Religion
Related: About this forumXipe Totec
(43,890 posts)Without using a book on the history of the United States.
The Bible is the history of Jesus Christ. You can argue about its accuracy, but you cannot deny its existence.
ret5hd
(20,518 posts)historical letters, government records, etc etc etc.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)Nice work dispatching it with a single sentence.
JackInGreen
(2,975 posts)we cannot deny the existence of the bible, as much as we might like to.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)I accept that a preacher named Yeshua lived in Judea and was probably put to death (Josephus). But beyond that i don't think any of the bible can be claimed as true. And much of it, from the Nativity to the miracles are in conflict with what we do know from that time.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Goblinmonger
(22,340 posts)What have you go with Jesus?
And before you talk about the good old days, we have primary documents we can access for other things that happened at the same time as Jesus.
A history book? Seriously? Your history teachers must be so proud of you.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The Bible is the history of Jesus Christ. You can argue about its accuracy, but you cannot deny its existence.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)mr blur
(7,753 posts)It's OK, we can wait...
Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)The point is the stupidity of the argument: Prove x without using evidence for x. It's a stupid argument.
goldent
(1,582 posts)Xipe Totec
(43,890 posts)goldent
(1,582 posts)for Jesus. I saw that one on DU. Next demand will be for tweets.... you mean someone rose from the dead and no-one tweeted it?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)And yet, oddly, outside of this account, no other historical records of this amazing event exist.
goldent
(1,582 posts)edhopper
(33,615 posts)in just one of the Gospels, with no other mention in or out of the Bible for this unprecedented event is good enough for you to accept it?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)Generally the "historical Jesus" people dismiss the obvious biblical horseshit, as it weakens their claim on the historicity of the rest.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)But if you have faith, you know...
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)There are functioning government records older than the alleged birth of Jesus. Yet there are no actual contemporary records outside the bible, of his life or events. Why? Was he somehow transparent to Roman documentation?
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/declaration_transcript.html
...and then use other real life documents of real life events, such as:
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_transcript.html
If you were vetted and lucky enough, you might even be able to review an original copy of each.
Can't say as much about the NT.
I could go on, but...I think the point is made.
gcomeau
(5,764 posts)...than they do the existence of the Iliad.
That doesn't make either one an accurate historical record of the characters and events portrayed within.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)How about one printed in Russia?
You are assuming a tautology.
highmindedhavi
(355 posts)edhopper
(33,615 posts)but beyond some one named Yeshua living, nothing else in the NT is verifiable.
So was the Jesus in the Bible more like Disney's Davey Crockett, a fictional character loosely based on a person who lived some time before.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)... there are some historical events and persons mentioned in the bible that were real events and persons (i.e. that "pilot" guy was a real person) and I wouldn't want the broad claim "nothing else in the NT is verifiable" to be the basis of discounting the critical point the the main character in the NT is fictional.
Africa is a real place and lions are real creatures, but Mufasa and Simba are fictional.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)I meant the actual story of Jesus. He he just a Forrest Gump or Zelig type placed in these real settings or interacting with real people and places.
There is no record that Pilot or either Herod doing what is claimed in the NT
whatthehey
(3,660 posts)And never mentioned in early, voluminous, commentaries on Josephus by Christian church fathers.
In other words, later insertion.
trotsky
(49,533 posts)rogerashton
(3,920 posts)Jesus ben Ananias, who lived about 60 years after the period the scriptures assign to Jesus of Nazareth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_ben_Ananias
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)There's some argument over the authenticity of the mentions, but even if they are mostly authentic it's hard to overlook how little attention is paid to Jesus by an actual historian. It would seem to imply that real Jesus, if he existed, was not a significant player in first century Judean society.
elljay
(1,178 posts)Josephus was born AFTER Jesus allegedly "died" and did not meet him. Josephus certainly had his issues as a historian. He defected to the Romans, had an agenda which he supported in his writings, and is not at all historically accurate by today's standards. There is not a single piece of factual or historical evidence to support the existence of Jesus. No contemporaneous references by Romans or Jews, no physical evidence, no witnesses. The Christian testament was written at various times up to many decades after the alleged events by people who had neither witnessed them nor met Jesus nor, in some cases, even lived in Israel. Even Paul did not meet Jesus or witness the events, though some believe that he met post-resurrection Jesus on the Damascus road (so he would have simply "believed" the resurrection story, not witnessed it). The Christian testaments are provably wrong in describing the timing of the Roman census, the rules (no, Mary did not have to return to her birthplace), and the Herod (there were several rulers with that name) under which the last census took place. In other words, the only "proof" Jesus existed is an inaccurate text written by non-witnesses. It is fine if one likes what Jesus said, or decides to believe based on faith alone, but there are just no historical facts to support that belief.
