For the No-Jesus Camp

[stamenflicker]

Since it seems there are some who would like to say Jesus never existed and the gospels and other New Testament writings were all contrived, I would think you should answer a few questions:

I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

Why record the discord and arguments of Peter and Paul in the early church? How does making up stories about arguments that never happened launch your make believe god into the realm of the unrefutable?

Why bother to include meaningless details about events how many miles so and so walked to town, or where so and so was from? Why create characters that reject the constructed deity? If he was so amazing and you want everyone to follow him, why not make all your characters "wow"-ed by him?

It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.

Otherwise we are dealing with a mind superior to Shakespeare and his creations.

Flick

[FireGarden]

Hi, Flick
I thought from our previous discussion that you don't base your faith on the truth or otherwise of miracles, or God's/Jesus's existence. I wonder why this seems so important to you now. Those parts of your faith that are independant of the historical accuracy of the Bible are the only ones that you can test in your life today. They are the only ones that can have any reality. Why is this so important to you now?

I sense some frustration in your recent posts.
This is a difficult place to find agreement since people tend only to reply when they disagree. This "selection bias" will tend to make us all look argumentative and stubborn. Please forgive. I'm also more interested in a reply to my first paragraph than to the rest of my post (which I send out of habit and reflex :D)

For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

Where did Jesus say he was God? I haven't read the complete Bible (As an Atheist Fundy I only quote the bad bits :D) But there is a bit of a rumour going around that Jesus wasn't believed to be the son of God until around the fourth century. Where is the trinity explained? Which Jesus does the Bible provide evidence for?
If he was so amazing and you want everyone to follow him, why not make all your characters "wow"-ed by him?

How would modern Christians know how to cope with today's doubters? Where would the realism have gone to? (Yes I did ask that ;))
It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was.
I think it's pretty clear that something happened, possible to many men.
Have you watched the Great Escape. That's a film which is based on a real event (comparatively recent). Some of the characters in the film actually represent several real life people. It's just easier to tell the story that way. Don't even get started on the whole Enigma code business and the films that has produced!

I'm disappionted you refer to Shakespeare at the end. I'm sure I've mentioned Frank Herbert to you. If you want Religion manufacture explored there's your man. (Though I don't think he ever tried it for real.)


Cheers
GP :)

[toddjh]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

You make it sound like it was one guy who made up Christianity in an afternoon. In reality, the text of the Bible was written by many people across thousands of years -- even Christians acknowledge that. Isn't it possible that errors were introduced because different people had conflicting agendas or were basing their writings on different accounts?

Anyway, that's a silly question. If you suppose the gospels are a valid historical account of real events, then it makes even less sense that they would be self-contradictory.

Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

Why record the discord and arguments of Peter and Paul in the early church? How does making up stories about arguments that never happened launch your make believe god into the realm of the unrefutable?

My answer to these questions is strictly Darwinian. Look at how successful a religion Christianity has been. For whatever reason, that kind of stuff does work -- you only have to look around to see that.

Otherwise we are dealing with a mind superior to Shakespeare and his creations.

Wait, weren't you just saying how the writing contained all kinds of contradictions and meaningless trivia? How does that compare to Shakespeare?

Jeremy

[PotatoStew]

Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth?

[Fade]

It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.

Then please, show me a piece of evidence for Jesus ever having existed.

Oh that's right, there is none.

[ImpyTimpy]

Assuming Jesus did in fact exist please remember that back in those days people were easily fooled and impressed. Please also remember that the truth would've been made more grand than it actually was as it usually happens with historical events being passed from person to person or written down.... Please ALSO note that the bible has been written a very long time ago, constantly changing throughout the ages to suit things better... Finally, why hasn't there being any miracles in today's world? It seems to me God and Jesus were quick to appear thousands of years ago before people, but today.. Well, that's another story... Maybe God is sleeping or something?

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth?

[PotatoStew]

back in those days people were easily fooled and impressed.

Care to support that claim?

the bible has been written a very long time ago, constantly changing throughout the ages to suit things better

How about that one? Any data to support that claim?

It seems to me God and Jesus were quick to appear thousands of years ago before people

"Quick" to appear? I would hardly call the amount of time from human origins up until 0 A.D. "quick"! Even if all the miracles reported in the bible are true, they are still few and far between in the overall scheme of things.

[ImpyTimpy]

Sure thing - if I showed a car to roman citizens, do you think they would say oh yeah, it's just science at work, or would they begin to worship me as a God? People had limited understanding of scientific principles so things like magic were considered quiet valid. Please check your own bible for further proof...

As for the bible itself, please note the huge amounts of different bibles available today. From the King James version to the Good News bible version. Each one is slightly different to the next, the words changing around and sometimes passages left out.

And finally... When I said quick to appear before people, I do not mean appear before people have appeared. I mean to appear in front of somebody.
Also stew, you made a big mistake here... God appears to the people well before 0 A.D. Just check your old testament for that one...

*yawn*

Originally posted by PotatoStew


Care to support that claim?



How about that one? Any data to support that claim?



"Quick" to appear? I would hardly call the amount of time from human origins up until 0 A.D. "quick"! Even if all the miracles reported in the bible are true, they are still few and far between in the overall scheme of things.

[Paradox]

Conflicting interests. Each author wants his/her hero to act a certain way...some of which may contradict each other. Just a thought.

[stamenflicker]

I thought from our previous discussion that you don't base your faith on the truth or otherwise of miracles, or God's/Jesus's existence. I wonder why this seems so important to you now.

It's important because it is an insult to history, logic, and reason. The idea that there was no historical Jesus is ludicrous and held by people who have no knowledge of textual interpretation. Who Jesus was and what he did may be in question, but that he was is not, unless of course you are willing to question every author of the ancient world, so then what good is the analysis? Toss them all out, or use textual criticism to determine accuracy. To toss out Jesus and not Socrates, or Moses, or Shakespeare, or whoever is bigotry. That rubs me the wrong way.

Where did Jesus say he was God?

The book of John is chalked full of these sorts of quotes, starting with the first verse of chapter one. If John is too old for you (penned around 90-100AD) then we can go to the other gospels. I will post the references later.

How would modern Christians know how to cope with today's doubters? Where would the realism have gone to?

I doubt the author(s) of this new faith went through and inserted scores of these sorts of realist bits in an effort to come aross more authentic.

I sense some frustration in your recent posts.

Besides the lack of respect for a historical document, poor philosophy, idiocy, and bigotry, there is another reason: I take the time to study and read the sources presented by most posters in this forum. I weigh the evidence and draw conclusions. This whole Jesus didn't exist bit is lazy philosophy. It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed. It's like saying I don't have to bother raising my child, I'll just beat him while he's an infant and let instinct be his teacher.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

In reality, the text of the Bible was written by many people across thousands of years -- even Christians acknowledge that.

The last book of the current Christian canon (probably John) was written around within 75 years of the crucifixion. One hundred years is a stretch. 1,000 years is showing a lack of doing your homework.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

Then please, show me a piece of evidence for Jesus ever having existed.

No one can do that. No one can give you evidence that Julius Ceasar existed either. We do have documents that suggest they both existed. You have determined that all the documents regarding Jesus, collected together in the New Testament suggest nothing. I disagree.

Flick

[PotatoStew]

Impy:

Sure thing - if I showed a car to roman citizens, do you think they would say oh yeah, it's just science at work, or would they begin to worship me as a God?

What does this have to do with anything? No one was bringing cars back in time at any point. Anybody fooling anyone else back then would have had to do it using principles that were commonly known at the time... unless you are suggesting time travel? Furthermore, people are fooled by hucksters today, so I think it's just a kind of cultural bigotry to say that folks were any more gullible back then than they are today.

As for the bible itself, please note the huge amounts of different bibles available today. From the King James version to the Good News bible version. Each one is slightly different to the next, the words changing around and sometimes passages left out.


You're talking about different translations. This is done to keep up with our changing language to enable people to understand what was written. If that's all you're referring to, then what's the big deal? Those kinds of changes don't affect doctrine or the meat of the message at all. This is like if you bought an English translation of a book originally written in Spanish and then complained that the text had been altered!

As far as passages being left out, that's true, but the passages in question are also peripheral issues that don't affect the main thrust of the text, and such passages are only a small percentage of the entire text. Furthermore, the way we know that some passages might be better left out is because we have so many copies of the manuscripts from throughout the ages. This allows textual critics to gain a better understanding of what the originals most likely said, thereby ensuring that we have a more accurate knowledge of the bible.

I mean to appear in front of somebody.

So in what way was the appearance "quick"?

Also stew, you made a big mistake here... God appears to the people well before 0 A.D. Just check your old testament for that one...


No, you said "It seems to me God and Jesus were quick to appear" (emphasis added)... Jesus didn't appear to people until around 0 A.D. Just check your Old Testament.

zzzz....

[toddjh]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
In reality, the text of the Bible was written by many people across thousands of years -- even Christians acknowledge that.

The last book of the current Christian canon (probably John) was written around within 75 years of the crucifixion. One hundred years is a stretch. 1,000 years is showing a lack of doing your homework.

You seem to want to consider the gospels in a vacuum; that seems very odd to me. I was referring to the entire text of what is now considered the Bible, which is necessary to understand the gospels in context.

