Religion

[BlueAnorak]

The Christian religion is based on a 2000 year old collection of tales which have been translated to and from many languages, from supposed 'eye-witness' accounts which have been scribbled down or passed by word of mouth, often many years/generations after they are supposed to have happened.

And I can't even remember what the f*ck I did last week...

Yawn.
There is more proof that Jesus existed and that the 11 Appostles (+ Matthias who replaced Judas) were willing to die for their faith than that for Man landing on the moon.
People will die for their beliefs, what they won't do, is die for a belief they KNOW to be a lie.

 

[Koniec]

Yawn.
There is more proof that Jesus existed and that the 11 Appostles (+ Matthias who replaced Judas) were willing to die for their faith than that for Man landing on the moon.
People will die gor their beliefs, what they won't do, is die for a belief they KNOW to be a lie.

I would suggest there is empirical proof of us landing on the moon. Keeping 500k folk silence in a conspiracy is impossible.

 

[tonea2003]

Not according to this book:

Robinson thinks that the 4th gospel included information gleaned from an independent eyewitness source whose knowledge of Jerusalem has subsequently been shown to be reliable by archaeologists.

Of course, that in itself is not sufficient to demonstrate that John preceded Mark, and unfortunately I can't recall how Robinson builds his case for that, or whether he thinks of the gospel as being the handiwork of one author (which seems highly implausible), as it is now more than 30 years since I was alerted to this publication and I never got around to reading it.

But I still have it and might have a go at it at some point. The synoptic problem and the quest for the historical Jesus can be fascinating even if, like me, you don't believe in the God of classical theism.

The thing that amazes me is how some Christians consider the Bible to be a piece of dictation from God, as evangelicals and fundamentalists do, as this is surely the equivalent of believing that the earth is flat.

think you'll find the general consensus with biblical historians is that mark is the first gospel despite the above and john is the last

 

[BlueAnorak]

I would suggest there is empirical proof of us landing on the moon. Keeping 500k folk silence in a conspiracy is impossible.

Of course there is. That wasn't my point.

 

[tonea2003]

Yawn.
There is more proof that Jesus existed and that the 11 Appostles (+ Matthias who replaced Judas) were willing to die for their faith than that for Man landing on the moon.
People will die for their beliefs, what they won't do, is die for a belief they KNOW to be a lie.

explain to me then why
i'll just name two

someone like justus of tiberias secretary to herod, writer of the kingdom of judah says absolutely nothing about a jesus

and philo of Alexandria an esteemed writer and figure of that time again says absolutely nothing

there are others

 

[Trevor Morley's Tache]

Yawn.
There is more proof that Jesus existed and that the 11 Appostles (+ Matthias who replaced Judas) were willing to die for their faith than that for Man landing on the moon.
People will die for their beliefs, what they won't do, is die for a belief they KNOW to be a lie.

To put that in to context, even modern day census records often aren't accurate, and that's with a largely literate population.

The bible is largely written by men (who, let's face it are known to exaggerate and embellish) over a period of around 1500 years. It is also cherry picked as to what is to be taken literally, and what its meanings are to be inferred as by people who have a vested interest (the Church and historically the State), who have certainly used it to wield power and enhance wealth.

I can't argue too much with it as a morale code or framework, but there are still plenty of contradictions and anomalies with that construct. It certainly can't be considered the fair reflection of history that many claim it to be.

 

[Magicpole]

Oneupmanship is the underlying aspect of every god.

What could that good do?

Miracles, so can ours. Practically one a week unless he was in the desert contemplating and being recorded even though he was alone.

Virgin birth? Got it and three Kings turned up. Don’t know where they were kings, it was all very mysterious, but they had lovely clobber.

Followers and disciples? We’ve got 12 like the others but add in Mary Mag and his mother.

Persecuted? We are nailing him to a cross and making him drink vinegar, beat that!

Died and came back? Yes, we have a few various conflicting accounts in the same book. Take your pick which version suits your world view.

Miracles? Where do we start, casting out demons, to curing blindness then bringing back people from the dead. Oh and he makes wine from water. Also, can yours feed thousands with a few sardines and half a stale loaf? No, hold my margarine.

Ascends to heaven? Floated up there like a boss.

Muslims, our guy went on a winged horse.

Take already established Myths, steal the pagan holidays and add in other stuff that edges your guy in front. Never worry about credibility because people who want to believe don’t give a shit about that. They’re all in.

And on it goes.

 

[ZenHalfTimeCrock]

think you'll find the general consensus with biblical historians is that mark is the first gospel despite the above and john is the last

That is the consensus but I have always been attracted to ‘minority reports’.

Another one is SGF Brandon’s view that Jesus was actually a Zealot, the 1st Century a.d. equivalent of being a member of ISIS from a Roman point on view.

I think the gist of that one (again I haven’t read the book) is that the gospel writers tried to play down the fact that Jesus was actually a political Messiah dedicated to expelling the Romans from Judea, as this would have attracted unwanted attention from them had they done so, especially after the destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d.

So they made him out to be a peaceful one instead. But traces of the revolutionary Jesus can still be detected here and there in certain pericopes.

Reza Aslan recently revived that theory.

Maybe everyone finds the Jesus that conforms to their preconceptions. For example, James Cone emphasised the ‘blackness’ of Jesus in a metaphorical sense, Mark Vernon the mystical Jesus in a recent book of his, while sceptics might consider him to be a fictional character.

Even some Christians believe that we cannot know more about the historical Jesus other than that he existed. For them, the Christ of faith is all that matters.

 

[BrianW]

It is worth mentioning that what we call 'the Bible' is an agreed edit, and that various other gospels were deliberately left out. Some, I believe, appear in the Catholic Bible but not in the C of E version, but there are still more that were left out altogether by the guys who decided what was heretical and what was not.

Anyone who has studied history in depth knows that there are many sources for a given period, that they often conflict, that they do not tell us everything and they are pretty much all biased in one way or another. This is why historians reinterpret history (and to some extent 'change' it) on a daily basis. Ultimately what you believe about Jesus, Henry VIII or Cleopatra, comes down to interpretation. And to some extent, it depends on your own worldview, what you think is important and what you are cynical about.

 

[tonea2003]

That is the consensus but I have always been attracted to ‘minority reports’.

Another one is SGF Brandon’s view that Jesus was actually a Zealot, the 1st Century a.d. equivalent of being a member of ISIS from a Roman point on view.

I think the gist of that one (again I haven’t read the book) is that the gospel writers tried to play down the fact that Jesus was actually a political Messiah dedicated to expelling the Romans from Judea, as this would have attracted unwanted attention from them had they done so, especially after the destruction of the Temple in 70 a.d.

So they made him out to be a peaceful one instead. But traces of the revolutionary Jesus can still be detected here and there in certain pericopes.

Reza Aslan recently revived that theory.

Maybe everyone finds the Jesus that conforms to their preconceptions. For example, James Cone emphasised the ‘blackness’ of Jesus in a metaphorical sense, Mark Vernon the mystical Jesus in a recent book of his, while sceptics might consider him to be a fictional character.

Even some Christians believe that we cannot know more about the historical Jesus other than that he existed. For them, the Christ of faith is all that matters.

but whatever/whoever he is, if at all its all a bit meh, because if he isn't the jesus of the gospels then is all a bit so what
and the fact that not one contemporary knows anything about this rock star of the 1st century is a red flag