Christianity - Religious System, or the True Natural State of Man?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

If there was such a force then it was minimal in Jesus' Judea - as testified to by both his treatment at the hands of his fellow Jews, and the failure of Christianity to take root in the Judean population. Where it did take off was with the more Hellenized diaspora - attitudes may have been different there, but then Jesus wasn't a product of the Hellenic world.

---

If there was such a force, it was the orthodox Jews (as opposed to the newfangled Jew-cult-communes-later-to-be-known-as-Christians) wot done it. That's to say, when it came to religious matters the Jews were allowed to do largely as they pleased based on what Tacitus called the antiquity of their traditions (i.e. Judaism). The Romans shook their heads and went on with life, that is until the Christians started exhibiting worrying tendencies to rock the boat and/or the other Jews started complaining.


On the other hand: Jesus probably was very much a product of the Hellenic and Roman world in that the focus on the "messiah" and in particular emphasis on "salvation" is something which developed during the constant wars in Palestine during Hellenistic and Roman times.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

I'm the alpha male of the Backroom, I smash more chicks in one Friday night than Kad does in a lifetime at the ski resort.

And that makes me frickin alpha.

---

Kukri's back - we're all Betas, get over it, I know I am.

Anyway, you're a lifter - that's a sissy sport.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfhylwyr

I'm the alpha male of the Backroom, I smash more chicks in one Friday night than Kad does in a lifetime at the ski resort.

And that makes me frickin alpha.

---

I´m confused for a moment.....is this the backroom or the Joe Rogan forum?
because if so...I can post pron!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strike For The South

I bet you've never even beaten a child at chess

---

:laugh4:

I just got the reference after I seen Kad's post there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Kukri's back.

---

Where?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Most of this is common misinformation - the worst part being the idea that he was called Jesus and he was from Nazareth. His name was Yeshua or Yeshu, a variant of "Joshua" which is the name of the prophet who led the people of Israel to the promised land and conquered it for God. Nor was he from "Nazareth" - the place only appears in accounts by that name long after his death, but he was a "Nazarine" a member of a particular Rabbinic tradition.

So was Yeshua the Nazarine Rabbi a real individual?

Almost certainly - the details about his life, his death, and also what he said are all far too sharply observed. The Canonial Gospels are far from reliable sources, and the apocryphal ones less so, but they contain certain circumstantial details which suggest he really existed. For example, the Gospel of John shows quite detaled knowledge of the internal geography of the City of Jerusalem during Christ's lifetime, despite being written after the city was sacked and ilargely rebuilt by the Romans, and at great geographic remove as well.

Another interesting point is that Jesus quotes from apocrypha and little-known texts, this is a man showing his knowledge rather than one pegging himself to the most popular pieces of scripture.

Ten you have the fact that any other explanation is needlessly complex.

Which is more likely? That there was a real man called Yeshua who was executed by the religious authorities for heresy, or that the character was made up and then believed to have existed, or that a Cabal of Rabbis invented a single figure and alternated pretending to be him?

In fact, the last is the least compelling - because it's a stupid plan that won't work! Why have four men pretend to be the Son of God when you can just pick the most charismatic and have him to it full time?

If you don't believe Jesus existed - take a lok at more modern cults and how they got started. Any cult (and Christianity is one, technically speaking, requires a charismatic leader with drive to get it off the ground.

How many successful cults can you think of that were administered by committee?

---

I only threw out 2 options. I could conceive of many others that are not ridiculous. I'm going to keep using "Jesus of Nazareth" as a descriptor, for no other reason than convenience. You bring up the detailed information in the gospels about the area at the time. But those first/second century writers would have had access to works that have been lost to us in the intervening 2000 years. So John could have simply copied a work about 1st century the little details Jerusalem into his book. Most of our assumptions about the origins of the Christ cult are based on nothing more than taking the gospels at near face value. Which is really wrong-headed. Considering the Torah is full of out and out propaganda, revisionist histories, and fables. Which we know thanks to modern archeology. And the gospels are probably near as bad. The character "Jesus of Nazareth" could have been based on one person. But I doubt it. More than likely he's an aggregate character compiled from the stories of the leaders of several Messiah cults that existed in first century Judea by the gospel writers. The Christians persecuted by Nero may not be the same cult who's beliefs you and I were raised in.


Now you ask why would a Messiah group create a "Jesus of Nazareth" identity and share it? Easy, if Herod was even a quarter of the tyrant histories make him out to be is why. The actual leader of that cult has the idea that keep to confound the authorities is too have them all play the part of their cults leader in different places. I never insinuated that the cult was led by committee at that level. But that the true leader kept himself hidden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Many atheists are scared of religion, I'm not sure why.

I think you are childish, you demand autonomy and the right to unfettered self-determination according to your own Conscience but a wise and mature person recognises he is ignorant and looks up to those older and wiser than himself.

Well, nobody could be older or iser than God.

---

Don't mistake fear for anger. That some magical king sky faerie is always watching me for his amusement like a rat in a maze makes me very angry.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

I only threw out 2 options. I could conceive of many others that are not ridiculous. I'm going to keep using "Jesus of Nazareth" as a descriptor, for no other reason than convenience. You bring up the detailed information in the gospels about the area at the time. But those first/second century writers would have had access to works that have been lost to us in the intervening 2000 years. So John could have simply copied a work about 1st century the little details Jerusalem into his book. Most of our assumptions about the origins of the Christ cult are based on nothing more than taking the gospels at near face value. Which is really wrong-headed. Considering the Torah is full of out and out propaganda, revisionist histories, and fables. Which we know thanks to modern archeology. And the gospels are probably near as bad. The character "Jesus of Nazareth" could have been based on one person. But I doubt it. More than likely he's an aggregate character compiled from the stories of the leaders of several Messiah cults that existed in first century Judea by the gospel writers. The Christians persecuted by Nero may not be the same cult who's beliefs you and I were raised in.

Now you ask why would a Messiah group create a "Jesus of Nazareth" identity and share it? Easy, if Herod was even a quarter of the tyrant histories make him out to be is why. The actual leader of that cult has the idea that keep to confound the authorities is too have them all play the part of their cults leader in different places. I never insinuated that the cult was led by committee at that level. But that the true leader kept himself hidden.

---

Apply Ockham's Razor - your explanations are needlessly complex.

There is good reason to believe that Jesus was not a divine prophet (it is statistically unlikely he was) but there is no reason to believe the man himself did not exist.

What you are doing is engaging in a very clever way of being stupid.

Quote:

---

Don't mistake fear for anger. That some magical king sky faerie is always watching me for his amusement like a rat in a maze makes me very angry.

---

In my experience fear is the major driver of anger - which implies you fear God despite claiming not to believe in him. This is consistent with your claim that Jesus was not real, because if he is not real then he can't have been the Son of God.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Apply Ockham's Razor - your explanations are needlessly complex.

There is good reason to believe that Jesus was not a divine prophet (it is statistically unlikely he was) but there is no reason to believe the man himself did not exist.

What you are doing is engaging in a very clever way of being stupid.

---

Ockham's razor can't apply here. The dearth of reliable accounts of the place and time and the thousands of years of medelling from persons with an agenda of Jesus being real and divine make a simple explanation impossible.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

In my experience fear is the major driver of anger - which implies you fear God despite claiming not to believe in him. This is consistent with your claim that Jesus was not real, because if he is not real then he can't have been the Son of God.

---

Not this time. Frustration is not fear.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Ockham's razor can't apply here. The dearth of reliable accounts of the place and time and the thousands of years of medelling from persons with an agenda of Jesus being real and divine make a simple explanation impossible.

Not this time. Frustration is not fear.

---

I think actual historical sources leans towards it having been a character roughly fitting the more mundane descriptions of Jesus.

Of course, one would have thought that actual historical sources of the COMING OF THE SON OF GOD would leave a bigger historical imprint, than say, the 12th emperors 4th wife.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Ockham's razor can't apply here. The dearth of reliable accounts of the place and time and the thousands of years of medelling from persons with an agenda of Jesus being real and divine make a simple explanation impossible.

---

One can apply Ockham's Razor to explanations of him not being a prophet - needlessly complex explanations are silly.

...and pointless.

Thousands of years?

Don't you think you're massively overstating things?

I don't expect you know anything about the Gospels outside the rubbish on the History Channel.

Test completed

The closest thing you can come to freedom when it comes to power structures (that are needed for any larger organisation, like society), is to ensure that those in power own that position because of those below him and knows it. So close contact and high mobility (at least the potential for it) are good ideas, as is the will to remove those who break this contract.

I sense a bit of sarcasm in Rhyfs OP. That he takes an obscure reference from Paul at face value but debunk the ordinance of baptism which permeates the whole of NT is quite funny. At least I lol'ed.

Discussing Christianity in a mixed group of heterodenominal subscribers and atheists is quite entertaining as each individual will explain "Christianity" with their particular colours.

Was Jesus/Yesuha/Eashoa a real historic figure? Why not.. Can't see the threat there. Was he the son of God? Well his teaching suggests that he considered himself as one. (Could be he considered all mankind sons and daughters of God - he did mention; mine father and your father a few times)
Josephus a Jewish historian in the first century AD mentioned Jesus or a person such named and what befell him.
But more importantly he spent some pages on the subject of Christianity and mentioned James as the head of the movement. At least he thought that James ran the show after the death of their leader.

