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

[Rhyfelwyr]

It makes you always some kind of child. I hate that. Anything other than that is huge step up.

The relationship people have with God is not that of a parent to a child, it is unique. All it means is there is someone out there that is stronger and smarter than you, unless you're the strongest and smartest person in the world that's going to be true anyway.

What I honestly don't understand is how people can think the GT and NT God can be the same God...

They seem quite far apart when it comes to morals.

Both the OT and NT God raise up the poor, promote justice and some sense of equality etc. At the same time they both destroy empires, punish peoples with terrible afflictions, and carry out (or at least promise) mass killings. The different focus in the NT is because God has come down in the form of man to show how people should live humbly and without sin before God, and ultimately to die for theirs sins.

From my atheistic viewpoint the answer is of course simple: Human morals evolved between the old and new testament and that is of course represented in oral and written works from that era.

That might make sense if the NT was written and compiled in fairly modern times. As things stand, that was done at a time of mass violence and oppression, when Judea was at its most nationalistic, racist and generally intolerant. The NT was particularly atypical of its time, and certainly doesn't fit into a historical pattern of developing concepts of morality.

[Kadagar_AV]

The relationship people have with God is not that of a parent to a child, it is unique. All it means is there is someone out there that is stronger and smarter than you, unless you're the strongest and smartest person in the world that's going to be true anyway.



Both the OT and NT God raise up the poor, promote justice and some sense of equality etc. At the same time they both destroy empires, punish peoples with terrible afflictions, and carry out (or at least promise) mass killings. The different focus in the NT is because God has come down in the form of man to show how people should live humbly and without sin before God, and ultimately to die for theirs sins.



That might make sense if the NT was written and compiled in fairly modern times. As things stand, that was done at a time of mass violence and oppression, when Judea was at its most nationalistic, racist and generally intolerant. The NT was particularly atypical of its time, and certainly doesn't fit into a historical pattern of developing concepts of morality.

Interesting view.

I don't know if I agree that it doesn't fit in the historical pattern though. The religion spread in the Roman Empire, that around this time had huge problems with slaves and violence. Spartacus caused mayhem just one or two generations before Jesus spread his message, as an example.

Because it WAS a time of mass violence and oppression, as you mention, there are bound to be a force in society that want to end it. And as always, the more force one side of the equation have, generally a equally strong diametrically opposite force will arise.

This in history is at least in Swedish terms known as the historical whiplash effect.

IE. Pretty much all of the world before WW2 were into racial thinking and ranking. After world war 2 you can barely say that negroes are the best runners without having a wall of political correctness hitting you.

So shall we look at the world in the 30's - 40's and say that it had horrible racial views, or should we look at it and say that it was the birth of a world wide anti-racism project?

[Ironside]

I'm not well read on what they did preach, but that time was unusually crowded with profets. A comparation between those would tell quite a bit on how unusual the message was at the time.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Because it WAS a time of mass violence and oppression, as you mention, there are bound to be a force in society that want to end it. And as always, the more force one side of the equation have, generally a equally strong diametrically opposite force will arise.

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

But surely, with historical eyes, Jesus ideas and surroundings are of minor importance compared to what ideas spread and where. But then with religious eyes Jesus original idea is of course the paramount thing.

But then again, find two Christians with some centuries in between them, who have the same view on what those ideas were. What is written has imho always come second hand to how people interpret it.

[Rhyfelwyr]

But surely, with historical eyes, Jesus ideas and surroundings are of minor importance compared to what ideas spread and where.

Of course, but not if you want to understand where Jesus and the earliest Christians' views came from.

But then with religious eyes Jesus original idea is of course the paramount thing.

Not necessarily, that just happens to be true for fundamentalists like myself.

But then again, find two Christians with some centuries in between them, who have the same view on what those ideas were. What is written has imho always come second hand to how people interpret it.

Well Catholicism hasn't change that much since Aquinas, and I know a lot of Protestants that would have fitted in nicely in Calvin's Geneva or Puritan England. I also know a lot of people that are bordering on Amish standards when it comes to the modern world. Of course I'm aware the circle of people I have around my isn't typical , but these people do exist. Also, given the nature of Protestantism as a movement to return to scriptural teachings, I would like to think some modern Prods that resemble believers of at least Pauline-era Christendom. I think they would also share the belief of the earliest Jewish Christians that surrounded Jesus, although they would operate a lot differently.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The gospels were written from oral traditions, and were edited by their authors. It's possible that there was a man who called himself Jesus of Nazareth traipsing around Judea with a list of Messiah requirements knocking them off one by one. It's also possible that it was a group of men using Jesus of Nazareth like Red Hood, an identity used by all of the group at different times to pull off the Messiah miracles (some of which experimental Archaeologists have pulled off with first century Jewish knowledge). Short of a time machine it's not possible to know for sure if Jesus was a real individual person. It requires faith, something I'm not capable of. So I cannot believe he was real.

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?

What a horrifying way to live.

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.

I like it quiet, understated, and kind of boring. A good old fashioned lecture. I think its kind of ironic that I found that style of Sermon at an Episcopalian service, which is otherwise full of hymns, chanting, kneeling, standing, and so forth.

Not surprising really, or it shouldn't be, the foundation of Anglicanism is an appeal to historic authority combined with reasoned interpretation of Holy Scripture.

[Strike For The South]

I'm not scared of religion nor do I think it has a negative impact.

I simply can't bring myself to have faith and refuse to fake it

I actually hate the New Atheism movement, the smugness and hubris that comes out of it is suffocating.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm not scared of religion nor do I think it has a negative impact.

I simply can't bring myself to have faith and refuse to fake it

I actually hate the New Atheism movement, the smugness and hubris that comes out of it is suffocating.

Much more of that and I'll have to give you a hug.

[lars573]

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.

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

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.

[Idaho]

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.

[Brenus]

“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…

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.