Jeremy

[Shroud of Akron]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stamenflicker

I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

to control people would be the motivation, and as long as your not the one dying, it would be worth it.

Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

more than one author, the multiple gospels should be evidence enough.

Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

if you are writing a story to teach someone something, you need to have an antagonist. besides, jesus was teaching those people, to make them seem more real, the deity is the only one that is perfect, the rest have to strive to be more like him.

Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

this makes your deity seem more human, therefore more lovable. more good selling tactics.

Why record the discord and arguments of Peter and Paul in the early church? How does making up stories about arguments that never happened launch your make believe god into the realm of the unrefutable?

which one of these guys won the argument and became "the rock"? adds credibility to the victor.

Why bother to include meaningless details about events how many miles so and so walked to town, or where so and so was from?

makes it seem as if there may be some truth to the story if you can state some facts.

Why create characters that reject the constructed deity? If he was so amazing and you want everyone to follow him, why not make all your characters "wow"-ed by him?

if everyone was "wowed" by him, then there would be noone to prove wrong. ever read a story where everyone thought the same way and there was no conflict?

[The Fool]

Stamenflicker
If not being able to prove the existence of your god is not a big deal why get so worked up because there is so little independant evidence of the existence of Jesus? If Its that important to you that he existed just add it to your list of "things I believe" write "Jesus existed" at the bottom of the list and your done...Nobody can disprove it to your satisfaction.....But why oh why is it so important to you that other people have it on thier lists as well?

[ImpyTimpy]

Wow, talk about grasping at straws, but here goes:
Originally posted by PotatoStew
Impy:
What does this have to do with anything? No one was bringing cars back in time at any point. Anybody fooling anyone else back then would have had to do it using principles that were commonly known at the time... unless you are suggesting time travel? Furthermore, people are fooled by hucksters today, so I think it's just a kind of cultural bigotry to say that folks were any more gullible back then than they are today.

Please quote the point I made properly and address it... You're using a straw argument.. I originally said people believed magic(i don't mean trickery/sleight of hand) was real in those days. I also said to check your bible for proof.

You're talking about different translations. This is done to keep up with our changing language to enable people to understand what was written. If that's all you're referring to, then what's the big deal? Those kinds of changes don't affect doctrine or the meat of the message at all. This is like if you bought an English translation of a book originally written in Spanish and then complained that the text had been altered! As far as passages being left out, that's true, but the passages in question are also peripheral issues that don't affect the main thrust of the text, and such passages are only a small percentage of the entire text. Furthermore, the way we know that some passages might be better left out is because we have so many copies of the manuscripts from throughout the ages. This allows textual critics to gain a better understanding of what the originals most likely said, thereby ensuring that we have a more accurate knowledge of the bible.
There you go agreeing that the bible is altered throughout history, yet try to tell me the "gist" is the same. Yes, the main message is the same - if you don't believe in God you're gonna get fried in Hell :p

So in what way was the appearance "quick"?
No, you said "It seems to me God and Jesus were quick to appear" (emphasis added)... Jesus didn't appear to people until around 0 A.D. Just check your Old Testament.

There you go grasping at straws again... God appears well before Jesus. Then Jesus appears after that. Hell, God apparently appears when the first humans walk the earth and so do God's angels! All sorts of weird magical **** happens all throughout the dark ages (saints and so on).. Why don't we see this in the present, learned day?
zzzz....
Didn't realise thinking made you tired? ;)

[scribble]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Where did Jesus say he was God?

The book of John is chalked full of these sorts of quotes, starting with the first verse of chapter one. If John is too old for you (penned around 90-100AD) then we can go to the other gospels. I will post the references later.


Stamen,

How do you see this fact in relation to the many times Jesus himself and others referred to him as a man and the son of man?

Was Joseph Jesus' father? If so, what happened to virgin birth? If not, what happpened to the line of David?

Why do Jesus' own parents, brothers, and sisters mock him and say he is nothing special? Surely if he was born of a virgin, that would be a pretty big deal. Surely if he were the Son of God, that too would be a pretty big deal. At the very least, Mom would have to know. :P

I doubt the author(s) of this new faith went through and inserted scores of these sorts of realist bits in an effort to come aross more authentic.

I was just reading a concordance last night which mentions several instances of things like this happening. If you'd like me to point out a few examples just to show that it *does* happen, I'd be glad to, but in the meantime, what's your take on the J vs. P documents in Genesis?

This whole Jesus didn't exist bit is lazy philosophy. It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed.

So true. Unfortunately, I have studied the message and in my opinion it's incoherent.

-Chris

[scribble]

Originally posted by ImpyTimpy
Please quote the point I made properly and address it... You're using a straw argument.. I originally said people believed magic(i don't mean trickery/sleight of hand) was real in those days. I also said to check your bible for proof.


Many people today believe in magic, too. And many people today believe in Jesus, for that matter. Impy, if you're trying to show that people were more gullible then than now, you're going to have a tough run of it. If you read non-christian sources, you'll find there were plenty of critical thinkers around at the time, as well.

Anyhow, that people can be fooled is no argument for or against the Bible being truth. :P

-Chris

Edited to add: Why do people keep referring to 0 AD?

That's NOT when Jesus was born.

[Liamo]

Originally posted by PotatoStew

You're talking about different translations. This is done to keep up with our changing language to enable people to understand what was written. If that's all you're referring to, then what's the big deal? Those kinds of changes don't affect doctrine or the meat of the message at all. This is like if you bought an English translation of a book originally written in Spanish and then complained that the text had been altered!

As far as passages being left out, that's true, but the passages in question are also peripheral issues that don't affect the main thrust of the text, and such passages are only a small percentage of the entire text. Furthermore, the way we know that some passages might be better left out is because we have so many copies of the manuscripts from throughout the ages. This allows textual critics to gain a better understanding of what the originals most likely said, thereby ensuring that we have a more accurate knowledge of the bible.


PotatoStew,

Have you read [url]The Formation of the New Testament Canon (http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/NTcanon.html) by Richard Carrier?

It will show you clearly how a particular sect's political agenda was more important than accuracy when it came to deciding which texts would become "official".

extract:
Contrary to common belief, there was never a one-time, truly universal decision as to which books should be included in the Bible._ It took over a century of the proliferation of numerous writings before anyone even bothered to start picking and choosing, and then it was largely a cumulative, individual and happenstance event, guided by chance and prejudice more than objective and scholarly research, until priests and academics began pronouncing what was authoritative and holy, and even they were not unanimous. Every church had its favored books, and since there was nothing like a clearly-defined orthodoxy until the 4th century, there were in fact many simultaneous literary traditions._ The illusion that it was otherwise is created by the fact that the church that came out on top simply preserved texts in its favor and destroyed or let vanish opposing documents._ Hence what we call "orthodoxy" is simply "the church that won."

Liam

[BobM]

It's obvious to me that most of you, Stamenflicker, [excluded] haven't done much research into the biblical studies. Why get involved in an arguement from ignorance?

If you aren't interested in the field, don't comment on it.

Anyway, I sincerely believe that anyone who makes the effort to research both sides of the biblical camp, will come to the conclusion that we simply don't have enough evidence for much during that period of time, and one could conclude the issue of Jesus's existence either way.

His godhood is another question entirely. Of course, such an extraordinary claim requires strong evidence for a rational skeptical person to accept, and such evidence does not exist in archeaology. So any evidential arguement for Jesus's godhood is bound for failure.

[oops]

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Since it seems there are some who would like to say Jesus never existed and the gospels and other New Testament writings were all contrived, I would think you should answer a few questions:

I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

Why record the discord and arguments of Peter and Paul in the early church? How does making up stories about arguments that never happened launch your make believe god into the realm of the unrefutable?

Why bother to include meaningless details about events how many miles so and so walked to town, or where so and so was from? Why create characters that reject the constructed deity? If he was so amazing and you want everyone to follow him, why not make all your characters "wow"-ed by him?

It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.

Otherwise we are dealing with a mind superior to Shakespeare and his creations.

Flick

The bible is the most brilliant pieces of political propaganda in history, god himself would be glad to have written it.

[PotatoStew]

Imp:

Please quote the point I made properly and address it... You're using a straw argument.. I originally said people believed magic(i don't mean trickery/sleight of hand) was real in those days. I also said to check your bible for proof.


A strawman? I was using the example you yourself gave about cars and showed why this was irrelevant to your claim. Who's grasping at straws now? Furthermore, my point about hucksters addresses your claim. Even furthermore, scribble brought up an excellent point (thanks scribble) that goes along with what I was saying: people believe in real magic today.

In short, your claim was "back in those days people were easily fooled and impressed" and "things like magic were considered quiet valid". However as scribble and I pointed out, these things are true of people today as well. So you haven't at all shown that people back then were any different than modern man in this respect.

There you go agreeing that the bible is altered throughout history, yet try to tell me the "gist" is the same.

Ah! Now you're getting it. Yes, it's been altered in the sense that it's been translated into languages we can understand, but any changes in content have been innocuous. So what relevance does this have to anything? Why even bring it up?

God appears well before Jesus. Then Jesus appears after that. Hell, God apparently appears when the first humans walk the earth and so do God's angels!

So how much time generally passes between God's visits?

All sorts of weird magical **** happens all throughout the dark ages (saints and so on)

What relevance is this to the matter of the NT accounts of Jesus? You're all over the place here... try to focus!

Didn't realise thinking made you tired?

:p :) Being up at 1 in the morning makes me tired. :)

scribble:

Why do people keep referring to 0 AD?

That's NOT when Jesus was born.

I know, I know... It's a close enough approximation though when I don't remember the exact year.

Liamo:

I haven't read it, but I'll try to take a look at it later.

[scribble]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
addresses your claim. Even furthermore, scribble brought up an excellent point (thanks scribble) that goes along with what I was saying: people believe in real magic today.


Hey, no problem! :)


Ah! Now you're getting it. Yes, it's been altered in the sense that it's been translated into languages we can understand, but any changes in content have been innocuous.

So I'm curious -- what's your take on the J vs. P documents in Genesis?

I know, I know... It's a close enough approximation though when I don't remember the exact year.

Okay, it was nitpicky. :)

-Chris

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
Care to support that claim?


Given the number of "miracle workers" that wandered around the countryside in those days, I'd say those people were highly superstitious and prone to believe slight of hand as being the work of divine forces.

Of course, today no one would be dumb enough to fall for that stuff, right?

[Diogenes]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stamenflicker
I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


toddjh says:
I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SF?

This was one of your questions. Toddjh made an interesting counter point.

What is your response?

[FireGarden]

Hi, Flick. I hope you're not angry at me.
This whole Jesus didn't exist bit is lazy philosophy. It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed.
I think you have this wrong - at least as far as I'm concerned. I think the message should be considered regardless. I didn't think that you were one of those that valued the singer and not the song.

In the other thread I provided examples of Archimedes and Buddha as people whose work is undoubtly more important than there existence. I could add more. Euclid, Shakespeare, somebody even mentioned Alexander the Great. Can you imagine? I don't know what the motive was - maybe to show how ridiculus this whole thing can become.

I've studied history only a small amount. Enough to know that it asks the questions that I'm not interested in answering. (One assignment asked "Was Archimedes the greatest Greek Mathematician?" - who cares? I couldn't tell you who's the greatest today let alone 2000 yrs ago.) History has nothing to do with learning the errors of the past, more to do with pop culture for those who don't fancy the Spice Girls. (In 1000 words or less: were they the new Beatles?)

PotatoStew:
You're talking about different translations. This is done to keep up with our changing language to enable people to understand what was written. If that's all you're referring to, then what's the big deal?
The King James version uses "servants" were as the Gideon new International uses "Slaves"
“Slaves [servants], submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, ..."1 Peter 2:18
Yes, I know I'm an atheist fundy.

[BobM]

History has nothing to do with learning the errors of the past, more to do with pop culture for those who don't fancy the Spice Girls. (In 1000 words or less: were they the new Beatles?)History as the pop culture of the past. That's fantastic! I have to remember that.

[FireGarden]

Originally posted by BobM
History as the pop culture of the past. That's fantastic! I have to remember that.
Sorry, I was in sarcasm overdrive when I wrote that. Normally I would have edited that out. But I do think there is too much quibbling over difficult to decide issues that really won't change the world one way or the other. (Not that the existence of Jesus is one such - I can appreciate why that is so important to so many people. It's just that if someone believes Jesus did anything worthwhile then his existence shouldn't be the most important thing)

But this... No that...... But.......
....... Oh This apology is too long! Pretend I was joking!

[chrisjt]

Posted by Potatostew:
Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth

Potatostew, I was just wondering why nobody has responded to this post. Maybe it's because you answered your own question.

;)

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by chrisjt
Posted by Potatostew:


Potatostew, I was just wondering why nobody has responded to this post. Maybe it's because you answered your own question.

;)

Maybe it's because no one felt it was worth any attention.;)

If this was so profound, why did the Christian community proceed to degenerate women for the next 2,000 years?

Chew on that.. Wink, wink. Nod, Nod.

[Yahzi]

Impy
Assuming Jesus did in fact exist please remember that back in those days people were easily fooled and impressed.
Back in those days?

In the age of Scientology, magnetic shoes, and FREAKING CROP CIRCLES, you assert our ancestors were guillible?

Potato
Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth
I've actually seen people argue that the contradictions in the Gospels prove their authenticity.

This is just crazy talk. There could be a thousand explanations that have nothing to do with whether or not the story is true.

For example, what if the story was being told by a woman?

These stories were handed down, word of mouth, before they were written. Maybe it was the women who were doing the handing down. And the women you talk about actually means (in most of the Gospels) Mary Magdalene, who was already established as a main character in the story.

This is really specious thinking on your part, Potato. I think nobody responded to it, because no-one wanted to embarrass you.

I, of course, have no such reservations. :D

[Yahzi]

It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed.
The Bible agrees.

1Cr 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.

[wert]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Impy

Back in those days?

In the age of Scientology, magnetic shoes, and FREAKING CROP CIRCLES, you assert our ancestors were guillible?
You left out "Talking with the dead", Dowsing, and "Free" energy machines. ;)

[arcticpenguin]

--------------------------------
Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth
--------------------------------

Let's consider this. You are trying to establish a new religion. Do you try to appeal to

A) The people who have power and are thriving under the current system

or

B) People who are out of power under the current system? i.e. the poor, the downtrodden, and yes, the women.

I read recently of a large group of HIndus that converted en masse to Buddhism because they were sick of the mistreatment they received as the lowest of the low in the caste system.

[headscratcher4]

I had a college professor in a course on religion proffer a theory about why women saw the empty tomb first. His argument is that it is not a factual description of an event – though the author believed the event occurred (i.e. the empty tomb and the risen Jesus). It is a story specifically designed to communicate and describe an event so that it communicates a critical theological message about Jesus and his identity as the Messiah.

Basically, he contended that the story was a literary device (note that the players change depending on which Gospel you are looking at, as does the sequence). The object was twofold. First, to set up the test of faith in a risen Jesus for the men. The women see the empty tomb and speak with the angle, go back and tell the men. The men don’t believe the women – as women were considered un-reliable sources – and had to see the empty tomb for themselves.

Second, it was also a story about belief and the capacity to believe in a supernatural event, and the challenge that a dead Jesus (vs. a risen Christ) posed to the followers of Jesus the man. In this professors estimation, the point wasn’t so much that the story was seeking to convey a fact – i.e. a fact about a particular sequence of events rather than the risen Jesus (for clearly the author believed in a risen Jesus) – but rather as a way of helping to explain the translation of faith from that placed in a man, to that placed in the risen Jesus and the fulfillment of God’s promise of salvation and life after death through the sacrifice of the Messiah.

Further, the empty tomb was a device specifically to demonstrate that faith is the key, not fact or event. I.e. Jesus body isn’t what makes him important as god’s instrument for man’s salvation – rather it is the lack of a body – sort of anti-evidence. Faith is in the empty tomb and the promise, it isn’t in the man or the facts of his life.

I found it an interesting interpretation, though I am sure that many a believer in the Gospels as descriptions of factual events would take issue with the theory.

Just a thought….

[PotatoStew]

I think nobody responded to it, because no-one wanted to embarrass you.


:rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:

As if anyone is ever concerned with things like that around here. Give me a break!

I'll have responses to everything else later on (possibly towards the end of the weekend), but I just had to give that an eyeroll.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by headscratcher4
I had a college professor in a course on religion proffer a theory about why women ......

Snip, snip, snip....


Just a thought….

Sheesh headscratcher4,

Where do you get the idea that anyone is looking for a rational critique on this matter?


--------------------------------------------------------
Enjoyed it very much. Thanks for sharing..

[PotatoStew]

Originally posted by Diogenes


Sheesh headscratcher4,

Where do you get the idea that anyone is looking for a rational critique on this matter?


I actually thought headscratcher's post gave a far better theory for answering my question than the others that were offered.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by PotatoStew


I actually thought headscratcher's post gave a far better theory for answering my question than the others that were offered.





I hope you perceived I was joking, I had intended for my final comments to convey the intention that I was complementing headscratcher on the rationality of his comments. Something that some of us do not always manage so well.

[headscratcher4]

rationality ... Something that some of us do not always manage so well

I usually live in this neighborhood, so thanks :)

[PotatoStew]

I hope you perceived I was joking,

I did.

I had intended for my final comments to convey the intention that I was complementing headscratcher on the rationality of his comments.

They did.

:)

[wolfgirl]

Originally posted by Diogenes
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by stamenflicker
I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


toddjh says:
I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SF?

This was one of your questions. Toddjh made an interesting counter point.

What is your response? YES!!! I, too, was eagerly awaiting the answer to that question, but none has been forthcoming.

This one, too:

Originally posted by scribble
Why do Jesus' own parents, brothers, and sisters mock him and say he is nothing special? Surely if he was born of a virgin, that would be a pretty big deal. Surely if he were the Son of God, that too would be a pretty big deal. At the very least, Mom would have to know.Anyone? Anyone? (Is there an echo in here?)

[stamenflicker]

I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception.

[stamenflicker]

You seem to want to consider the gospels in a vacuum; that seems very odd to me. I was referring to the entire text of what is now considered the Bible, which is necessary to understand the gospels in context.

While it is true the bible was translated into other languages (and continues to be) since it was written, as a person who has read the work in Greek (which was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine, or commoner dialect, splashed with Attic morphology) and can say with authority the work was finished within a century or so of "Jesus" life. So this 1,000 year talk is meaningless.

