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 )

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 ) 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]

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?

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*

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]

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]

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:

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

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]

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.

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]

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.

-Chris

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

That's NOT when Jesus was born.

 

[Liamo]

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=http://www.infidels.org/librar...html]The Formation of the New Testament Canon 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