A theory for the origin of Christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 1 Votes - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-08-2011, 04:51 PM
RE: A theory for the origin of Christianity
(12-08-2011 12:52 PM)Joe Bloe Wrote:  
(11-08-2011 09:58 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  [...] Hence (to me anyway) it is intuitively obvious the Peter/rock/church statement is an interpolation.
Yes, I agree with you.

Just as a matter of interest, only a few verses later (Matthew 16:24) Jesus is reported to have told each of his disciples to "take up his cross and follow me." Hardly the sort of thing we'd expect to hear until after the crucifixion.

It is easy to see how that phrase would have become popular with Christians after Jesus had died (and the story of him carrying his cross had become well-known), but it would have made no sense to anyone before that time.

Yes ....good point.....Jesus would have been terrified at the idea that one day he might be crucified. A very short "cut and paste" for your interest ( sorry Jim , can't help myself lol)

"Crucifixion was a dreadful and shameful death reserved for the worst criminals. The Romans used it to get rid of the worst criminals and as a warning to others that if you messed with Rome you paid the price. So people regarded anyone who had been crucified as a trouble causer. It was not something Paul was proud to advertise had happened to the key figure of the religion he was promoting. He couldn’t deny Jesus had been crucified, so needed a way to make his gentile audience think of it as something more than the punishment of a troublesome Jew. The idea that Jesus was crucified to save people from their sins was his rather odd explanation. A lot of people have since accepted this unusual idea as the truth. Why?

Having the son of God become human and relieve man of the burden of his sins was an attractive story. God was no longer the distant God of the Old Testament, the god of the Jews, but was someone who had become a human in the person of Jesus. This Jesus then took on the burden of man’s punishment. That turned him into a great guy, everybody’s best friend. Paul said that all that was needed was an unquestioning belief that this was how things were to gain a free pass to salvation. Churches have since saturated people’s minds with these ideas such that they have been stated as fact so often and for so long that today’s Christians have just rather passively accepted them.

Yet in my opinion, these are irrational arguments. Why would the Son of God need to sacrifice himself to appease his father? Why would faith in this sacrifice be a ticket for entry into heaven? Why should any thinking person accept Paul’s ideas about sin?"
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-08-2011, 10:09 AM
RE: A theory for the origin of Christianity
(12-08-2011 12:52 PM)Joe Bloe Wrote:  Just as a matter of interest, only a few verses later (Matthew 16:24) Jesus is reported to have told each of his disciples to "take up his cross and follow me." Hardly the sort of thing we'd expect to hear until after the crucifixion.

It is easy to see how that phrase would have become popular with Christians after Jesus had died (and the story of him carrying his cross had become well-known), but it would have made no sense to anyone before that time.
It would have made perfect sense to them. Crucifixions were common then and all of the disciples would have been very familiar with it. A person who was condemned to be crucified was required to carry the cross bean to which we would be nailed to the site of execution. (Jesus was so weakened by the floggings he had received he wasn't able to do this so that is why Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry his cross for him.) When someone took up this cross it meant he was going to die. To take up the cross metaphorically meant a death to the old way of life.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2011, 05:22 AM
RE: A theory for the origin of Christianity
(13-08-2011 10:09 AM)theophilus Wrote:  It would have made perfect sense to them. Crucifixions were common then and all of the disciples would have been very familiar with it. A person who was condemned to be crucified was required to carry the cross bean to which we would be nailed to the site of execution. (Jesus was so weakened by the floggings he had received he wasn't able to do this so that is why Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry his cross for him.) When someone took up this cross it meant he was going to die. To take up the cross metaphorically meant a death to the old way of life.

Crucifixions were common
I know crucifixion was common, but I am saying that the phrase (take up your cross and follow me) was invented by Christians after the death of Jesus, and then those words were posthumously put back into his own mouth when the gospels were written. At the time Jesus was supposed to have spoken those words, they would have made no sense to the disciples. The meaning becomes clear, only to those who already know that Jesus was crucified.


Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry his cross for him
Some gospels says Simon carried the cross, but John 19:17 seems not to have heard of that particular myth, and makes it clear that Jesus carried his own cross all the way to Golgotha. I know the apologists have attempted to "harmonise" the gospels, but the fact remains - the bible tells contradictory stories about the crucifixion.

Believe nothing you hear and only half what you see
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Joe Bloe's post
14-08-2011, 06:27 AM
RE: A theory for the origin of Christianity
(13-08-2011 10:09 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(12-08-2011 12:52 PM)Joe Bloe Wrote:  Just as a matter of interest, only a few verses later (Matthew 16:24) Jesus is reported to have told each of his disciples to "take up his cross and follow me." Hardly the sort of thing we'd expect to hear until after the crucifixion.

It is easy to see how that phrase would have become popular with Christians after Jesus had died (and the story of him carrying his cross had become well-known), but it would have made no sense to anyone before that time.
It would have made perfect sense to them. Crucifixions were common then and all of the disciples would have been very familiar with it. A person who was condemned to be crucified was required to carry the cross bean to which we would be nailed to the site of execution. (Jesus was so weakened by the floggings he had received he wasn't able to do this so that is why Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry his cross for him.) When someone took up this cross it meant he was going to die. To take up the cross metaphorically meant a death to the old way of life.

Theophilus, imagine for a moment you are a Galilean Jew in the early first century. Thousands of your countryman had been strung up on crucifixes, brutally murdered by tough professional Roman soldiers. Your cousin (John the Baptist) had just been beheaded. You are tramping around the countryside, tired , hungry and worn out with the pressure of avoiding Herod's spies. The only thing that keeps you going is a fanciful delusion that just maybe you're the Jewish messiah who's going to kick the Romans out of Palestine. Can you really truly imagine him telling his fellow Jews to "pick up a cross?"

Now imagine, if you will, you are Jesus in heaven, 2000 years later. You are still rather pissed off that you died such a horrible, degrading, painful death 2000 years ago at the hands of gentiles (non Jews). You're probably starting to get over the pain, degradation and shame of what happened, but what really makes you squirm in your chair is all the bloody gentiles down on earth waving crosses around, reminding you of your own horrific death as if it something to be celebrated. What is more they are insulting your memory and your religion by putting heretical words in your mouth. A wry smile crosses your face, however, as you realise your own and their beliefs were all bullshit anyway, and that you are now, in fact, dead, and therefore only exist in the imaginations of 21 st century dreamers.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-08-2011, 12:28 PM
RE: A theory for the origin of Christianity
(14-08-2011 05:22 AM)Joe Bloe Wrote:  Crucifixions were common
I know crucifixion was common, but I am saying that the phrase (take up your cross and follow me) was invented by Christians after the death of Jesus, and then those words were posthumously put back into his own mouth when the gospels were written. At the time Jesus was supposed to have spoken those words, they would have made no sense to the disciples. The meaning becomes clear, only to those who already know that Jesus was crucified.
If you read the gospels you will find that Jesus said a lot of things to his disciples that they didn't understand until later. For example, there is John 2:18-22.
Quote:So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about bthe temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

Quote:Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry his cross for him
Some gospels says Simon carried the cross, but John 19:17 seems not to have heard of that particular myth, and makes it clear that Jesus carried his own cross all the way to Golgotha. I know the apologists have attempted to "harmonise" the gospels, but the fact remains - the bible tells contradictory stories about the crucifixion.
Here is what John 19:17 says.
Quote:So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.
It simply says he carried his cross but doesn't specifically say whether he carred it the whole way or not. John leaves out a lot of the details that are found in the other gospels. The reason for this is probably the fact that John was the last gospel written and he knew that his readers would already be familiar with what we written in them. Each account of the crucifixion contains some details that aren't found in the others but there are no contradictions in them.


(14-08-2011 06:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Theophilus, imagine for a moment you are a Galilean Jew in the early first century. Thousands of your countryman had been strung up on crucifixes, brutally murdered by tough professional Roman soldiers. Your cousin (John the Baptist) had just been beheaded. You are tramping around the countryside, tired , hungry and worn out with the pressure of avoiding Herod's spies. The only thing that keeps you going is a fanciful delusion that just maybe you're the Jewish messiah who's going to kick the Romans out of Palestine. Can you really truly imagine him telling his fellow Jews to "pick up a cross?"
This might be the case if Jesus only imagined that he was the Messiah, but Jesus really was the Messiah and he was also God in human form so he knew exactly what was going to happen.