moose65
(3,168 posts)Even that account on the Damascus Road was written by someone else (Luke), probably decades after it supposedly happened. Paul himself really doesn't include many details about the human Jesus - nothing about his birth, his life on Earth, or much of anything else. Paul doesn't talk about his OWN conversion much, either, leading me to believe that most stuff about Jesus (AND Paul) was created after-the-fact.
elljay
(1,178 posts)Maybe some day they will find evidence that supports the existence of historical Jesus (I don't believe in miracles so you're never going to prove those to my satisfaction), but they haven't yet.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)I do believe that a lot of people started believing in the jesus-god, and that belief of mine is based on solid historical evidence of christ worshipping.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)At least one of the alleged references in that book are considered to be inventions of christian monks copying with prejudice.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)For some reason some Jews decided to invent a radical new version of Judaism. One that does away with a whole load of jewish customs and traditions. One who reinvents the wrathful war-god Jehovah from the Torah as a benevolent, loving god whose teachings revolve around love and forgiveness.
And they did so for no particular reason at all. There was no charismatic cult-leader who kicked this off. This sect simply came to be out of thin air.
"Heed my words, for they are true. And it came to be that a bunch of dudes decided to break with their one true God and travel into faraway lands to spread the word of the Son of God: They set out to spread the word how someone had told them that there was this guy and he was crucified and came back to life and he was the son of God and had done lots of miracles way back before he died. And the dudes who heard this rumor dropped everything and set out to spread this gospel, because it wasn't like the Ancient Middle-East had dozens of religions and dozens of gods and this sacrifice-story could be found in several of them. No, this one obscure rumor was all it took for them to start evangelizing the rest of the world."
Just out of curiosity: Do you have an example for a religious cult who came to be without being founded by a cult-leader?
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)"One theory on the formation of the Essenes suggests that the movement was founded by a Jewish high priest, dubbed by the Essenes the Teacher of Righteousness, whose office had been usurped by Jonathan (of priestly but not of Zadokite lineage), labeled the "man of lies" or "false priest".[4][5] Others follow this line and a few argue that the Teacher of Righteousness was not only the leader of the Essenes at Qumran, but was also identical to the original Jesus [Essa] about 150 years before the time of the Gospels.[35] "
Oops. Looks like the Essenes also had a founding-figure...
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)could have not been. Not definitive at all.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)My point is simple:
There are examples of cults who were founded by charismatic leaders. To my knowledge, there are no cults that weren't founded by charismatic leaders.
Therefore the theory that Christianity was founded by some cult-leader has a higher likelihood than the theory that Christianity was founded by a religious/cultural meme.
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)I assume you haven't either. So essentially what we have here is your opinion on the subject. Nothing suggests that what you posit has any higher likelihood of being correct than mine.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)THE BIBLE SAYS IT"S TRUE!!!!
COLGATE4
(14,732 posts)DetlefK
(16,423 posts)...which theory has the higher probability of being correct?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Despite the total lack of any objective evidence to support your assertion, you insist that your belief is factual.
DetlefK
(16,423 posts)Again. My point is:
What is the mathematical likelihood of the theory "Christianity came to be because of a historical cult-leader"?
What is the mathematical likelihood of the theory "Christianity came to be because of some inspiring meme/text"?
There are dozens of examples for cults being founded by cult-leaders (Islam, Scientology, Mormonism... just to name a few; you can easily find a dozen examples in India alone, with its yogis).
At the top of my mind, I have precisely ONE example for a cult being founded without a cult-leader: Hermeticism.
So, we have lots of examples for one theory and very few examples for the other theory.
Which one is more likely to be true?
edhopper
(33,615 posts)where does that leave Jesus?
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)edhopper
(33,615 posts)his name was Paul, and he was followed some years later by the Gospel writers.
You know the same thing Joseph Smith did. Or should we believe in the Angel Moroni and talking white salamanders?
If you are simply arguing for the existing of a man Jesus of the Bible is based on, without speaking to the truth of anything in the NT, we don't have a disagreement.
NeoGreen
(4,031 posts)...toad.
I guess I need to re-read the original text...oh wait...
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)There was already a church in Jerusalem lead by James, the alleged brother of Jesus, when Paul went to work converting gentiles. In fact, one of the first major intra-Christian theological spats was between Judaean-school Christians who considered themselves Jews and subject to Mosaic Law, and gentile Christians who thought otherwise.
I'm not sure why everyone is so eager to discount Deft's idea. Sure, it's speculation, but it isn't baseless and not outside the realm of the possibility. Besides, even if there was an historical Jesus, it doesn't in any way lend credibility to the existence of the Biblical Jesus.
I mean, shit. There was a guy named Vlad Dracula. That doesn't mean vampires exist.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)I think there was a man named Yeshua. And maybe he had a small following as a preacher. But I think the "cult leader" Deft describes might more likely be Paul.
It really is to me more about lack of evidence for the biblical description and narrative.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)If I could take a turn at speculation, I would say Jesus was probably some upstart "purist" who had some popular appeal with the Jewish underclass. The Pharisees and Sadducees didn't like him and complained to the Romans. The Romans, who relied on the Pharisees and Sadducees to keep order in the province, had him executed.
Either he wasn't very influential or he abjectly failed to convert from the educated classes... or both. Someone popular -- or someone popular with people who can read and write -- probably would have made a bigger footprint on the literature of the time. Whether or not his following was a "cult" or something smaller, I guess that's a matter of debate.
I would, however, disagree with your description of Paul. If the texts are to be trusted, Paul was more of a propagandist than an administrator.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)You can see today how some places are less than restrained in execution. One doesn't need to be a big deal to get the ax.
As for Paul, propagandist, yes. Which goes to Deft's "someone has to start a cult".
It was Paul who got the converts, Yeshua could have died with little following.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)The Romans doled out the death sentence liberally, but depending upon time and place, crucifixion was not a terribly common method of dispatch. It was typically reserved for traitors, rebels, or slaves, people the Romans wanted to see publicly humiliated. Of course, my knowledge here is imperfect, it stands to reason that if Jesus was crucified, he had a following the Romans wanted to see discredited, for whatever reason.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)Hard to say what the reason was. At this point it is just idle speculation as to why (if indeed he was.)
Though I am fairly sure it wasn't the big brouhaha depicted in the Bible.
And was he actually crucified? He might have been put to death another way. The one Josephus quote about the crucifixion is highly questionable.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)No doubt. If it had been, Josephus would have given it more than passing mention.
As to the authenticity of Josephus' crucifixion account, most scholars agree the Testimonium Flavianum was altered by Christians obviously perturbed by the nonexistent footprint the SAVIOR OF ALL MANKIND left on the historical records of his own time and place. The problem is there's no consensus on the extent of the redaction. At the end of the day, the story is at least plausible, so I can't in good faith discount it entirely.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)just another ?
But we do have many accounts of Saints, firmly believes, that are known to be BS.
So, Christian accounts of things can be suspect.
Cartoonist
(7,323 posts)When the Romans had someone crucified, they stayed crucified. There was no letting him down from the cross. The victims were kept up as a warning to other troublemakers.
elljay
(1,178 posts)It is actually a Syrian-Greek/Roman sect that borrowed Jewish texts but interpreted them in the context of the non-Jewish population in which it developed. It's "cult leader" was Paul, who founded and developed the faith. Paul was born in a pagan Syrian Greek area so was exposed to the majority Greek as well as Jewish religions. Christianity was not very successful within the Jewish community. However, it succeeded outside of Jewish communities precisely by not being Judaism, but a faith that can be adapted to pagan populations- just make the gods saints, build the church on top of the pagan temple so they worship in the same place, allow people to pray to statues and paintings that resemble the pagan idols the population previously worshipped, adopt their holidays (Winter Solstice as Christmas)and adapt pagan traditions to Christianity (Christmas tree, Easter bunny). I still see in that no factual evidence that Jesus existed, just that a religion founded in his name did.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Which, to say the least, casts some reasonable doubt on all religions.