Furthermore, the Koine uses (as opposed to classical as in Plato's works) indicates not only the dating, but the voice, which was undoubtably that of less educated writers.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

If not being able to prove the existence of your god is not a big deal why get so worked up because there is so little independant evidence of the existence of Jesus?

Like I've always maintained, whether Jesus really existed or not, I could care less. I've made my choice based on the message. BUT to use a lazy approach to existing texts and ignore a host of very intelligent people who have studied this sort of thing is offensive.

It's like me telling a molecular biologist he has no idea what he is talking about just because I don't believe in molecular biology. That would be about stupid, as is anyone who neglects textual criticism of the New Testament because they are not Christian.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

what's your take on the J vs. P documents in Genesis?

To answer this and your other questions, yes, it is very clear that many parts of the Bible are later insertions. Not excluding the references of Jesus to earlier prophecy. I've actually had the priveledge of translating parts of Genesis from photographs of the earliest known parchements, and it is very clear to me that portions of the work are insertions from latter authors, perhaps even 500 years later than the original work.

But most insertions are trivial and play little part in theology formation.

Flick

[NoDeity]

If you are not already aware of it, some of you may be interested to know that a criminal trial regarding the Church's claims about the reality of Jesus Christ is beginning in Italy.

Luigi Cascioli has filed a criminal complaint "to denounce the abuse the Catholic Church commits by availing itself of its prestige, to inculcate, as being real and historical, facts that are really just inventions".

Cascioli is of the view that he has sufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that Jesus Christ did not exist.

More info here: http://www.anti-religions.org/english/cascioli_denonciation.htm

Brad

[stamenflicker]

Cascioli is of the view that he has sufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that Jesus Christ did not exist.

That's hilarious. Let's go ahead and put the ancient world on trial while we are at it.

[scribble]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
what's your take on the J vs. P documents in Genesis?

To answer this and your other questions, yes, it is very clear that many parts of the Bible are later insertions. Not excluding the references of Jesus to earlier prophecy. I've actually had the priveledge of translating parts of Genesis from photographs of the earliest known parchements, and it is very clear to me that portions of the work are insertions from latter authors, perhaps even 500 years later than the original work.

But most insertions are trivial and play little part in theology formation.

Flick

Flick,

Thank you for your reply. I'm confused by your second point. Clearly you have studied this in more depth than I have, but last time I looked into the J vs. P documents, I had the impression that large portions of Genesis were one or the other. How can the insertions be trivial when there are *so freaking many* of them? And again, I just picked Genesis as an easy target. What about the ending of Matthew, or any number of other examples I could look for?

If "most" changes are trivial, do you allow that some may not be?

Also, you mention studying Jesus references to earlier prophecy. What's the current theory for why so many new testament references either badly misquote scripture or refer to scripture that cannot be found at all? This is just a point of curiousity for me, I'm not trying to suggest that it means anything.

-Chris

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Cascioli is of the view that he has sufficient evidence to demonstrate in a court of law that Jesus Christ did not exist.

That's hilarious. Let's go ahead and put the ancient world on trial while we are at it.

That is what will end up happening when the living on trial (religious, psychics, dowsers, etc) have all been eliminated :D

JK

[Shroud of Akron]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
While it is true the bible was translated into other languages (and continues to be) since it was written, as a person who has read the work in Greek (which was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine, or commoner dialect, splashed with Attic morphology) and can say with authority the work was finished within a century or so of "Jesus" life. So this 1,000 year talk is meaningless.

Furthermore, the Koine uses (as opposed to classical as in Plato's works) indicates not only the dating, but the voice, which was undoubtably that of less educated writers.

Flick most of the books that i have read concerning the history of the bible claim that the individual books were not even commited to paper until 300 c.e.

furthermore, what of the alternate texts? why not accept books written by the gnostics? what about the books the catholics chose to not include in the bible? the pseudopigripha? there are more than that, but why not accept all the contradictions?

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I don't understand why this would confuse you. As a Christian (I assume), don't you believe that other religions were invented or created by people? What do you suppose their motivation was? Why have people been willing to die for those religions?

Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception.

The 'aware of' part is an acceptable out.
Question dissmissed.


So all you have done is ignore the question.

You say: " Chritstianity is valid because people are willing to die for it."

toddjh says: " Why, since you wouldn't consider that as validation for any other religion."


So you say: " Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception. "


This is otherwise known as " changing the subject ".




To restate what can be deduced here:

1. Martyrdom is evidence of the validity of the Christian religion.

2. Martyrdom is not acceptable evidence for the validity of any other religion.



Gee, stamenflicker, for someone who was all twisted up by the 'double standard' of the 'Jesus Mythers'.. Wasn't that the reason you started this thread?

[stamenflicker]

Diogenes,

I didn't change the subject at all. If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing. Maybe you'll hit a homer, because as I stated, I'm not 100% sure. Toddjh's argument is not consistent with the facts however. The fact that I would die for my faith 2,000 years later says nothing of the followers who made immediate choices in the face of what many on this board deem "known fabrications." That is unreasonable. Would you like to try defend Toddjh's response in the light of this information?

Flick

[stamenflicker]

most of the books that i have read concerning the history of the bible claim that the individual books were not even commited to paper until 300 c.e.

Since the latter half of the N.T. is mostly letters, they were for sure existing in written form. Since most of them were penned by Paul, they were probably written before 50 AD. The earliest known manuscripts (believed to be copies and variations of an original source "Q" have been dated back as far as 180 AD.

furthermore, what of the alternate texts? why not accept books written by the gnostics? what about the books the catholics chose to not include in the bible? the pseudopigripha? there are more than that, but why not accept all the contradictions?

We can rule out contradictions since the New Testament is chalked full of them. Most of the books were rejected because their authorship or authenticity could not be established, or was in question. Additionally, the majority of the gnostic gospels were written down between 200-300 AD.

Flick

[stamenflicker]

I had the impression that large portions of Genesis were one or the other.

Actually most of the O.T. is written this way, not just Genesis. For example the book of Job is likely from the J camp. In Genesis for example, chapter 1 is a J author, but chapter 2 is a P author, hence the contradictions.

Whether J or P, the central message is the same:

1) God is.
2) Man is a mess.
3) God longs to establish a relationship with man.

Flick

[toddjh]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing.

How about the Branch Davidians? They weren't all murdered, of course, but a significant number of them chose to die for their beliefs at Waco. Does that legitimize their "religion?"

The fact that I would die for my faith 2,000 years later says nothing of the followers who made immediate choices in the face of what many on this board deem "known fabrications."

Perhaps they were deluded, as David Koresh and his followers were. Perhaps they were simply unable to avoid being killed (if you try to start a socially disobedient cult, you might end up paying the consequences, especially in ancient Rome -- or Waco), and their deaths were recorded as martyrdoms by their sincere followers who didn't want to trivialize those they saw as holy figures.

Or, perhaps, a real person was at the core of the Jesus stories, and they were sincere in their beliefs. I'm not in the "Jesus definitely did not exist" camp; I think it's possible that much of the gospels are based on events that happened to one or more real people -- I just don't think it's reasonable to assume that every word is true, especially with all the supernatural hocus-pocus. To be honest, I see many parallels between Jesus and David Koresh. Christianity really wasn't much more than a Branch Davidian-style cult until Constantine gave it the backing of the Roman Empire.

Jeremy

[chrisjt]

Posted by PotatoStew:
Another item to add to Flick's original list: Why would you have *women* as the first witnesses to the empty tomb and among the first witnesses to the resurrected Jesus if a woman's testimony in that culture at that time was basically worthless? Why would women figure so prominently in the stories at all being as they were more or less second class citizens, unless it was the truth
My response:

Potatostew, I was just wondering why nobody has responded to this post. Maybe it's because you answered your own question.

Posted by Diogenes:
Maybe it's because no one felt it was worth any attention.
If this was so profound, why did the Christian community proceed to denegrate women for the next 2,000 years?
Chew on that.. Wink, wink. Nod, Nod.

Diogenes, it seems that my last post was a little ambiguous(I didn't think my tag-line was though). What I meant was, that by asking that question, PotatoStew demonstrated that including witnesses who lack credibility can, to some people, add credibility to the story.

Of course, now that you've implicated me as a Christian, I'll have to sue for libel.:D

[Yahzi]

Christianity is the only religion I'm aware of that sprung up in the midst of persecution. So much so, that it's very first follwers died martyrs. No other religion faced this adversity at inception.
Mormons.

IIRC, several them actually died from persecution.

BTW, a moment's thought would show that virtually every new religion is persecuted by the establishment at its inception.

Amazing how much easier it is to defend Christianity when you are ignorant.

[homunculus]

> I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

With respect, all of your questions are very niave, indicative of a flimsy grasp of anything beyond the revisionist, Christian take on history which strives to paint the rise of the Church as the major civilizing force behind Western society (a view which virtually no mainstream, non-Christian scholar now regards as tenable). This is just self-aggrandizing nonsense, flimsy but seductive propaganda, of the kind that anyone who has studied the rise of "Uncle Joe" Stalin will be all too familiar.