Quote:Now imagine, if you will, you are Jesus in heaven, 2000 years later. You are still rather pissed off that you died such a horrible, degrading, painful death 2000 years ago at the hands of gentiles (non Jews). You're probably starting to get over the pain, degradation and shame of what happened, but what really makes you squirm in your chair is all the bloody gentiles down on earth waving crosses around, reminding you of your own horrific death as if it something to be celebrated.
We don't consider the death something to celebrate. It is his resurrection that we delebrate because it is the evidence that his death accomplished its purpose of atoning for our sins.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
16-08-2011, 09:51 PM
RE: A theory for the origin of Christianity
(14-08-2011 12:28 PM)theophilus Wrote:  
(14-08-2011 05:22 AM)Joe Bloe Wrote:  Crucifixions were common
I know crucifixion was common, but I am saying that the phrase (take up your cross and follow me) was invented by Christians after the death of Jesus, and then those words were posthumously put back into his own mouth when the gospels were written. At the time Jesus was supposed to have spoken those words, they would have made no sense to the disciples. The meaning becomes clear, only to those who already know that Jesus was crucified.
If you read the gospels you will find that Jesus said a lot of things to his disciples that they didn't understand until later. For example, there is John 2:18-22.
Quote:So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?” But he was speaking about bthe temple of his body. When therefore he was raised from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this, and they believed the Scripture and the word that Jesus had spoken.

Quote:Simon of Cyrene was forced to carry his cross for him
Some gospels says Simon carried the cross, but John 19:17 seems not to have heard of that particular myth, and makes it clear that Jesus carried his own cross all the way to Golgotha. I know the apologists have attempted to "harmonise" the gospels, but the fact remains - the bible tells contradictory stories about the crucifixion.
Here is what John 19:17 says.
Quote:So they took Jesus, and he went out, bearing his own cross, to the place called The Place of a Skull, which in Aramaic is called Golgotha.
It simply says he carried his cross but doesn't specifically say whether he carred it the whole way or not. John leaves out a lot of the details that are found in the other gospels. The reason for this is probably the fact that John was the last gospel written and he knew that his readers would already be familiar with what we written in them. Each account of the crucifixion contains some details that aren't found in the others but there are no contradictions in them.


(14-08-2011 06:27 AM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Theophilus, imagine for a moment you are a Galilean Jew in the early first century. Thousands of your countryman had been strung up on crucifixes, brutally murdered by tough professional Roman soldiers. Your cousin (John the Baptist) had just been beheaded. You are tramping around the countryside, tired , hungry and worn out with the pressure of avoiding Herod's spies. The only thing that keeps you going is a fanciful delusion that just maybe you're the Jewish messiah who's going to kick the Romans out of Palestine. Can you really truly imagine him telling his fellow Jews to "pick up a cross?"
This might be the case if Jesus only imagined that he was the Messiah, but Jesus really was the Messiah and he was also God in human form so he knew exactly what was going to happen.

Quote:Now imagine, if you will, you are Jesus in heaven, 2000 years later. You are still rather pissed off that you died such a horrible, degrading, painful death 2000 years ago at the hands of gentiles (non Jews). You're probably starting to get over the pain, degradation and shame of what happened, but what really makes you squirm in your chair is all the bloody gentiles down on earth waving crosses around, reminding you of your own horrific death as if it something to be celebrated.
We don't consider the death something to celebrate. It is his resurrection that we delebrate because it is the evidence that his death accomplished its purpose of atoning for our sins.