To be fair, Joseph Smith or Ron Hubbard are well documented, but it's not flattering.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)but I did not know there were questions about Buddha and Mohamed being real people. (not to be confused with the religious stories about them)
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)"Moses looks like an obvious myth", and we'll never know if there was a remote inspiration in one guy. Most historians think the stories of Buddha, Jesus and Muhammad were based on some existing persons, but in each case, the stories are under such doubt that they are myth-like.
- Buddha: supposed real, but so poorly known his dates of life vary by 100 years (first biographies written more than 500 years after his death).
Myths: miracles (he, too, apparently walked on water)
- Jesus: based on a real person according to most historians, but his real life is not known.
Myths: miracles, resurrection
- Muhammad: the most likely to have been a real person, but the hadiths of his life written 200 years later are being increasingly questioned: was he an orphan, did he write in Petra?
Myths: Gabriel, the night journey, the angels at Badr,..
edhopper
(33,615 posts)but "loosely based" sounds right.
The Exodus story is counter evidence. So Moses looks like co-opted Babylonian myth.
Albertoo
(2,016 posts)Moses: almost zero truth. Was there some inspiration in something remote which happened?
Buddha: very little is known. Probably a proto-form of the 4 truths and avoidance of pain
Jesus: as for Buddha, very little is known. Probably the golden rule and avoiding to judge
Muhammad: miracle myths aside, the hadiths are probably a rough gage (half true?)
edhopper
(33,615 posts)WDIM
(1,662 posts)Lao Zhu?
Mohammed?
Moses?
There is nothing wrong with having faith.
Jesus was one of the great teachers as many before and many after.
The unfortunate part is when the works of these great teachers are used to instill fear, division, hate, and death.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)is when people have "faith" that these men were more than human teachers and spoke for something divine and ordained. Therefore must be uncontested. Not because of the strength of the philosophy, but because it is what God wants.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Setting the bar a bit low, aren't we?
WDIM
(1,662 posts)he tought peace, love, forgiveness, giving to the needy, non-violence,
He tought against objectifying women, debt, greed, corrupt money takers, corruption,
When one reads what Jesus said he truly was as great a teacher as Lao Zhu, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr, Buddha, all the teachers that teach peace and non-violence and forgiveness.
The problem with Christianity is most preachers never make it past the old testiment and continue to preach vengence, death, and fear.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)And I could go on. There's his vocal support for Mosaic law, his tacit consent of slavery, his glorification of poverty and persecution, and his bullshit notions on substitutional atonement... just to name a few.
Color me unimpressed.
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)Take away the horrid first century morality, and what we have left is a handful of pseudoprofundities with few real-life applications.
Best. Teacher. Evar.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)In Buddhism there is nothing in all the words the Buddha said where his disciples said, "Oh he told us to be mean to people, or that he comes with a sword, and approves of violence, so we have to ignore that part."
There is NOTHING in the Tripitakas, the four books of discourses, that has to be ignored in its inconsistency, unlike alleged Christian scriptures.
Besides, they have actual teeth, bones and hair relics from the actual body of Buddha when he was cremated. He lived six hundred years before the alleged Jesus of which there are no contemporaneous historical accounts. There were plenty of Roman historians and politicians who wrote stuff. Pliny the Elder and Younger, Suetonius, the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, etc.
If they wanted to be consistent they would adopt the Jefferson Bible, which Thomas Jefferson wrote to keep the good stuff.
Act_of_Reparation
(9,116 posts)I generally find Buddhism and Hinduism more palatable, by way of religions, in that neither assumes complete authority over all matters spiritual. And they don't profess this bullshit concept of "tolerance". "Tolerance" implies you put up with your neighbor, even though you think he's wrong. Buddhism and Hinduism don't think anyone is wrong; they readily acknowledge belief in one god, many gods, or no gods as equally valid pathways to enlightenment. I can only speak for myself, but I find that preferable to that "believe in Yahweh/Jesus/Muhammed or burn" mentality of the Abrahamics.
But that lack of rigidity is a double-edged sword. Unlike dogmatic religions, which at least have scriptural authority to discredit fringe groups, non-dogmatic religions are almost obliged to put up with them. So, in practicality, Hinduism and Buddhism are very nebulous terms encompassing many hundreds or thousands of individual sects running the gamut from the benign to the completely insane.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)However, I cannot find a Christian who will even discuss the cruel things that Jesus said, or the absurdities, or the acceptance of ridiculous rules, slavery, subjugation of women, the ridiculous Bronze Age superstitious beliefs, and on and on.