Throughout history, religion has been a major cohesive force in society, with religious myth being the principal way in which ethical systems, conventions, traditions, alliances and emnities, forms of social organisation, rituals etc. etc. were encoded, and passed down through generations as unsullied truth. Religion has been the toehold by which the power-hungry manipulate the needy, a powerful tool for social engineering. Millions upon millions have died for countless different (and equally misguided) faiths, inculcated into them from birth, convictions in mysterious, invisible intelligences of one kind or another - in this respect no different from your Jesus or Jehovah.

Only recently, Muhammed Atta lead a group of religious fanatics - adherents of a corrupted form of Islam influenced by the Marxian revolutionist thinking of Europe - into flying jumbo jets into non-civilian targets across the United States. What was HIS motivation, do you think? - and if this is too extreme an example, how do you explain the rise of Islam among the many millions of ordinary, peace-loving people of the Middle East and beyond (a faith which, you simply MUST concede, is based on a Holy Book very simular to yours, a book which WAS fabricated, and which WAS successfully propagated, DESPITE the total lack of evidence to support it)?

> Second, why include in your make-believe story controversial things or contradictory claims? For example, Jesus reportedly said, "Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." Wait a minute Jesus also said he was god.

Perhaps you should read your Qu'uran. Come to think of it, read The Book of Mormon. Or study the ancient pagan cults of Mithra, or Dionysus, or Horus, or any of countless suffering-saviour myths of the ancient world in which miracle-mongering plays a part. Turning water into wine is not new - Horus did that. Walking on water is not new either - Bhudda did that (he also fed 500 people from a basket of cakes). Raising mummies from the dead? Horus did that too - and the mummy was called El-Laz-Eros (sound a bit like "Lazurus", does it?)

There is nothing new in the Bible.

> Why would you constantly insult your first follwers as Jesus did his disciples? Wouldn't you want them to be heros of the faith? True believers? Why write about their unbelief? Doesn't that hurt your cause in religious construction?

The Saviour ALWAYS suffered, and was ignored and persecuted in the ancient Pagan cults. Your Church just forgot to tell you that part.

> Why make your god anxious about his death as he prayed in the garden? Why record his last words as "My God my God why have you forsaken me." ?? This doesn't sound like a well though out construction to convince the world of your deity.

A moment ago you said Jesus WAS a god - THE god, in fact...so who is he talking to here?!

> It's pretty clear that something happened with a man named Jesus, and a bunch of people were trying to figure out exactly what it was. And some of them reached different conclusions about some of the minor things.

Whatever. What characterized Greek culture was a desire to question the mythical view of the world - it was the birth of criticism, and marked the beginning of the slow trawl out of religious dogma and authoritarianism (which is happenning DESPITE, not because of the oppression and ignorance of the Church) which even now threatens to swallow up parts of America, great swathes of the Middle East, and much of the developing world. Science is characterised by a desire to embrace uncertainty, to weed out and learn from our errors, to correct and modify and revise existing knowledge, so that we might grow, and make progress; whereas religion in general is characterised by the childish fear of uncertainty, the need to return to the womb-like security of Absolutes, a desire to bolster, and to strengthen existing dogmas, and to surpress new ideas, and to stiffle creativity and liberal enquiry wherever it finds it.

But I've run out of time now...

Paul Hayward.

[homunculus]

I just realised that you cited the presence of contradictions in the Bible as STRENGTHENING your case that it is the work of a omniscient being?!

For goodness sake, man, surely this is a transparently idiotic claim?

The reason there are such violent contradictions in the Bible is that it is a work of HUMAN INVENTION, like all the other "holy" books and scriptures people place their unquestioning faith in...

Paul Hayward.

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by chrisjt
Posted by PotatoStew:

My response:



Posted by Diogenes:


Diogenes, it seems that my last post was a little ambiguous(I didn't think my tag-line was though). What I meant was, that by asking that question, PotatoStew demonstrated that including witnesses who lack credibility can, to some people, add credibility to the story.

Of course, now that you've implicated me as a Christian, I'll have to sue for libel.:D

Wasn't sure which camp you were in. While we must be prepared to give PotatoStew proper credit, where deserved, we must be clear when it comes to " for" or "against". :D

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Diogenes,
snip..
If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing.
Flick

....all? Do you ever bother to read what you have written?

How do you expect anyone to take you seriously?

[Gregor]

First, what's with the J vs. P documents from the OT?

OT contradiction analysis reached the conclusion that the contradictions represent a narrative history of two communities. They are referred to as E vs. J for Elohim vs. Jehovah (Yahweh). The names arose because the texts have different names for God.

I assume from the context of your discussion, that this is what you were referring to - but correct me if I am wrong.


Second, stop using martyrdom as proof of anything. Initial christians were not persecuted because of their beliefs - they were simply other Jews. The Romans did not bother them any more than they bothered other Jews. Until Pliny wrote to Trajan in 112 CE, wherein he indicated that he suggested killing those people called Christians if they would not offer incense to the emperor, there were no real martyrs.

[Gregor]

One interesting theory (Crossan, Birth of Christianity) is that women in the ancient middle east (especially jews) kept up a mourning narrative for their dead. So it was natural that women would have repeated the story of the works and death of Jesus.

It would have not been a great leap to invent the story of running into angels at the tomb.

[Liamo]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Since the latter half of the N.T. is mostly letters, they were for sure existing in written form. Since most of them were penned by Paul, they were probably written before 50 AD. The earliest known manuscripts (believed to be copies and variations of an original source "Q" have been dated back as far as 180 AD.

We can rule out contradictions since the New Testament is chalked full of them. Most of the books were rejected because their authorship or authenticity could not be established, or was in question. Additionally, the majority of the gnostic gospels were written down between 200-300 AD.

Flick

Stamenflicker,

What are your sources?

Liam

[scribble]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
I had the impression that large portions of Genesis were one or the other.

Actually most of the O.T. is written this way, not just Genesis. For example the book of Job is likely from the J camp. In Genesis for example, chapter 1 is a J author, but chapter 2 is a P author, hence the contradictions.

Whether J or P, the central message is the same:

1) God is.
2) Man is a mess.
3) God longs to establish a relationship with man.

Flick

Well, I thought the point in question here was whether anyone had practiced Biblical revisionism. IT seems to me if large portions of the Bible were written by someone else at a later date, that's the very definition of revisionism.

On another point entirerly, you've done something here I've never seen done before: You['ve outlined a basic premise for religion that I think can actually be clearly supported by the Bible. I wonder if you could go from the three points you made above to Christianity as it's preached and practiced without losing that "clearly supported by the Bible" part -- I've not been able to figure out hos the Bible supports Christianity the way it's taught today -- at all.

-Chris

[scribble]

Originally posted by Gregor
OT contradiction analysis reached the conclusion that the contradictions represent a narrative history of two communities. They are referred to as E vs. J for Elohim vs. Jehovah (Yahweh). The names arose because the texts have different names for God.

Er. I assume you're correct. I was going from memory and it's been a long time since I've looked this stuff up. :)


I assume from the context of your discussion, that this is what you were referring to - but correct me if I am wrong

Absolutely..


Second, stop using martyrdom as proof of anything. Initial christians were not persecuted because of their beliefs - they were simply other Jews. The Romans did not bother them any more than they bothered other Jews. Until Pliny wrote to Trajan in 112 CE, wherein he indicated that he suggested killing those people called Christians if they would not offer incense to the emperor, there were no real martyrs.

Well, the letters written by the apostles seem to see martyrdom everywhere. Plus, John the Baptist and Jesus Christ might disagree with you here...

But I could see it being true that the early Christians in general were not persecuted. Just a few important ones in specific? Is this what you're saying?

-Chris


-Chris

[homunculus]

> I'm no expert in religion making but it seems if you were creating a god or a faith you would need a motivation. What was it? And would it be worth dying for?

With respect, your questions are very niave, and indicative of a tenuous grasp of anything beyond the revisionist, Christian take on history, which seeks to paint the Church as the main civilizing thrust behind the growth of Western civilization (a view which virtually no mainstream, non-Christian scholar now regards as tenable). This is just self-aggrandising nonsense, flimsy propaganda of the kind which anyone who has studied the rise of "Uncle Joe" Stalin will be all too familiar.

Throughout history, religion has provided social cohesion, and religious myth has been the principal way in which ethical systems, forms of social organisation, traditions, rituals, alliances and emnities etc. have been encoded, and passed on through generations as unsullied truth by some centralised authority. Religion has been the toehold by which the power-hungry manipulate the needy, a powerful force for social engineering. Millions upon millions have died for numerous (equally misguided) faiths, inculcated into them from birth, unshakeable convictions in mysterious, invisible intelligences of one kind or another, in this respect no different from your Jesus or Jehovah.

Only recently, Mohamed Atta lead a group of religious fanatics - adherents of a corrupted form of Islam influenced by the socialist revolutionist thinking of Europe - into flying jumbo jets into non-military targets across the US. What was HIS motivation? If this example is too extreme for you, then perhaps you could explain the spread of traditional Islam among the many millions of ordinary, peace-loving people of the Middle East - a faith which, you simply MUST concede, is based on a Holy Book very simular in character to yours, which WAS fabricated, and which WAS successfully propagated, DESPITE the total lack of evidence to support it?

