesus, as he is thought of in relation to the bible, probably did not exist.

Calling a thing "The History Channel" is no gaurantee against bias, or inaccuracy.

They have numerous programs on there investigating things as ludacrous as the 2012 end of time scenario, and the anti-christ. Just like text-books, their stories regarding the founding fathers is shaded by expectation, and hero worship rather than presenting them as the complicated people they were, and the challenges they faced.

There may well have been a person who fit the description of Jesus, and is actually responsible for the start of the religion. But he certainly did not actually perform any miracles. More likely, though, Jesus is a compilation of characters grabbed from several religious traditions bound into one figure that hoped to satisfy many pagan converts.

[farmgirlshelley]

I love your quote about evolution.....

[johnson1010]

I caught that little gem on a news site discussing an article about evolution.

Yeah, that is a doozie.

[stahrwe]

Jesus, as he is thought of in relation to the bible, probably did not exist.

Calling a thing "The History Channel" is no gaurantee against bias, or inaccuracy.

They have numerous programs on there investigating things as ludacrous as the 2012 end of time scenario, and the anti-christ. Just like text-books, their stories regarding the founding fathers is shaded by expectation, and hero worship rather than presenting them as the complicated people they were, and the challenges they faced.

There may well have been a person who fit the description of Jesus, and is actually responsible for the start of the religion. But he certainly did not actually perform any miracles. More likely, though, Jesus is a compilation of characters grabbed from several religious traditions bound into one figure that hoped to satisfy many pagan converts.

The Bible has little to say about the physical appearance of Jesus. If you wish to rely on how the Bible describes Jesus than you are left with performing miracles, claiming to be God's only begotten son, and the hope for mankind's salvation.

[Robert Tulip]

so are you saying that Jesus never even existed? even the History channel acknowledges that he lived and had an impact in his time and none of them are Christians at least not from what I have seen

Jesus could not have existed in the way described in the Gospels.

The authors of the Gospels had motive and opportunity to confect a myth with the aim of encouraging belief. The belief that Jesus existed was enforced by the church rules about heresy and blasphemy, to the point that people now cannot imagine it was all a fraud, even though that is most likely.

There is no contemporary evidence whatsoever of the existence of Jesus, despite Bible claims that he spoke to vast crowds, performed numerous miracles, caused Herod to kill all babies, etc. In the decades after his supposed life, the oral tradition appears to have mutated into the belief that invented claims were historical, as if we today started believing that the Lord of the Rings was history. This cultural mutation of belief in a historical Jesus was successful because it enabled the church to present a story that could be understood by the masses, rather than just by a spiritual elite. The old mystery religions which admitted their stories were made up could not compete against this new institution that insisted it had the sole truth.

[stahrwe]

so are you saying that Jesus never even existed? even the History channel acknowledges that he lived and had an impact in his time and none of them are Christians at least not from what I have seen

Jesus could not have existed in the way described in the Gospels.

I am unclear as to what you mean by the above statement.

If you mean that Jesus did not exist as a man in Genesis; you have no basis for that statement. Genesis says that the Lord walked in the garden in the cool of the day. In what form is a matter of speculation. He may have been in human form. The creeds of Christianity maintain that Jesus the man was fully God and fully man at the same time.

The authors of the Gospels had motive and opportunity to confect a myth with the aim of encouraging belief. The belief that Jesus existed was enforced by the church rules about heresy and blasphemy, to the point that people now cannot imagine it was all a fraud, even though that is most likely.

What motive did they have? The Jews like Peter, Matthew, Paul, etc. had no expectation that they were going to start a new religion. They considered themselves to be Jews. Paul gave up a promising future as a persecuter of Christians to become one and suffered severly as a result. What was his motive? Are you familiar with the early church leaders? You and others make claims about them perpetrating fraud but I never hear a motive. Now you are saying it was to encourage belief. Belief in what? Judaism? Then why open it up to gentiles?

There is no contemporary evidence whatsoever of the existence of Jesus, despite Bible claims that he spoke to vast crowds, performed numerous miracles, caused Herod to kill all babies, etc. In the decades after his supposed life, the oral tradition appears to have mutated into the belief that invented claims were historical, as if we today started believing that the Lord of the Rings was history. This cultural mutation of belief in a historical Jesus was successful because it enabled the church to present a story that could be understood by the masses, rather than just by a spiritual elite. The old mystery religions which admitted their stories were made up could not compete against this new institution that insisted it had the sole truth.

This is another old saw that is repeated. I guess it qualifies as a meme, a false one. What you neglect to say is that you start with the premise that the Bible is rejected, then proceed to accuse every secular reference to Jesus as being a fabrication or forgery. As to the supposed dearth of documentation, you know as well as I do that is an argument from ignorance and is not valid.

[Interbane]

What you neglect to say is that you start with the premise that the Bible is rejected, then proceed to accuse every secular reference to Jesus as being a fabrication or forgery.

The default position is that the bible is false until sufficient evidence and reasoning is provided to show that it is true. That hasn't happened. The bible cannot be used to support itself, that is circular. The contemporary sources aren't merely "accused" as being fabrications and forgeries, they are shown beyond a reasonable doubt to be fabrications or forgeries. Beyond a reasonable doubt means that when you deny that the contemporary sources are forgeries or fabrications*, you are being unreasonable.

*Forgeries and fabrications in reference to the supernatural events and characters. Just like every convincing lie, the bible is composed of half truths. Mundane events, such as the lives of ordinary people and historical events which aren't also supernatural are used as a foundation upon which the authors of the bible wrote in the supernatural fiction. With a mundane believable foundation, many more people are convinced by the lie. While there is evidence for the mundane events, there is no evidence for the supernatural events. The supernatural is all fiction, beyond a reasonable doubt. So stop being unreasonable.

[johnson1010]

What motive could a group of religious leaders have for crafting a convincing story they can use to manipulate public opinion, wield power over enemies and detractors, collect wealth from adherants, and live in palaces of rediculous splendor?

[Robert Tulip]

What motive could a group of religious leaders have for crafting a convincing story they can use to manipulate public opinion, wield power over enemies and detractors, collect wealth from adherants, and live in palaces of rediculous splendor?

What motive indeed. The history of early Christianity is very similar to the corruption of the communist revolution satirised by George Orwell in Animal Farm. An initial bunch of idealists gets shoved aside by careerist thugs who are focussed on their own power. Through propaganda, a concept the communists borrowed from the Christians, the thugs are able to portray themselves as saints who continue the good work of their founders.

The motives for writing the Gospels are complex. As I mentioned in the thread Will Atheism Replace Religion?, the initial motive was to provide an accessible and believable book for the general public, aiming to draw them into the cult where secret teachings could be shared. However, the restriction by Bishop Irenaeus to only the four gospels, and elimination of gnostic texts as heretical, destroyed this original motive and its premise of an inner and outer church. From this point, once the unity of the church was seen to rest on doctrinal conformity, the door was wide open for Stalinist Popes to use the idiotic saints as cover for their own political power trips.