I've had Christians on DU tell me, when I ask them when they will reject and repudiate the nasty stuff Jesus allegedly said, "Oh you can be a Christian and believe anything you want." Or say, "Jesus was speaking in metaphors." And I reply with "Nope. Starting premises are original sin and substitutionary atonement. If you don't accept that people are flawed sinners due to Adam and Eve disobeying God, just because the people here and now are breathing, then you don't need substitutionary atonement through Jesus for your sins. And his suffering is supposed to give you complete redemption and salvation from that original sin."
I still don't know what "being saved" means and I probably never will.
To scare people into accepting Jesus as their savior then you have to first scare them with a human condition that will apply to everyone--original sin. For some reason, Christians refuse to see this and understand this.
The best analogy I could come up with was the statement, "Everyone has dandruff. This is a true statement and you must not disagree. Therefore you MUST use this ONE shampoo (Jesus Christ) to get rid of the dandruff. That one shampoo. And none other, or you will still have dandruff, as that is part of the human condition."
Indeed, I find it maddening that Christians who are so adamant in their faith and beliefs refuse to discuss the many hundreds of contradictions in their bible, and then dishonestly say "Oh you can believe whatever you want." All the churches I went to made us recite the Apostles' Creed. I have yet to see a Christian church without a creed or statement of faith.
The only church I will set foot in is basically no longer Christian, and that is the Unitarian Universalists. Unitarians used to believe in one god (starting with Michael Servetus, who was barbecued at the stake by John Calvin in Geneva) and the Unitarians, who believed in one god and not in the trinity. These two denominations merged in 1961 and have two seminaries in the United States.
They accept atheists, agnostics, the questioning, the pagans and anyone else who can't find straight logical answers in Christianity. The UUs are the only non-creedal religion I know of. They have statements of principles, but you don't have to say you believe in anything in particular, except that they draw from the diversity of many spiritual traditions.
I was reading about Zen Buddhism in the 1970s when there wasn't much to read in English other than the writings of Alan Watts, who was an Anglican minister turned Berkeley hippie Zen master. Now that the pre-boomers like Robert Thurman and also baby boomers have gone to Asia, studied and learned Sanskrit and Pali, and thoroughly understand those concepts for decades, now there are excellent books written about Buddhism in English, and even new translations of the Four Books of Discourses, by Bhikkhu Bodhi, who is a native English speaker.
The Hindus say that their many gods are just manifestations of the one god. I never could figure out why the Abrahamic religions think that polytheism is bad, or that graven images are bad. The Catholics have statues and the Protestants hate them for it. The Protestants also hate that Mary is prayed to as an intercessor, because they want an all male trinity with no balance between male and female deities. The Hindus take the graven image thing a step further and believe the spirit of the deity actually resides in the picture or the statue. I would think that concept would be a good thing for people who are not very capable of abstract thought.
I go back and forth reading Hinduism and Buddhism. Both are complicated but Hinduism gets really complicated. I think Gautama the Buddha, raised as a Hindu, got rid of the gods and goddesses to simplify the teachings, and kept the concepts of karma, dharma(the teachings or truth) and reincarnation, giving us a more condensed philosophy. There are lists such as the Four Noble Truths and the Eightfold Path. And there are books like the Numbered Discourses, saying the truth is like ____ because it has the same characteristics as _____. But there is not a statement that "The truth is _____" that is definitive. That takes a lot of deep thought. And there is more weight given to individual circumstances than in the Ten Commandments. Basically, don't lie, cheat, steal or indulge in sexual misconduct, which is given to the individual to judge.
I like the fact that you can follow original Theravada Buddhism and be an atheist. If you want to investigate the other flavors, you can have as many gods and goddesses as you like. I see the different deities, like the Taras or Kwan Yin, as different qualities or characteristics of humanity. The version I personally feel drawn to is Mahayana Buddhism which is Chinese. For some reason, maybe past lives, I am very attracted to Chinese culture. I used to go to a Mahayana temple in the city with a monastery attached, and I enjoyed the monks and nuns giving lessons on Sunday morning to the English-speaking group. They were all bilingual Chinese or Taiwanese people.
I also find it interesting that you can have a favorite god or goddess in Hinduism, an ishta devata, just like the Catholics have patron saints for people in different situations or professions.
I live in a very conservative part of the US where the Christians want to either convert the atheists, tell them to go to hell, or make them leave. The idea of not being in a Christian bubble where everyone is not just like them is something that they cannot even understand. If you're different in your spirituality, you must be bad or a terrorist. If you're an atheist, you must be a Satan worshiper and eat babies. You are only allowed to speak of certain narrow forms of Protestantism to be accepted. The most sensible denomination is the Methodists, and they are a lot more conservative than big-city Methodists. The Methodists at least go to proper seminaries where they have to learn ancient languages. Around here they all go to Southern Methodist University in Dallas. I don't know how much education the Southern Baptists have, but they seem to have a lock on power in the little towns and even some bigger ones.
They don't know what a Catholic or a Presbyterian is in these little towns. They have probably never met a Jew or a Muslim. Many of them have extremely untrained preachers in tiny churches. They know nothing but what some probably uneducated preacher has told them, and it's wrong. They think Muslims worship Mohammed. They think Buddhists worship Buddha as a god. They are ignorant and don't want to know about any other religions or spiritual traditions, because they are taught that everyone else is going to hell. They don't understand that their religion is an ethnic and geographic accident, based on where they were born and what the majority religion in their ethnic group is. They don't understand separation of church and state, because they think everybody is a Christian like they are, so they see no problem with crosses on sheriff's department cars, and nativity scenes with Jesus, Mary and Joseph on the courthouse lawn.
If you want to meet other secular humanists, you have to join secret Facebook groups. People invite you to their church just to be friendly, and if you turn them down, they don't understand. My husband and I tell them we are Unitarian Universalists, and that completely baffles them. They blank out because they don't know what that is. We met at a large UU church in the big city many years ago. We were both disgusted with the idiocy of Christianity and decided we couldn't accept it. We did this separately. I decided that since God was supposed to come into my heart and nothing happened, the people were suffering from a mass delusion and trying to MAKE me have a religious experience. It also helped that neither of us could deal with inconsistent and illogical religion. I have one science degree and my husband has two of them. He has also taken a whole lot of math, about 40 college hours' worth. I loved undergraduate chemistry because it made more sense than biology, which was my major.
And they certainly couldn't pass the religion courses I had to take at the small Presbyterian university I got my Bachelor's degree from. Everyone had to take 6 hours of religion, no matter what their major was, and it was sociology, anthropology and psychology of religion in the intro course. It was the most basic questions about why we have religions and rituals in the first place. Freud, Jung, Joseph Campbell, Mircea Eliade, Rudolf Otto, Jacob Needleman, Notes from the Underground by Dostoyevsky, Ludwig Feuerbach, and many other authors. It was practically a survey course in philosophy. The professor was a Princeton Divinity School graduate who knew many ancient and modern languages. He would casually say things like, "Oh yeah. I had to read Saint Thomas Aquinas in divinity school. In the original Medieval Latin." (((CHOKE))) I had taken Roman Latin in high school so I was absolutely stunned.
I also took Old Testament as History from him. That's when I found out what a horrendous mess the Bible was due to the committees of the Council of Nicaea ordered by Emperor Constantine, and the JEDP theory.
I had conservative cousins who were sent to Baylor University in Waco which is Southern Baptist, or Texas Christian University which is conservative Christian. My parents were horrified at that. I went to a true liberal arts college and got an excellent education where nobody was shoving doctrine and beliefs down my throat in religion class.
k8conant
(3,030 posts)Oh, nothing.
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)At best, the gospels were written decades after Jesus allegedly died by men who didn't actually hear him say anything.
And yet you proclaim these things with such certainty.
mr blur
(7,753 posts)Works both ways.
Shadowflash
(1,536 posts)And there is a Peter Parker listed in the phone directory.
Therefore Spider-Man is real?
Manifestor_of_Light
(21,046 posts)Back in the 1960s, when the TV show "The Munsters" was on, there was a real man in the Houston phone book named Herman Munster. He no doubt got a lot of prank calls.
Same idea. Herman Munster is REAL!!!
edhopper
(33,615 posts)are how did Paul really hear about Jesus. Since he really started Christianity and we can dismiss the "meeting on the road to Damascus". Knowing that would go a long way to knowing who the historical Jesus was.
