origins of christianity
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
13-07-2015, 06:56 AM
RE: origins of christianity
(13-07-2015 04:19 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  ...
god woke up one Monday morning and decided to create the universe.
...

Tsk, tsk! Get your facts straight, please.

The Sabbath was his off-day, so he started on Sunday.

He set his alarm really early so as not to over-sleep. He got up ... then invented time itself.

You know it makes sense.

Big Grin

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like DLJ's post
13-07-2015, 12:24 PM
RE: origins of christianity
Douglas Adams, is that you? Tongue

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes RocketSurgeon76's post
13-07-2015, 12:29 PM
RE: origins of christianity
(13-07-2015 06:56 AM)DLJ Wrote:  
(13-07-2015 04:19 AM)onlinebiker Wrote:  ...
god woke up one Monday morning and decided to create the universe.
...

Tsk, tsk! Get your facts straight, please.

The Sabbath was his off-day, so he started on Sunday.

He set his alarm really early so as not to over-sleep. He got up ... then invented time itself.

You know it makes sense.

Big Grin

I never thought of that, so that's what god did before he made the universe!

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-07-2015, 12:49 PM (This post was last modified: 13-07-2015 01:58 PM by Tonechaser77.)
RE: origins of christianity
There are so many definitions one needs to nail down (pardon the pun) before even treading into this area: which Jesus? define historical? etc. etc.

I personally side with non-existence and like @jennybee, have read several books on both sides of the fence. Richard Carrier's book - On the Historicity of Jesus, why we may have reason to doubt - put me over into the mythicist camp.

I would say this: It's possible that a real, historical person named Jesus existed, however that person has been so far removed, mis-quoted, interpolated, muddied, etc that very little, if any, of his actual sayings are still around. (the game of telephone really does come into play here as silly as it sounds) So what's the point?

There is no single silver bullet but when the preponderance of evidence is considered:

-borrowing from other religions,
-the gospel stories rewritten from OT, Homer, etc,
-No first century secular evidence supporting any existence
-Earliest NT writers seem ignorant of Jesus' life details which become more crystallized in later texts
-NT stories are copies of copies of copies of copies and don't claim to be first-hand accounts
-NT gospels contradict each other of a historical Jesus and instead support the theory of a growing legend or myth
-Modern scholars who claim to have uncovered the real Jesus all depict different persons (they can't all be right, but they can all be wrong)

Edit: Also forgot:
-Mystery cults were very common in those days
-Jesus never wrote anything about himself. If someone was claiming to be god, wouldn't you at least do something demonstrable that could not be falsified with time.


And finally....a comprehensive look, thanks to Robert Ingersoll Smile
"If Christ was in fact God, he knew all the future.

Before him like a panorama moved the history yet to be. He knew how his words would be interpreted. He knew what crimes, what horrors, what infamies, would be committed in his name. He knew that the hungry flames of persecution would climb around the limbs of countless martyrs. He knew that thousands and thousands of brave men and women would languish in dungeons in darkness, filled with pain. He knew that his church would invent and use instruments of torture; that his followers would appeal to whip and fagot, to chain and rack. He saw the horizon of the future lurid with the flames of the auto-da-fê. He knew what creeds would spring like poisonous fungi from every text. He saw the ignorant sects waging war against each other. He saw thousands of men, under the orders of priests, building prisons for their fellow-men. He saw thousands of scaffolds dripping with the best and bravest blood. He saw his followers using the instruments of pain. He heard the groans—saw the faces white with agony. He heard the shrieks and sobs and cries of all the moaning, martyred multitudes. He knew that commentaries would be written on his words with swords, to be read by the light of fagots. He knew that the Inquisition would be born of the teachings attributed to him.

He saw the interpolations and falsehoods that hypocrisy would write and tell. He saw all wars that would be waged, and he knew that above these fields of death, these dungeons, these rackings, these burnings, these executions, for a thousand years would float the dripping banner of the cross.

He knew that hypocrisy would be robed and crowned—that cruelty and credulity would rule the world; knew that liberty would perish from the earth; knew that popes and kings in his name would enslave the souls and bodies of men; knew that they would persecute and destroy the discoverers, thinkers and inventors; knew that his church would extinguish reason's holy light and leave the world without a star.

He saw his disciples extinguishing the eyes of men, flaying them alive, cutting out their tongues, searching for all the nerves of pain.

He knew that in his name his followers would trade in human flesh; that cradles would be robbed and women's breasts unbabed for gold.

And yet he died with voiceless lips.

Why did he fail to speak? Why did he not tell his disciples, and through them the world: "You shall not burn, imprison and torture in my name. You shall not persecute your fellow-men."

Why did he not plainly say: "I am the Son of God," or, "I am God?" Why did he not explain the Trinity? Why did he not tell the mode of baptism that was pleasing to him? Why did he not write a creed? Why did he not break the chains of slaves? Why did he not say that the Old Testament was or was not the inspired word of God? Why did he not write the New Testament himself? Why did he leave his words to ignorance, hypocrisy and chance? Why did he not say something positive, definite and satisfactory about another world? Why did he not turn the tear-stained hope of heaven into the glad knowledge of another life? Why did he not tell us something of the rights of man, of the liberty of hand and brain?

Why did he go dumbly to his death, leaving the world to misery and to doubt?

I will tell you why. He was a man, and did not know." (Ingersoll 1894)

The sum of the parts is greater than the whole, in my opinion.

**Crickets** -- God
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Tonechaser77's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: