It Is Now Legitimate To Question Jesus's Historicity

[clara17]

It appears that you are doubling down on the no true Scotsman fallacy.

It appears you are.

See my post in 104.
I am just saying if you want to anaylze Christianity, a good place to look is not the Roman Church.
It was created specifically to put a stop to Christianity.

 

[PruePhillip]

This is only speculation about his being the beloved disciple, tbh.

John was like one of the youngest disciples, we know that from his age in Patmos.
And John wasn't a historic type person like Luke, or a law person like Paul. He was
a gentle man who's focus was upon love. And this is what endeared him to Jesus.
Certainly, as in the case of Diotrephes, John could stand up for the truth, but it wasn't
something he liked to do.
Diotrephes could have been the one and only Catholic mentioned in the bible - his
name is rare and he could have been the first Bishop Diotrephes mentioned in RCC
history.

 

[KWED]

I think there have long been some active priests, both Catholic and Anglican, who don't actually believe in a literal God:

Preacher: Even priests DON'T believe in god
BBC News | UK | The vicars who don't believe in God

Given the position and privilege of clerics over history, it would be surprising if it hadn't been a cynical career move for a fair few.

 

[KWED]

Because I'm sick of everyone being able to jump on Christianity with impunity and disparage their own heritage, their own culture, their ancestors. It's like, why can't it just be given a break? It's not what it once was. In Europe Christianity as default is gone. It's done. And yet people still feel the need to bash, essentially, 2000 years of their history basically just out of spite. It saddens me. Just let the Christians have their beliefs and leave them alone.

Why shouldn't people criticise their own tainted history and heritage. Should we only criticise others?

 

[Rival]

Why shouldn't people criticise their own tainted history and heritage. Should we only criticise others?

Sure, criticise it but at least give it its due as well. Christianity is responsible for so much much good but all I ever seem to hear are rehashed arguments against it from spiteful people.

 

[KWED]

RE at Primary and Secondary for me involved learning about most religions. We even celebrated Diwali.

When the law requires schools to provide "daily worship of a broadly Christian nature", it is mere lip service. Some of the (obviously Christian) RS teachers were downright condescending about other religions.

 

[KWED]

For all we know he just wanted to be the topic of pointless Internet debates.

Good luck with that!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You will be hard pressed to change actual Christian doctrine. You will never get Muslims to believe Muhammad didn't exist and still be orthodox Muslims. Religion doesn't work that way.

Religion works however a religious community accepts.

 

[Rival]

When the law requires schools to provide "daily worship of a broadly Christian nature", it is mere lip service. Some of the (obviously Christian) RS teachers were downright condescending about other religions.

Not my experience at all

 

[Rival]

Religion works however a religious community accepts.

Most religions have unchangeable doctrines at their core. If they didn't I hardly think they'd be able to be called religion. And having Jesus as a real figure is a doctrine of orthodox Christianity. I'm not sure why this bothers folks, really.

 

[KWED]

Roman historian Pliny claimed African warriors rode giant scorpions. He claimed Hannibal rode
elephants over the Alps and invaded Rome itself. And Hannibal's nemesis, Scipio Africanus, was
born to the gods. See the problem?

Most atheists don't believe in Moses, but believe in Hannibal. Employing the same techniques of
critical analysis we should presume that Hannibal, if he existed, was nothing more than a local
warlord or escaped slave who gathered a band of men to himself. His story was crafted as a
precautionary tale for the Romans, similar to what the bible is claimed to have done with its
figures such as King David.

So why don't we teach this? Why do we believe Hannibal, Cleopatra, Aristotle and Plato to be
historic figures but Jesus is not? Why the double standard in our "critical analysis" of things.

Nobody believes Hannibal, Plato or Cleopatra had magical powers or were of divine origin. Nobody even makes those claims.

We reject Jesus' magical abilities for the same reasons that we reject Aristotle's.

 

[KWED]

Sure, criticise it but at least give it its due as well. Christianity is responsible for so much much good but all I ever seem to hear are rehashed arguments against it from spiteful people.

This argument crops up regularly, but makes no sense.
Do we tell the prosecution to stop concentrating on the murdery stuff and instead talk about the accused's love of animals?
The good doesn't negate the bad. And there has been a lot of bad!

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Christianity is best lived out as Jesus wanted it to be.

Which is what, exactly?

When I read the Gospels, what it seems to me that what Jesus wants from - or expects of - his followers is to be:

- on the margins of society with no political power.
- completely destitute, relying on charity, owning nothing more than the clothes on their back and a begging bowl.
- alienated from their family.
- disinterested in the future of the world beyond the Second Coming, which is due to happen sometime in the first century.

 

[Rival]

This argument crops up regularly, but makes no sense.
Do we tell the prosecution to stop concentrating on the murdery stuff and instead talk about the accused's love of animals?
The good doesn't negate the bad. And there has been a lot of bad!

There is more good than bad imo.

And Christianity isn't, like, on trial dude.

 

[KWED]

Well, of course, the historical veracity of his resurrection is the pinnacle of the Christian faith.
If there is no life after death, all missionary work, martyrdom and sacrifice will cease, ...eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow we die.

The resurrection of a major religious figure is not necessary for belief in an afterlife.

 

[Sheldon]

It's a funny thing, Atheists see Prokaryotes having sex in rocks 3.5 billion years ago, but a man who lived 2000 years ago that changed the entire Western world might not have lived at all. Atheists hope that God doesn't exist, so they certainly have to make his son go away!

Firstly one need not be an atheist to doubt the existence of Jesus, secondly scientific facts have nothing at all to do with atheism, and lastly even were one to accept that Jesus existed as an historical figure this would not remotely be objective evidence for any deity, all your work would still be before you.

 

[KWED]

There is more good than bad imo.

I can't think of anything that couldn't have also been achieved without the intolerance and supremacism.
In fact, any "good" done in response to threats of violence or promises of reward isn't really "good" at all, in that sense. It's just self-interest.

 

[Rival]

I can't think of anything that couldn't have also been achieved without the intolerance and supremacism.
In fact, any "good" done in response to threats of violence or promises of reward isn't really "good" at all, in that sense. It's just self-interest.

Then you need to read more, I guess.

 

[lukethethird]

It appears you are.

See my post in 104.
I am just saying if you want to anaylze Christianity, a good place to look is not the Roman Church.
It was created specifically to put a stop to Christianity.

Proto-orthodox Christianity put a stop to the other Christianity's by the end of the third century, if that is what you mean, leading to the 4th century forming of the Catholic Church as we know it today. Prior to that Catholicism was just one Christianity among many.

 

[Sheldon]

"Primitive man lived a life of superstitious bondage to religious fear.

Not just primitive humans sadly.

Modern, civilized men dread the thought of falling under the dominance of strong religious convictions. Thinking man has always feared to be held by a religion. When a strong and moving religion threatens to dominate him, he invariably tries to rationalize, traditionalize, and institutionalize it, thereby hoping to gain control of it.

I don't know who you are describing but that is not remotely my atheism. I simply see no objective evidence for any deity, and the claims religions and religious apologists make are either irrational, unevidenced, preposterous, or all 3.

Modern men and women of intelligence evade the religion of Jesus because of their fears of what it will do to them—and with them.

How exactly do you claim to know this? Can you read people's minds then?

And all such fears are well founded.

Nothing in religious dogma or doctrine causes me any fear, my only concern is the behaviour of adherents of religions.