The critical tradition began in ancient Greece, and marked the beginning of the slow trawl out of religious dogma and political authoritarianism (which continued DESPITE, not because of, the oppression and censorship of the Church) which culminates in natural philosophy, modern science, democracy, and the free market. This new tradition is characterised by a desire to embrace uncertainty, to recognise that no authority has the infallible truth, to weed out and learn from our errors, to challenge, and to revise, and to extend our knowledge, and by this method to grow, and to make progress, and to be responsible for ourselves, and critical of our rulers. This is in sharp contrast to most (although not all) religious traditions, which embody the wish to return to the womb-like security of childhood, and hold to the comforting belief that Absolute Truth is accessible to some Earthly authority, a view which inevitably paves the way for authoritarian systems which seek to surpress creativity, criticism and free enquiry wherever they find it.

Paul Hayward.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
Diogenes,

I didn't change the subject at all. If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing.

Christianity's first followers were not murdered. Wayne Meeks, professor of Biblical Studies at Yale, tells us:

After a long period in which the persecutions of Christianity were really spasmodic, local, [and] involved very few people, suddenly in the middle of the 3rd century, the year 250, the Emperor Decius decides that Christians are a real enemy of the Roman order, that they must be dealt with empire-wide, with all the police power that the emperor can bring to bear upon them.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/why/martyrs.html


Thus, Christianity had about 200 years to take root before any serious attempt was made to destroy it.

However, to answer your other question, Zoroastrians were also heavily persecuted by Alexander the Great and the Arab Muslims. Followers were killed, temples destroyed, and sacred texts burned.

[ReasonableDoubt]

stamenflicker wrote:
[I] can say with authority the work was finished within a century or so of "Jesus" life.
What "work" and whose "authority" based on what scholarship?

[PotatoStew]

christjt:

What I meant was, that by asking that question, PotatoStew demonstrated that including witnesses who lack credibility can, to some people, add credibility to the story.

While the inclusion of those witnesses may add credibility to the story *now* -- since we now know that women can be credible witnesses -- I don't think we can expect that anyone *then* would have thought that an inclusion of such witnesses would add credibility. For instance, if you want someone to believe a story you are telling, do you include the made-up testimony of someone that you and others believe to be unreliable? How would that help your case? It might help it later when it is found that the person thought to be generally unreliable turns out to be generally reliable after all, but having no way to know that it would turn out that way it's doubtful you would invent that person's testimony to try to bolster your case. In my opinion.

scribble:

I think you asked me earlier what I thought of the J vs P (E vs J?) issue.... I actually don't know much about it, so I don't have an opinion on it. I'll have to look into it sometime. Just didn't want you to think I was avoiding the question.

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by PotatoStew
While the inclusion of those witnesses may add credibility to the story *now* -- since we now know that women can be credible witnesses -- I don't think we can expect that anyone *then* would have thought that an inclusion of such witnesses would add credibility. For instance, if you want someone to believe a story you are telling, do you include the made-up testimony of someone that you and others believe to be unreliable? How would that help your case?

As we all know, Mark's is the earliest Gospel. However, his version originally ended with the women going to the tomb and discovering that it was empty -- period, that was the end of the story. There was nothing about angels, Christ appearances, or anything else. That stuff was added later.

It's entirely possible that women did play an important role and this role is reflected in the gospel stories, but so what? There can be many aspects of a fictional story that are factually true, while the story itself is largely fiction. It's true that a Dust Bowl and a Great Depression really happened in the 1930s, but this doesn't make the Grapes of Wrath a true story.

[Gregor]

Take Genesis 7 - 9 (Noah's flood story).

Take a sheet of paper and bisect it.

In one column write one sentence about some particular act (e.g. Noah was 600 when the flood came).

In the other column, write the other sentence that says a similar - but not exactly the same thing (e.g. In the 600th year, 2nd month, 17th day, the rains came).

Do that for every substantive feature of the story, and you'll see that these are two stories cobbled together.

Further examples:

earth was wicked earth was violent

2 of each animal 7 of clean animals

sent out raven sent out dove

promised no more promised & sent a rainbow

[headscratcher4]

However, to answer your other question, Zoroastrians were also heavily persecuted by Alexander the Great and the Arab Muslims. Followers were killed, temples destroyed, and sacred texts burned.

As an aside, many Mezo-Americans (Aztecs, Mayans, Inca, etc.) were murdered by the Spanish with the active help of the Catholic church because they refused to bow-down to the Spanish and their god and church. Some refused to be slaves. Some refused the new religion. As a result and in my estimation, would and could be considered martyrs for their religion -- dying in Auto De'Fes, as it were, and bruning at the stake because they refused to bow before the Christian God. I am not sure why their martyrdom or sacrifice for their gods, beliefs and life style is any less than those of early Christian martyrs. Of course, they were brown people, saveges and heathens and their religion and gods were barbaric, so the fact that they were murdered for their bliefs doesn't count I guess.

Oh yes, I also seem to remeber that when Christianity came to Russia -- actualy the Kingdom of Kiev -- that prince Vladimir (I think that was his name), the converting soverign, purged his nobility of those who would not convert to Christianity. Were not these martyrs for the paganism of pre-christian Kiev? Just a thought...

[Diogenes]

Originally posted by headscratcher4



Oh yes, I also seem to remeber that when Christianity came to Russia -- actualy the Kingdom of Kiev -- that prince Vladimir (I think that was his name), the converting soverign, purged his nobility of those who would not convert to Christianity. Were not these martyrs for the paganism of pre-christian Kiev? Just a thought...


It was my understanding these martyrs were stuffed with butter and herbs, rolled in bread crumbs then deep fried until golden brown.:D

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Diogenes



It was my understanding these martyrs were stuffed with butter and herbs, rolled in bread crumbs then deep fried until golden brown.:D

Nice...:)

[wolfgirl]

It seems quite blatantly obvious to me that there have been people willing to die for all kinds of beliefs. I don't understand it, but it happens all the time. Any wacko with any kind of idea seems to be able to get some other people, equally wacko most likely, to believe their idea and be willing to give up their lives for it. Koresh, Jonestown, Heaven's Gate, those are just a few cases that anyone today should be quite familiar with. There must be tons more in every culture in every time. I hardly see how saying people are willing to martyr themselves for a belief proves that belief is true.

In biblical times, people were looking for a messiah, expecting one any day in fact, and along comes Jesus. Gets a few followers who believe he is that true messiah, dies on a cross, and soon those followers are spreading the word to other gullible folk, with the added bonus that "he rose from the dead."

As for when the stories were first written down, even if it was just a handful of years later, do you have any idea how a story can be distorted in just a short period of time? Ask a group of people who saw a car accident and you'll get as many stories as there are people. But say twenty years later (even five or ten years later), do you think you'd get anything even approaching the real story? I hardly think that's likely.

[stamenflicker]

As we continue to weigh only one of the body of questions I threw out, I think its important to note that again, none of the religions anyone has mentioned has its first followers being martyred.

What I meant by all the first followers is simply that Jesus "The Fabricator" and his 12 "Co-Conspirators," and Paul the "Great Liar," and Stephen the "Idiot," and scores of others are murdered during the alleged fabrication of this grand tale unlike ANY of the religions you have mentioned-- all for what reason? If marytdom was alone the reason to accept any faith, I'd conceed it's not much evidence. But given this within the body of other unlikely "fabrications" I'd say it makes a strong case.

Again, I'm asking to be shown where the alleged "fabricators" and the first followers "revisionists" were executed for the beliefs and somehow, unlike say Waco Texas, maintained a high degree of credibility.

Flick

[Loki]

Flick,

Again, I'm asking to be shown where the alleged "fabricators" and the first followers "revisionists" were executed for the beliefs and somehow, unlike say Waco Texas, maintained a high degree of credibility.
Oh, you mean like groups of Germans believing that the Holocaust didn't happen, and despite legal and social sanctions against them for holding this belief, they are still being willing to parade and declare this? You're right - would never happen!

Really, I don't see why this seems such a strong point for you - history shows us time and again that humans can be get very passionate (yes, to their death) about something very quickly. For me, the interesting thing is not "why did christians from 70 CE hold their faith in the face of persecution", but rather why did this particular faith grow so rapidly. But then that question always feels like asking "why were the Beatles so big?" - the most likely answer seems to be "someone had to be".

[evildave]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
As we continue to weigh only one of the body of questions I threw out, I think its important to note that again, none of the religions anyone has mentioned has its first followers being martyred.

What I meant by all the first followers is simply that Jesus "The Fabricator" and his 12 "Co-Conspirators," and Paul the "Great Liar," and Stephen the "Idiot," and scores of others are murdered during the alleged fabrication of this grand tale unlike ANY of the religions you have mentioned-- all for what reason? If marytdom was alone the reason to accept any faith, I'd conceed it's not much evidence. But given this within the body of other unlikely "fabrications" I'd say it makes a strong case.

Again, I'm asking to be shown where the alleged "fabricators" and the first followers "revisionists" were executed for the beliefs and somehow, unlike say Waco Texas, maintained a high degree of credibility.

Flick

Exceptions:
Judas killed himself.
John The Apostle died of old age as Bishop of Ephesus.

I hope you appreciate how much Christian gibberish I had to dig through to get you this.

Judas just popped off the top of my head.

As for martyring, I think you'll find this is a common occurence.

Islam is chock *full* of martyrs.
"All the envoys of God endured hardship and suffering when they were faced with denial and rejection, but they remained steadfast until the aid of God secured them their triumph. "

Sikh Holidays include
Martyrdom of Guru Arjun Dev, the 5th Guru, recalls the first martyr of Sikhism. The Mughal emperor Jehangir executed Guru Arjun Dev in mid-May of 1606 CE. He built the Amritsar temple.

Martyrdom of Guru Teg Bahadur, the 9th Guru, was another martyr executed by the Mughal emperor. His death occurred in late November. He promoted religious freedom.

That's two of the nine incarnations of their founder, Shri Guru Nanak Dev Ji. He died NINE times, and was martyred TWICE! If martyrdom makes you holy, this guy's WAY holier than that Jesus guy.

Many religions have early martyrs in early adopters. I would assign this as an occupational hazard for those seeking to establish new religions in ancient times, especially where there were already state recognized "official" religions.

Hinduism's beginning starts somewhere between 4000 and 2200 BCE. There just aren't records about their early adopters. I imagine many have died over the (up to) 6000 years they've been at this. They focus more on martyrs in modern times, but *SEEKING* martyrdom doesn't seem to be a core part of the belief system, like in Christianity and Islam.

[stamenflicker]

What "work" and whose "authority" based on what scholarship?

The work of the New Testament (Revelation and perhaps John in question, but I'd still date them at around 90AD).

The authority is mine admittedly, and I have every right to claim it because of my studies. O yeah, and scores of people smarter than me too who have written extensively on the textual criticism of the NT.

Flick

[Gregor]

You'll excuse me if I don't accept you as an authority - based upon what you've posted in this thread and otherwise.

(e.g. "J v. P"; "dozens of [NT] authors"; & etc.)

[Flaherty]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
As we continue to weigh only one of the body of questions I threw out, I think its important to note that again, none of the religions anyone has mentioned has its first followers being martyred.



Irrelevent. Christianity's first followers were NOT murdered.

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by stamenflicker
The authority is mine admittedly, and I have every right to claim it because of my studies. Claim what you will, but your understanding of textual criticism is an obvious joke. All that remains to be explained is why you insist on exposing such incompetence. :)

[headscratcher4]

SF:
You completelly ignored my point...hundreds, maybe thousands of Mayan, Inca, Aztec and other Mezo-Americans were murdered because of their religion and their unwillingness to be enslaved by the Spanish.

Why doesn't their martyrdom -- for their beliefs, their way of life, etc. measure up in your estimation? Is dying because you reject a religion, economic system and colonialism being forced on you somehow different than martyrdom because you are preaching a "new" religion? Are not the victems just as dead, and for thier beliefs? Or, is it because they are "savages" and you reject the logic, quality, spirituality of thier "religion" that leads you to ignore them? I would only point out that even the Pope has been making excuses and apologies for the way that American-indian populations were treated.

[Fade]

Been mostly ignoring this forum, but here goes:
No one can do that. No one can give you evidence that Julius Ceasar existed either. We do have documents that suggest they both existed. You have determined that all the documents regarding Jesus, collected together in the New Testament suggest nothing. I disagree.

Flick

I can give you plenty of evidence Julias Ceasar existed. His existence is independantly (key word) verified by documents outside of his home land, written by people who have nothing to gain by writing about him. Also, his visage appears on coins of the time. Also, he was spoken about afterwards up to the present day.

Jesus, however, doesn't appear on a single document. The bible is a story book, unverified and meaningless outside of itself. Your argument was destroyed years and years before either of us were born. Don't make ******** comparisons.

A strawman? I was using the example you yourself gave about cars and showed why this was irrelevant to your claim. Who's grasping at straws now?

Potato, you did make a strawman, and from the third sentence you seem to not understand that that is exactly.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
It says I don't have to bother considering the message because no person named Jesus existed.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


The Bible agrees.

1Cr 15:14 And if Christ be not risen, then [is] our preaching vain, and your faith [is] also vain.

That pretty much nails it Yahzi.

Well that, and "jesus christ" didn't have a message of any import that hadn't already existed for thousands of years previous.

Like I've always maintained, whether Jesus really existed or not, I could care less. I've made my choice based on the message. BUT to use a lazy approach to existing texts and ignore a host of very intelligent people who have studied this sort of thing is offensive.

Being a christian is about nothing but being a follower of Jesus Christ.

You are an idiot, stamenflicker. You don't even understand what your own god is telling you in the book he wrote. Come on.

See, this is why I do not respect hippydippy christianty. I can look to people like Falwell and understand that although he is in all senses of the word an evil human being with a sinister agenda, he at least has the gall to follow his holy book in it's entirety, without resorting to rationalizing away the things he doesn't like.

most of the books that i have read concerning the history of the bible claim that the individual books were not even commited to paper until 300 c.e.

The bible as we currently know it was assembled hundreds of years after the "death of jesus"

It's literally impossible to know how accurate the new testament we have now is :) Far, far too much time passed before it was assembled.

Also, the average lifespan of somebody living in those times was around 40 to 50 years.

I didn't change the subject at all. If you know of a religion in which all it's first followers were murdered for stating their beliefs, then by all means step up to the plate and take a swing.

Buddhists in Tibet? "Pagans" in Ireland? Indians in the Americas? How about Ahkenatens (Amenhotep) religion being erased after he died? Religious persecution is nothing new. In fact, Christians are some of the greatest perpetrators.

I just realised that you cited the presence of contradictions in the Bible as STRENGTHENING your case that it is the work of a omniscient being?!

For goodness sake, man, surely this is a transparently idiotic claim?

As time has passed, both Stamenflicker and PotatoStew have been exposed as having the same retarded agendas every other religionist on this board does. Neither has presented reasonable cases for their religiosity, despite bringing it up at every conceivable junction.

[Fade]

but rather why did this particular faith grow so rapidly.

Actually, you can answer that:

Constantine.

Without him, christianity would have died as a nameless cult.

[Loki]

Fade,

Also, the average lifespan of somebody living in those times was around 40 to 50 years.
A total side track, but you need to be careful here - "average" life span is increasing, but the "maximum" isn't. If you made it past 5 in Judea, you probably made it to 60-70. The average was 40 simply because so many children died.

Actually, you can answer that:

Constantine.

Without him, christianity would have died as a nameless cult.
Yes, and his reasons for embracing Christianity may have been as much political as spiritual. Yet, I still wonder why christianity grew strong enough to attract the attentions of the Roman emperor? He embraced it because it was already 'strong'. Sure, his involvement sealed the deal, but it's interesting (well, to me) to consider how it rose to that level. Perhaps, as I said, it's nothing more that "well, he had to have some sort of religion".

[Loki]

Flick,

Following on from Headscratcher's point :

You completelly ignored my point...hundreds, maybe thousands of Mayan, Inca, Aztec and other Mezo-Americans were murdered because of their religion and their unwillingness to be enslaved by the Spanish.

Why doesn't their martyrdom -- for their beliefs, their way of life, etc. measure up in your estimation?
The martyrs you refer to are not the 'fabricators'. Assuming it's all a big lie, there would have been only a very small number (less than 10?) who knew the truth. Within a year, the number of 'followers' would far exceed the number of 'fabricators' (if they did their selling well enough. Just look at the rise of John Edward - tap into a public that is 'primed' to receive your message, and you can have hundreds of thousands of followers in just a few years.

In fact, there may have been only one 'fabricator' - charismatic leaders can have a powerful influence on many people.

Start a cult. Pick a comet, tell your followers that the aliens are coming in the tail of the comet. In no time at all you'll have 37 people willing to die for your story.

Having said all of that, I still favor the "Jesus was real" theory (but I don't consider it proven at all!). Like you, it seems to me much easier to fabricate and sell the bible if you have a base to start from.

[Gregor]

That's a great mind game.

First, I suspect that Xianity would still be viewed as a subset of Judaism. The antisemitism did not start with Constantine, but by making the "cross" a symbol of the death of Jesus by the Jews he certainly changed the dynamic and made antisemitism job 1.

(The Gospel of Peter said that the Pharisees (I think rather than the Sadducees) did not want it to get out that Jesus arose - since the people (read: Jews) would get mad at them. So, this is mildly antisemitic - but mostly anti-clergy. The "jews" were not the enemy, as they later became).

Second, Xianity would probably have outpaced rabbinic Judaism, since Xianity is evangelical, and converts were wanted. It would probably be much more similar to Judaism with traditions and rituals, since we don't have the Council of Nicea and other counsels to establish orthodoxy and move it away from Judaism.

Third, I find it hard to believe that it would have reached the 1.9 billion members it has now, but the number of Jews would be much greater without the holocaust and pogroms (from Trier to the Inquisition).

My guess?

250 million Jew-xians
100 million regular Jews
200 million nordic worshipers
400 million pagan mesoamericans

[stamenflicker]

RESONABLE DOUBT
Claim what you will, but your understanding of textual criticism is an obvious joke. All that remains to be explained is why you insist on exposing such incompetence.

Care to back your statement up? I'm about tired of the insults.

HEADSCRATCHER
Why doesn't their martyrdom -- for their beliefs, their way of life, etc. measure up in your estimation? Is dying because you reject a religion, economic system and colonialism being forced on you somehow different than martyrdom because you are preaching a "new" religion?