Those who argue that Christianity is just copying mythlore, hasn't quite understood the claim Christianity put forth. The lore is not that some God suddenly appeared in our universe, displacing any other older gods making a new fresh start about 2000 years ago.
The claim is, of the original religion given to a created world by its creator. This means, any other religion that derive from the original given the first man, is the copycat.
So... the true Christian religion was given to Adam, who passed it along to his progeny, was given to Enoch who was saved with his entire city while still living, was given to Noah who saved his family from utter annihilation, was given to Abraham who passed it on to an entire nation, was given to Moses, but was reverted because of the people's unrighteousness, and was given something else as a temporary law until it would be given again with the coming of the Son.

That Christianity is similar to older but yet younger than the original given the first man is understandable. At least viewed in this fashion. The argument of similarity is easily countered with originality.

I read somewhere but I can’t remember the reference, and stand in danger of quoting disputed originality. Anyway it goes along the claim of Pharao , the son of Egyptus, the wife of Noah’s son who founded the nation of Egypt. He didn’t have the priesthood authority given the sons of Adam.
He was in the wrong lineage. But he was a righteous man and fashioned his kingdom after the order of Adam.
Meaning – Adam fashioned his community after the order of God. A theocracy. So in this claim, Egypt was fashioned as a theocracy after the order of Adam, which was the original order of God. But he hadn’t the authority and was thus just copying – See where this is going?

And this I realized is a perfect argument against any similarity argument, past present or even future undiscovered similar religions.

Put a big IF outside the brackets of religion, THEN they would naturally be similar. That would be a big qualifier for a truth claim of Christianity; one that those who believe should look more into IMHO.

Disregard my last post in here, I was testing how long it actually takes to copy pasta 700 words of gibberish and then highlight random segments of it, followed by a random passage from the bible. It actually took me longer than I thought.

It always takes time to make your pointless.

I agree with Sigurd that's it's really interesting seeing how various people interpret the bible from their different perspectives.

I read the arguments for mythicism but it always felt like an extra step was missing. Also it contradicts Ockhams razor, ironically.
I also tried reading some apologetic works like Lee Strobel to provide a kind of balance but they were painfully bad.

Though if people are interested in the subject I really recommend Bart Ehrman's books. Because I used to be a Christian I had no idea what I was supposed to believe about Jesus when I no longer was, but Ehrman gives a clear and to the point explanation of the mainstream historical position and most importantly why scholars accept it. Was like a breath of fresh air from all the spin being used by atheists and theists with an agenda.

Don't believe in Jesus, a Holy Ghost or run of the mill Casper the Ghost.

From my point of view I don't see it as an absence, I just don't have any compelling facts.

Sure one day I might see a genetically engineered offspring of a narwhal and a horse to make a unicorn.

But just like Mayan end of the world, fairies, ghosts, St Nick or the coke a cola red Santa, or devils, angels or any other such entity ill wait until I see the next black swan event before I believe in them.

Sure there might have been a person who belived he was the son of god. There were plenty who deitified roman emperors. They are equivalent in there likelihood.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

Don't believe in Jesus, a Holy Ghost or run of the mill Casper the Ghost.

From my point of view I don't see it as an absence, I just don't have any compelling facts.

Sure one day I might see a genetically engineered offspring of a narwhal and a horse to make a unicorn.

But just like Mayan end of the world, fairies, ghosts, St Nick or the coke a cola red Santa, or devils, angels or any other such entity ill wait until I see the next black swan event before I believe in them.

Sure there might have been a person who belived he was the son of god. There were plenty who deitified roman emperors. They are equivalent in there likelihood.

---

Well - how important was Constantine?

There's a few different issues - Was he real? Was he important? Was he the Son of God?

Three separate questions, although they are related.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well - how important was Constantine?

There's a few different issues - Was he real? Was he important? Was he the Son of God?

Three separate questions, although they are related.

---

Was there a carpenter named Jesus. Probably.
Was he the Son of God. Probably not.

Was he important. Yes and No. The stories of him are important the same way any great story is. The stories reveal much about the authors desires and intentions and even more so in the fans of the stories.

So it is nice that we have a more elegant set of instructions in the NT over the OT. Simplifying the Ten Commandments to the golden rule. Getting away from the complexities of what to sacrifice for which sin, and also simplification of ones dietary requirements. So the NT is a far more elegant set of solutions.

Interesting? Yes
Important? Yes
Real? Probably not.

Yes, and the golden rule appears in different forms and translations in most successful societies.

However the antithesis of the golden rule is becoming all too rampant: "He that holds the gold makes the rules."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

More and more i find myself turning to my faith for comfort. The old me would have scoffed.

---

That's fine and all, but I have to ask why.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name

That's fine and all, but I have to ask why.

---

There are no atheists in a foxhole? :sneaky:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Good question. Wish i had a good answer.

---

Disappointment in how society develops perhaps?