Hi Theo, would you explain what you believe the "messiah" was? Would you then google the question "what did the ancient jews believe about the messiah"....please read what Jews then and now believe about their messiah. I wonder if you can reconcile these two "messiah stories". Please tell me if this post has in any way upset or offended you. If you feel i haven't addressed any of your questions or statements please tell me too, mark
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2011, 04:43 AM
RE: A theory for the origin of Christianity
Quote:Thanks mate, I really appreciate the encouragement. I love to share knowledge. I hope I don't come across as thinking I know it all....because i absolutely don't. It's a massive topic and some people (not me LOL) spend their lives studying it. Cheers


Lol i didnt mean that at all i was more concerned of you giving to much infomation away you never know who is lurking the web, its how stuff gets copied and stuff, was just trying to look out for you ;p

"In real life , as opposed to that happy, clappy, rainbow fantasy world that you see fit to fly through on your winged unicorn of delusion" - Mitchell and Webb
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
17-08-2011, 10:53 AM
RE: A theory for the origin of Christianity
(16-08-2011 09:51 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi Theo, would you explain what you believe the "messiah" was? Would you then google the question "what did the ancient jews believe about the messiah"....please read what Jews then and now believe about their messiah. I wonder if you can reconcile these two "messiah stories". Please tell me if this post has in any way upset or offended you. If you feel i haven't addressed any of your questions or statements please tell me too, mark
When the wise men came to Jerusalem they said they were looking for the person who was born king of the Jews. Herod responded by asking the religious scholars where the Messiah would be born. (The Bible actually say he asked where the Christ would be born, but the Greek word Christ is the same as the Hebrew word Messiah.) This shows that the Messiah was to be the ruler of Israel. The Old Testament contains many prophecies about his establishing a worldwide kingdom centered in Jerusalem.

But that wasn't the only think prophesied about the Messiah.
Quote: Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke 24:45-47 ESV
One place where his suffering is foretold is in chapter 53 of Isaiah.

His death to atone for sins had to take place before he could enter into his role as King of Israel. The Jews understood the part about the Messiah being a ruler but many of them didn't understand that there were other things he had to accomplish first and that is why they rejected him. The fulfillment of the prophecies of his kingship will be fulfilled when he returns to earth.

The information in ancient libraries came from real minds of real people. The far more complex information in cells came from the far more intelligent mind of God.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
18-08-2011, 04:02 AM
RE: A theory for the origin of Christianity
(17-08-2011 10:53 AM)theophilus Wrote:  
(16-08-2011 09:51 PM)Mark Fulton Wrote:  Hi Theo, would you explain what you believe the "messiah" was? Would you then google the question "what did the ancient jews believe about the messiah"....please read what Jews then and now believe about their messiah. I wonder if you can reconcile these two "messiah stories". Please tell me if this post has in any way upset or offended you. If you feel i haven't addressed any of your questions or statements please tell me too, mark
When the wise men came to Jerusalem they said they were looking for the person who was born king of the Jews. Herod responded by asking the religious scholars where the Messiah would be born. (The Bible actually say he asked where the Christ would be born, but the Greek word Christ is the same as the Hebrew word Messiah.) This shows that the Messiah was to be the ruler of Israel. The Old Testament contains many prophecies about his establishing a worldwide kingdom centered in Jerusalem.

But that wasn't the only think prophesied about the Messiah.
Quote: Then he opened their minds to understand the Scriptures, and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.
Luke 24:45-47 ESV
One place where his suffering is foretold is in chapter 53 of Isaiah.

His death to atone for sins had to take place before he could enter into his role as King of Israel. The Jews understood the part about the Messiah being a ruler but many of them didn't understand that there were other things he had to accomplish first and that is why they rejected him. The fulfillment of the prophecies of his kingship will be fulfilled when he returns to earth.

Oh dear...i give up. Why do I bother? I'm going to watch a movie. Goodnight Theo
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
19-08-2011, 07:44 PM
RE: A theory for the origin of Christianity
(17-08-2011 10:53 AM)theophilus Wrote:  The Old Testament contains many prophecies about his establishing a worldwide kingdom centered in Jerusalem.

They're not prophecies, they're just OT texts reinterpreted to fit in with the Jesus myth. Isaiah 7:14 is an example:

"A young woman shall conceive and bear a son and shall call his name Immanuel"

1st bit - a prophecy about the birth of Jesus.
2nd bit - don't worry about it, it's not important.

Believe nothing you hear and only half what you see
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: