The Most Dangerous Myth In The World

[Karl R]

You will have one group who no longer believes in God, Prophecy, Spirituality, and will ultimently no longer have a reason for being Christians.They will be utterly blasphemous in every way, and will not have any respect for their brothers, and sisters, who believe different.

Well, you almost succeeded in proving your own point, but probably not in the manner you intended.

I attend a Unitarian Universalist church, and most of the members don't believe that Jesus was divine. I'm in a minority. However, most of them respect my beliefs.

It seems quite obvious, however, that you wouldn't be capable of respecting your "utterly blasphemous" brothers and sisters who might believe that Jesus wasn't divine.

Breaking what is sacred to millions is bound to start a civil war in the Kingdom of God.

That's rather militant. If people had respect for the beliefs of others, it could start a series of intelligent respectful discussions and debates.

Liberal Christians, on the other hand, suggest that instead of viewing Jesus's divinity as literally true this idea should be understood as a myth, a metaphor, a symbol, and the like.

Most liberal christians view Jesus as divine, though most wouldn't be opposed to considering the possibility that Jesus' divinity could be viewed as a myth, metaphor, or symbol.

I would say that Jesus was clearly "special" and had a connection to the divine that exceeded other prophets and holy men. I'm not certain how far this extends, but it includes the possibility that Jesus was god incarnate.

with Christians who are undecided, confused or indifferent about the matter falling in between.

It's fairly easy to commit to one side of the arguement or the other. It's a bit more difficult to admit that you can't clearly know the answer and will have to shape your beliefs around what you don't know.

The liberal Christian position that Jesus's divinity is a myth derives from the widespread agreement among New Testament scholars that Jesus himself did not claim he was God incarnate, and that this claim was put into his mouth by the apostle Paul and the authors of the gospels.

There's hardly agreement on this matter. It can be argued, but there's no evidence supporting that side, since the bulk of the evidence about what Jesus said comes from the gospels and the letters.

To draw an analogy: it would be like me claiming that you're actually a christian and that you don't believe what you put in your posts. It's certainly possible, but it really can't be supported with evidence.

The fact that God's kingdom failed to materialise shows that Jesus was certainly not God incarnate. After all, if one of the alleged attributes of God is omniscience then how could Jesus as God have been so spectacularly wrong about the coming kingdom?

Two alternate explanations:

1. Jesus was misquoted, and he actually said something different.
2. Jesus was speaking metaphorically, and was wildly misunderstood.

For liberal Christians, Christianity 'is not about grovelling before a saviour, it's joining in the work of saving our world' (Reverend Rigby). Thus, liberal Christians argue for the need to give up the mythical idea of Jesus as a divine being who came into this world to atone for humanity's sins, and to focus on the latter's moral teachings instead.

You're putting words into Rigby's mouth that he didn't actually say. He's saying that it's a matter of changing our focus on what's important. Is it vital that we hold beliefs that can't be proved or disproved, or is it more important that we spend our time following the moral teaching and putting those teachings in action?

Jesus, in other words, should be seen purely as an inspirational figure who exemplified how Christians ought to live in the world and behave towards others, and nothing beyond this.

Rigby didn't say this directly, and several liberal christians on this forum (including myself) would directly refute it. If you want to see Jesus as an inspirational figure, that's fine. If you want to view Jesus as god incarnate, that's fine.

Loving others and acting on that love ... that's imperative.

The myth that Jesus was God incarnate has been used over the last two millennia as the fundamental justification for anti-Semitism in the Christian world.

Hitler used Darwinian ideas to support his anti-semitic genocide.

Does that make Darwinism evil? Does it make Darwinism incorrect?

Similar arguements could be made about Jung's beliefs (which may or may not be correct, but helped advance science).

It's not the belief that's evil. It's the twisted ways people try to use that belief.

The myth that Jesus was God incarnate accounts for conservative Christianity's posture of superiority vis-a-vis all the other world religions.

People like to think themselves superior, for national, ethnic, and religious reasons. School rivalries are based on this attitude.

It's just ego-centrism. I attend this school, therefore it must be better than other schools. I live in this country, therefore it must be better than other countries. I eat at this restaurant, therefore it must be better than other restaurants. I believe in this religion, therefore it must be better than other religions.

The myth of Jesus's divinity serves as a powerful basis for the subjugation, oppression and slander of women.

The subjugation of women existed in this world before christianity. It existed far outside the boundaries of that region.

What was Jesus supposed to come to earth as? A hermaphrodite?

This is a byproduct of human ignorance, not a natural consequence of the belief.

I'll refrain here from describing how the myth that Jesus was God incarnate was used as an ideological device for sanctioning the exploitation, oppression and extermination of 'heathen' colonial peoples in every corner of the globe by European nations from the 16th century onwards - out of fear of making you feel sick and depressed.

Then Darwin and Jung came along and their ideas were twisted to sanction the exact same activities. Are you going to argue that science is evil? Or will you recognize that people will try to rationalize evil with whatever ideas are available?

For example, among those masters of social etiquette - the French - to declare oneself 'a believer in the divinity of the Lord Jesus Christ' is worse than simple bad manners: it is an outrageous act, a grand faux pas as crass and unforgivable, say, as deliberately defecating oneself in a crowded elevator trapped between floors on a hot summer day.

I'd be a bit more inclined to believe that if it was stated by someone else.

As it is, I'll be a bit skeptical.

there is also absolutely NO proof that the man himself (Christ) ever existed except for the Bible.

He's briefly mentioned as a charismatic jewish religious leader in a couple historical texts. (Usually in less than flattering terms.)

 

[BFD_Zayl]

no offense but.. can't christians get along with each other? they all praise Jesus and God. yet they fight amongst themselves because of small diffrences. look at us pagans, radically diffrent views on things and yet we have a small yet friendly community. theres almost no fighting and when there is its just about trivial things. honestly... if people want to worship god in their own way, go ahead, as long as it dosent directly affect others then everything is good in my view.

 

[bunny1ohio]

Basically, I am protesting the point in the OP that since the divinity of Christ can be used to abuse women, there is a parallel practice of venerating women, especially Mary.

Deification is the process of giving divinity to Christ. I am operating from the assumption that the divinity of Christ is a Christian myth. It's a myth because it is unprovable, whether it is from the lips of Jesus or not. However, we have a parallel myth of outstanding females in our religion that women can find exemplars and express their spirituality as women rather than looking to a male alone.

Well in THAT case we have nothing to debate because I agree with you :biglaugh:

Thanks for explaining it to me there angellous, I was a bit corn-fused :kat:

 

[Mister Emu]

But there is also absolutely NO proof that the man himself (Christ) ever existed except for the Bible

Tacticus
Josephus

There is much more proof that he was not a real man than there is that he was.

I would appreciate a seperate thread based on this, if you could?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Tacticus
Josephus


I would appreciate a seperate thread based on this, if you could?

There's a good thread on this already.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27156&highlight=%22historical+Jesus%22

This quote seems thoughtless:

There is much more proof that he was not a real man than there is that he was.

Where is the evidence that someone is not "a real man?"

 

[steelblue75]

Where is the evidence that someone is not "a real man?"

How about the Other ancient gods that are assumed today to be mythology that were thought to be real living breathing entities in the days they were worshipped? All of them today are said not to have ever truly existed... why is Christ any exception other than things written down about him? What about Thor? Or Zeus? There was much more written about those fellas than about Christ.... but we say t hey were never real and he was? :bonk:

 

[FerventGodSeeker]

First of all, I'm a liberal Christian, and I believe in the divinity of Christ. So do many, many other liberal Christians.

Thank you. Even though I'm a conservative, I know that many (if not most) liberal Christians do believe Jesus is God. This notion that Jesus' divinity is only a myth is saddening, and is not representative of orthodox Christian teaching at all. I'm glad that liberals such as yourself are willing to stand up against this.

FerventGodSeeker

 

[Glaswegian]

First of all, I'm a liberal Christian, and I believe in the divinity of Christ. So do many, many other liberal Christians.

The divinity of Jesus has been standard Christian dogma since the time of the early Church Fathers. Because you believe this dogma to be true your position towards it is wholly orthodox, which is to say, conservative. It is as conservative as the Pope's position towards it is, and every Pope before him. Therefore, when you describe yourself as a 'liberal Christian' you must be judging yourself liberal on the basis of criteria other than belief in Jesus's divinity. But regarding the belief itself your position is conservative through and through, as is that of the 'many, many liberal Christians' who you say share this belief.

 

[Karl R]

The divinity of Jesus has been standard Christian dogma since the time of the early Church Fathers. Because you believe this dogma to be true your position towards it is wholly orthodox, which is to say, conservative. It is as conservative as the Pope's position towards it is, and every Pope before him. Therefore, when you describe yourself as a 'liberal Christian' you must be judging yourself liberal on the basis of criteria other than belief in Jesus's divinity. But regarding the belief itself your position is conservative through and through, as is that of the 'many, many liberal Christians' who you say share this belief.

You're saying Sojourner and other liberal christians aren't really liberals because they don't meet your definition of what a liberal is?

Did you bother to read the overview of liberal christianity posted on this website?

Liberal Christianity, Progressive Christianity or Liberalism is a movement within Christianity that is characterized by the following features:

* internal diversity of opinion
* an embracing of higher criticism of the Bible, and a corresponding rejection of biblical literalism
* an intimate, personal view of God
* broader views on salvation than those held by conservative Christians, including universalist beliefs
* non-traditional views on heaven and hell
* an emphasis on inclusive fellowship and community
* a willingness to consider and adopt viewpoints which have their roots outside of Christianity
* a willingness to combine theology with modern scientific theories

Difficulties in definition

Diversity of opinion is a central characteristic of liberal Christianity, and one which makes it difficult to define with precision.

Rigby's acceptance of Jensen makes sense because of characteristics #1, 2, 4, 6, and 7.

But none of the characteristics dictate (or even imply) that liberal christians typically don't believe that christ was somehow divine.

One again you amaze me, Glaswegian, with your willingness to tell others what they believe.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How about the Other ancient gods that are assumed today to be mythology that were thought to be real living breathing entities in the days they were worshipped? All of them today are said not to have ever truly existed... why is Christ any exception other than things written down about him? What about Thor? Or Zeus? There was much more written about those fellas than about Christ.... but we say t hey were never real and he was? :bonk:

This addresses the divinity of Jesus, not whether or not Jesus actually existed as a person.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

The divinity of Jesus has been standard Christian dogma since the time of the early Church Fathers. Because you believe this dogma to be true your position towards it is wholly orthodox, which is to say, conservative. It is as conservative as the Pope's position towards it is, and every Pope before him. Therefore, when you describe yourself as a 'liberal Christian' you must be judging yourself liberal on the basis of criteria other than belief in Jesus's divinity. But regarding the belief itself your position is conservative through and through, as is that of the 'many, many liberal Christians' who you say share this belief.

How odd that you are forced to define liberalism as that which goes against orthodoxy. Curious that you do not allow for conservative and liberal orthodoxy.

Strange that you reduce yourself to arguing that all liberals are conservative if they happen to want continuence with Christian doctrine at all.

Even more puzzeling is that Altizer and other Christian atheists from the 1960s God-is-dead movement understood themselves to be radical Christians. Do you seriously think that they have a large following within Christianity - large enough for you to igorantly assume that a liberal Christian must deny Christianity? The insight of your first post has been eclipsed by an overwhelming ignorance of Christian tradition.

 

[bunny1ohio]

This addresses the divinity of Jesus, not whether or not Jesus actually existed as a person.

No... it shows that other ancient "divinities" can be considered just as "real" as Christ since there is more evidence for their existence than his... or that he is just as mythological (or more) for the same reason.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No... it shows that other ancient "divinities" can be considered just as "real" as Christ since there is more evidence for their existence than his... or that he is just as mythological (or more) for the same reason.

True, but I asked...

Where is the evidence that someone is not "a real man?"

I was in no way inferring anything about the divinity of Christ as superior to any other divine claims. Although the Church has considered Christ divine for some time, these claims have no bearing whatsoever on the historicity of Jesus. In other words, we don't doubt the historicity of a person just because others think that person is divine.

Many of the Roman rulers were declared divine after their death. Some people think that the Buddha is divine, but we don't doubt their historicity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity - Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha - Buddha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome#Imperial_cult - Worship of Emperors

 

[bunny1ohio]

True, but I asked...



I was in no way inferring anything about the divinity of Christ as superior to any other divine claims. Although the Church has considered Christ divine for some time, these claims have no bearing whatsoever on the historicity of Jesus. In other words, we don't doubt the historicity of a person just because others think that person is divine.