I might misremember, but I get the feeling that your opinions are leaning more to the left and are also more cynical nowadays.
You could do much worse than having Jesus as a role model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lars573

Ockham's razor can't apply here. The dearth of reliable accounts of the place and time and the thousands of years of medelling from persons with an agenda of Jesus being real and divine make a simple explanation impossible.

---

these supposedly "reliable" accounts weren´t even written by anyone who knew him or lived during his time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

That the fledgling cult managed to spread so far and so wide is the shocking bit, regardless of how much of the tales are true or not.

---

By that logic religions that have more followers than Christianity would have to be more "valid"......number of practitioners doesn´t equal validity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

Jesus didn't have a very big impact in his lifetime, or even in the immediate years following. He was the leader of a heretical jewish sect, and he got killed by the Romans for stirring up trouble. That much seems plausible and indeed probable from a purely secular historical viewpoint.

That the fledgling cult managed to spread so far and so wide is the shocking bit, regardless of how much of the tales are true or not.

---

According to the new testament, Pilates initially didn't want to execute him because he didn't see what he had done wrong. But he caved in to pressure from the (jewish) mob. This view was later used by the Roman clerical authorities to promote the view that the jews, and not the Romans, were responsible for Jesus' death.

I often wondered how plausbible that account was; AFAIK according to Roman records Pilates was a rather ham-handed ruler with little tact or patience for the sensibilities of his jewish subjects.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

According to the new testament, Pilates initially didn't want to execute him because he didn't see what he had done wrong. But he caved in to pressure from the (jewish) mob. This view was later used by the Roman clerical authorities to promote the view that the jews, and not the Romans, were responsible for Jesus' death.

I often wondered how plausbible that account was; AFAIK according to Roman records Pilates was a rather ham-handed ruler with little tact or patience for the sensibilities of his jewish subjects.

---

Still, Pilate himself had no reason to execute Jesus other than to please the mob.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Most of this is common misinformation - the worst part being the idea that he was called Jesus and he was from Nazareth. His name was Yeshua or Yeshu, a variant of "Joshua" which is the name of the prophet who led the people of Israel to the promised land and conquered it for God. Nor was he from "Nazareth" - the place only appears in accounts by that name long after his death, but he was a "Nazarine" a member of a particular Rabbinic tradition.

So was Yeshua the Nazarine Rabbi a real individual?

Almost certainly - the details about his life, his death, and also what he said are all far too sharply observed. The Canonial Gospels are far from reliable sources, and the apocryphal ones less so, but they contain certain circumstantial details which suggest he really existed. For example, the Gospel of John shows quite detaled knowledge of the internal geography of the City of Jerusalem during Christ's lifetime, despite being written after the city was sacked and ilargely rebuilt by the Romans, and at great geographic remove as well.

---

There are some sources that point to the existence of a Jewish fundamentalist rabbi called Joshua. However many of the other available records of the time have no mention of him. Also some of the standard NT bible stories aren't backed up by historical evidence, yet are very much present in folklore and myth of the time or earlier (born in a barn, 3 wise men, etc).

It does seem fairly pointless to contest that there was no Jesus, and yet it is probably folly to assume that all the stories ascribed to him actually originate from the same historical figure.

Interestingly enough the same is true of Mohammed. The official biographies, accepted in the Islamic world were cooked up hundreds of years later. Documents of the time are few and far between, and pretty much all are second hand stories.

“Still, Pilate himself had no reason to execute Jesus other than to please the mob.” He had a legal obligation to impose Rome order. Except the Jews and the Zoroastrians (dual: Mazda & Ahriman), all others populations under Roman Laws were polytheists. The Jews had an exemption regarding honouring Roman Emperor as Gods (see problem with Caligula’s Statue in the Temple) so Jesus, declining to be a Jew, was against the Law. Rebelling against the Roman law is the Cross. Then he also claimed to be the King of the Jews: all the people doing this finished on the Cross for sedition as enemies of Rome.

The REAL question is why the Governor of Judea (the same who put the Roman Standard in the Temple, a direct insult to the sanctity of the Temple) will have to “please” the population of Judea that never stop to rebel. When the Jews protested, he killed them. Sent a legion or two if they are unhappy, and job done…

WWPD?

Playing Rome Total War and a random event comes up in Palestine. Either it rebels or you can kill the rebel leader.

I know in STW2 I use my Metsuke to put away or execute enemy dissenters all the time least I face a rebel army.

WWPD?

Playing Rome Total War and a random event comes up in Palestine. Either it rebels or you can kill the rebel leader.

I know in STW2 I use my Metsuke to put away or execute enemy dissenters all the time least I face a rebel army.

Starting a discussion of Christianity with Christmas gives a 99.5% chance that you are not actually Christian.

re: the thread title the first thing I thought of was the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis. It is the transcript of a series of radio lectures he gave to the British while they were in the midst of the blitz. It was very relatable for me.