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

[lars573]

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.

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.

[Kadagar_AV]

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.

[Kralizec]

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.

[rvg]

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.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Test completed

[Ironside]

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.

[Sigurd]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Greyblades]

It always takes time to make your pointless.

[Ronin]

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.

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.