It seems to me if you are accusing Christianity of being fabricated, then you HAVE to account as to why a large group of people were willing to die for their lie AS the lie was being told. It's not that other martyrs don't count. Once a belief takes root, someone will do anything for it, die for it, kill for it, etc. Let me again phrase the question in the context of this post:

What benefit is fabricating a religion that kills you?

This is what the fabrication camp has to answer, and can't. Anyone will die for a belief, but who dies for a lie?


FADE:
I can give you plenty of evidence Julias Ceasar existed. His existence is independantly (key word) verified by documents outside of his home land, written by people who have nothing to gain by writing about him. Also, his visage appears on coins of the time. Also, he was spoken about afterwards up to the present day.

Your sources don't count. Ceasar didn't exist.

The bible is a story book, unverified and meaningless outside of itself. Your argument was destroyed years and years before either of us were born. Don't make ******** comparisons.

The bible is a book with many different authors, and yes stories. But half the NT are letters. Actual letters written around 50AD. I'd say that counts as a touch of history. How many of Ceasar's letters do we have in tact?

You are an idiot, stamenflicker. You don't even understand what your own god is telling you in the book he wrote. Come on.

Nice.

See, this is why I do not respect hippydippy christianty. I can look to people like Falwell and understand that although he is in all senses of the word an evil human being with a sinister agenda, he at least has the gall to follow his holy book in it's entirety, without resorting to rationalizing away the things he doesn't like.

That's great, thanks for sharing. And now, back to the thread.

Buddhists in Tibet? "Pagans" in Ireland? Indians in the Americas? How about Ahkenatens (Amenhotep) religion being erased after he died? Religious persecution is nothing new. In fact, Christians are some of the greatest perpetrators.

You've totally missed my point. Read the above response to headscratcher. It beats me as to why I have to type something out about 8 times before someone finally reads it close enough to understand. Either we are a slow lot here, or lazy. My money is on the latter. I see Loki actually gave my point a prod, which is more than I say for you, HS, or RD. Perhaps you would like to try again, I mean try again again.

As time has passed, both Stamenflicker and PotatoStew have been exposed as having the same retarded agendas every other religionist on this board does. Neither has presented reasonable cases for their religiosity, despite bringing it up at every conceivable junction.

Sorry you feel that way. However after about your third insult in a single post-- both lips right here ( ! )

[stamenflicker]

Loki,

Thanks for actually reading what I posted instead and responding instead of jumping off track.

The martyrs you refer to are not the 'fabricators'. Assuming it's all a big lie, there would have been only a very small number (less than 10?) who knew the truth.

Perhaps... say Jesus and his merry men. Even if only a handful of the disciples new the truth of fabrication. Here are the counter points:

First, we have the problem of Paul. Paul never saw Jesus, never met him in person. Paul wrote about 1/2 of the NT a few years after the crucifixion and is responsible for a large portion of Christain theological construction. Paul was beaten and jailed, and eventually according to tradition, beheaded. Beheading aside, we know he spent a lot of time in jail. Paul is not only believing the previous fabrications, he is extending the fabrications with a new theology he says he has received divinely from the orignial fabricator. What's the odds of two fabricators within 50 years of each other willing to die for the same fabricated theme? Also Paul admits that his own hands are bloody in that he participated in the killing of Christians before conversion-- evidence that indeed there was killing taking place soon after the crucifixion.

Second regarding Paul, we see him fighting with one of the first fabricators in Antioch (Peter) about whether or not the orgininal fabricator (Jesus) meant for his fabrications to extend to non-Jews. So if all this has been fabrication, we have several players extending approximately 25-50 years after Jesus' death.

Third, we have to assume the fabricator (Jesus) never wrote anything down, or that the true fabricators lived in 100AD and thought to themselves they needed to create a religion. That's very problematic in two ways. If if the former is true, then he had a lot of trust in word of mouth. If you are going to create a religion, you'd think you'd need to write something down. Unless of course the Jesus himself had no idea what was to later be fabricated. If the latter statement is true, why create a religion about a guy that lived several years ago and was crucified? The fabricators could go to any point in history and write about any figure, or not create a human figure at all.

Start a cult. Pick a comet, tell your followers that the aliens are coming in the tail of the comet. In no time at all you'll have 37 people willing to die for your story.

Of course you could. But what we are dealing with in the NT is allegedly multiple fabrications, multiple fabricators, all extending for dozens of years past the original fabricator. That's alot different that one charismatic guy swaying one group. And as you pointed out, these "lies" eventually reach a world leader and an educated populace.

Flick

[Gregor]

Stamen, let me respond:
1. Quote: "Paul wrote about 1/2 of the NT a few years after the crucifixion."

Paul wrote many of the letters, several others are accepted as pious forgeries, some (Hebrews) are unknown.

Paul wrote 25 years after the crucifixion.

2. Quote: " Second regarding Paul, we see him fighting with one of the first fabricators in Antioch . . ." Just because two books (Acts and Galatians) record two groups disputing tenets of the religion is not further support for historicity, since Paul acknowledges never knowing Jesus. Historicity is more dependent on the gospels than the epistles.

Finally, as to martyrs, you state:

____________________________________

"What benefit is fabricating a religion that kills you?

This is what the fabrication camp has to answer, and can't. Anyone will die for a belief, but who dies for a lie?"
____________________________________

Ok - in 1098 in Mainz Germany the crusaders attacked the Jewish population charging "convert (and give us your money) or die." (See, the crusaders were too far from Jerusalem to kill Sarasens, so they decided to kill Jews instead).

The hundreds of Jews committed suicide and killed their children because they believed that Jesus was not the Messiah (Carroll, Constantine's Sword, 2001).

Based upon your logic, who was believing the lie?

[ReasonableDoubt]

stamenflicker wrote on 9/20:
The last book of the current Christian canon (probably John) was written around within 75 years of the crucifixion. You do not specify which Canon, you are not sure which is "the last book", but you know that it "was written around within 75 years of the crucifixion". You say nothing about the extent to which this 'probable' book of your unspecified Canon is accurately represented by current textual variants.
stamenflicker wrote on 9/21:
While it is true the bible was translated into other languages (and continues to be) since it was written, as a person who has read the work in Greek (which was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine, or commoner dialect, splashed with Attic morphology) and can say with authority the work was finished within a century or so of "Jesus" life. So this 1,000 year talk is meaningless. Are you referring to the Alexandrian, Byzantine, or Western textual tradition, or do you know? When you speak of an "original form" are you referring to a single textual form, or do you know? When you say Greek "was perhaps it's original form, due to the Koine", are you asserting that some 4th century Koine translation of some unspecified portion of some undefined Canon is probative of anything? Is "within a century or so" the same as "around within 75 years?
stamenflicker wrote on 9/21:
Furthermore, the Koine uses (as opposed to classical as in Plato's works) indicates not only the dating, but the voice, which was undoubtably that of less educated writers. On what basis do you assert that Paul, Luke, and the Deuteropauline works were written by "undoubtedly ... less educated writers"?
stamenflicker wrote on 9/25:
I'm about tired of the insults. Be less deserving.

[headscratcher4]

Early Christians held a profound belief that some were willing to die for. The powers of the state -- Rome and its agent -- essentially said renounce your beliefs accept the state religion and conform or die. Some chose martyrdom. Some chose to renounce their faith (the cause of many issues in the church after it was established as the state religion under Constintine).

Many Mezo-Americans chose to die rather than renounce their religion or culture to the newly established Spanish powers.

SF, I am not arguing that Christianity is fabricated -- there may have been a Jesus, and I am inclined to accept that there was such a person. What I am arguing is that the willingness to die for a belief is not an indication of the inherent truth of a religion or whether it merits belief. You suggested that the willingness of Christians to die for their belief not only underscored the profundity of their faith, but was somehow also an indication of the truth of that faith. You challenged, it seems to me, that this was unique and that believers of other faiths were not willing to make the same sacrifice for their beliefs.

I suggested that the Mezo-Americans martyred for their beliefs belie that assertion. In addition, Jews and Moslems martyred during the Spanish Inquisition would, it seem to me, also belie that assertion.

The distinction you seemingly are attempting to draw lies, I think, at the early stage of these alleged martyrdoms. I.e. (please correct me if this is wrong), the Christian martyrs were dying very early on at a time when, according to skeptics of Jesus' existence, the religion was being fabricated. Why, you ask, would someone die for a religion being fabricated (as opposed to a legitimate or real belief in the "history" of Jesus and his message). You conclude, by determining that the belief was real and, because of their position in history and chronology, their knowledge of the "events" of Jesus' life convinced them that this was a cause worth dying for.

Is this essentially correct? Is this the distinction you would draw -- between those martyred for an established religion (e.g. Aztecs, Moslems, etc.) vs. your view of the position of early Christian martyrs?

I am not sure that I buy that the distinction has much merit. My recollection and understanding is that most of the martyrs for christianity occured among people who neither would have or could have known a historical Jesus (yes, I am aware of the claim for martyrdom among the apostles, Jesus' Brother James, and Paul). But in any case, their willingness to die for their beliefs is not unique, even in historic poximity. For example, how is their willingness to die different than that of the Heaven's Gate cult?

Is it because the HG Cult death was not a "martydom" to