Also if there is a Q Document that Mathew and Luke used for the Gospels, who wrote it and where?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)3-16-2016 AD. AD is Latin for 'Anno Domini' - which translates to: 'In the year of the Lord'
It's funny that someone would believe that the current calendars of most of the world's population would be based on the life of a "non-historical figure".
Some would suggest that those who reject even the mere existence of that "non-historical figure" to be in denial...
Looking at the same calendar, I see that some of the days of the week, and some of the months of the year have been named after various gods. Does that mean those gods are also real historical figures?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)means that Jesus of Nazareth was NOT a historical figure - on whom our calendar is based?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)bunch of other deities to "really existed" status too. It is not a good argument.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)rebut the suggestion that the man Jesus of Nazareth was not a "historical figure".
Mariana
(14,860 posts)I stated a fact about the calendar, and then I asked you a question. Are you going to answer it?
jonno99
(2,620 posts)Why? Because it is merely a name.
It is the YEAR of the calendar that makes the difference in this discussion. The year is a pointer - to the life of a particular person. Is the pointer factual - is it accurate? It's hard to say, there are biases on both sides of the argument. Once thing is sure however, whether Jesus of Nazareth actually lived or not, we have a calendar that points to the time his (supposed) life.
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)jonno99
(2,620 posts)Really, is it that hard to accept that the Gregorian calendar - which most of the world follows, was based on the life of the person Jesus or Nazareth?
Warren Stupidity
(48,181 posts)forcing our culture on people at gunpoint, being good christians and everything.
AD year 1 is an invention created circa 525 CE.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)I think not - not by a long shot.
Mariana
(14,860 posts)anywhere in that post.
Why don't you just read what people have posted and respond to what is actually said? It's much better to do that than to make shit up.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)You first addressed me on this thread:
"some of the months of the year have been named after various gods. Does that mean those gods are also real historical figures?"
You (and Warren) tried to turn this sub-thread into something it's not - it's not about god's or deities. It's about a person and a calendar. The calendar points to a person. Whether he lived or not, was real or not is irrelevant. The story of his life has a place in history and our calendar POINTS to that place in time.
You don't have to like it, you don't have to agree with it. But the calendar exists...
edhopper
(33,615 posts)and not widespread until the 9th Century.
At that point, Europe was Christian. So their taking the Bible as history and picking these dates (which are arbitrary, since even biblical scholars can't pinpoint the year of Jesus' supposed birth) not surprising. And I don't think anyone disputes the time period when these events purportedly occurred. But so what? Why does that lead any credence to it's veracity?
That the Bible is a major influence on western society isn't the question. It's accuracy is.
edhopper
(33,615 posts)proof that Jesus was born on that date exactly as described in the Bible.
And January first is proof of Roman Gods;
In 46 B.C.E. the Roman emperor Julius Caesar first established January 1 as New Years day. Janus was the Roman god of doors and gates, and had two faces, one looking forward and one back. Caesar felt that the month named after this god (January) would be the appropriate door to the year.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)I'm not arguing accuracy or royal edicts - merely that fact that even TODAY the calendar we use is based on the life of one individual: Jesus of Nazareth.
Whether of not he actually existed I certainly can't prove sitting here in the 21st century. But it seems fairly obvious that enough people we're convinced. Don't you find it interesting that Julius Caesar's existence is not disputed, and yet the story of some obscure carpenter (or so we're told) managed to influence the vast majority of the world - even to the point of affecting our calendar...
edhopper
(33,615 posts)of accepting that some man name Yeshua did live who is the basis for Jesus in the Bible.
I just think there is zero proof, and much counter-proof that things portrayed in the NT did not happen.
So for me the debate is not if a man lived, it's can we accept anything but the slimmest peripheral drapings of the Gospels.
And there are many fictional beings and people that have effected the who world.
Is the effect of the idea of God himself on the world any evidence that he exists? (in case you are wondering, the answer is no)
Mariana
(14,860 posts)or the effects the widespread belief that the myth is real has had on the real world - including the calendar. I don't think that is enough to change a mythical figure into a historical figure.
jonno99
(2,620 posts)a secular source:
http://infidels.org/library/modern/scott_oser/hojfaq.html
edhopper
(33,615 posts)a man the gospels were based on? Or are you arguing for some credibility in the gospel stories themselves and the possible divinity of Jesus?