Many of the Roman rulers were declared divine after their death. Some people think that the Buddha is divine, but we don't doubt their historicity.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity - Jesus
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha - Buddha
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_ancient_Rome#Imperial_cult - Worship of Emperors

I get where you're coming from angellous... but I think the better question is what proof do we have that Christ was a real person, and not someone modeled after somebody else, or completely made up? What real evidence is there other than a book and two (apparently) references by historical figures? And what evidence is there that this man is what he says he was?... In the research I have done... there is none.... therefore I would venture to say (in my humble opinion) that he is not a real person, but someone either modeled after another more obscure personage or someone completely invented and just talked about enough that others happened to mention him as well. Granted.... that is an opinion since we cannot prove his existence in truth one way or another yet... but it still holds with the facts we have

 

[angellous_evangellous]

I get where you're coming from angellous... but I think the better question is what proof do we have that Christ was a real person, and not someone modeled after somebody else, or completely made up? What real evidence is there other than a book and two (apparently) references by historical figures? And what evidence is there that this man is what he says he was?... In the research I have done... there is none.... therefore I would venture to say (in my humble opinion) that he is not a real person, but someone either modeled after another more obscure personage or someone completely invented and just talked about enough that others happened to mention him as well. Granted.... that is an opinion since we cannot prove his existence in truth one way or another yet... but it still holds with the facts we have

I'm afraid that written evidence is mostly how we "prove" that people existed, unless of course they do something like found a religion (like the Buddha and the Prophet) or build buildings, etc.

Right now the majority of critical scholars concede that Jesus did exist. See, for example, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Christ#Historicity and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus.

 

[bunny1ohio]

but I think the better question is what proof do we have that Christ was a real person, and not someone modeled after somebody else, or completely made up? What real evidence is there other than a book and two (apparently) references by historical figures? And what evidence is there that this man is what he says he was?... In the research I have done... there is none....

Since you seem to like using Wiki for reference material angellous... here's a couple for you to check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

In support of this claim, they cite a complete lack of eyewitness and contemporary, or near-contemporary accounts; the great number of contemporary and near-contemporary works which they feel should, could, or might have mentioned Jesus but didn't; a lack of detailed accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers; nonexistent physical evidence; and alleged similarities between early Christian writings and many contemporary mythological accounts. Perhaps the most prolific of these Biblical scholars disputing the historical existence of Jesus is the professor of German, George Albert Wells. In more recent times, it has been advocated by the scholars Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price.

quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#The_idea_that_Jesus_never_existed

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Since you seem to like using Wiki for reference material angellous... here's a couple for you to check out

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Docetism

In support of this claim, they cite a complete lack of eyewitness and contemporary, or near-contemporary accounts; the great number of contemporary and near-contemporary works which they feel should, could, or might have mentioned Jesus but didn't; a lack of detailed accounts of Jesus' life from sources other than Jesus' followers; nonexistent physical evidence; and alleged similarities between early Christian writings and many contemporary mythological accounts. Perhaps the most prolific of these Biblical scholars disputing the historical existence of Jesus is the professor of German, George Albert Wells. In more recent times, it has been advocated by the scholars Earl Doherty and Robert M. Price.

quoted from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#The_idea_that_Jesus_never_existed

I'm aware of the peoblems raised by these scholars. Nevertheless, people who want to use their arguments from silence have convinced only a strict minority that Jesus never existed.

BTW, as we are deviating from the OP, we can address this topic here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27156&highlight=%22historical+Jes us%22

I begin to address the silence in post #130. You could start on page 11, post #102.

 

[bunny1ohio]

I'm aware of the peoblems raised by these scholars. Nevertheless, people who want to use their arguments from silence have convinced only a strict minority that Jesus never existed.

BTW, as we are deviating from the OP, we can address this topic here:
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27156&highlight=%22historical+Jes us%22

I begin to address the silence in post #130. You could start on page 11, post #102.

How is questioning the validity of Christ's actual physical existence going against the OP? The OP is about whether or not Christ is a mythological person or not isn't it?

 

[angellous_evangellous]

How is questioning the validity of Christ's actual physical existence going against the OP? The OP is about whether or not Christ is a mythological person or not isn't it?

It's about the divinity of Christ being the most dangerous myth in the world. That has absolutely nothing to do with historicity of a man named Jesus of Nazareth.

 

[bunny1ohio]

It's about the divinity of Christ being the most dangerous myth in the world. That has absolutely nothing to do with historicity of a man named Jesus of Nazareth.

It is an extension of the OP. If he was not a real person, he therefore could not be a "divine" person IF there was a man named Jesus of Nazareth.... was he divine? Was he a myth? Was his divinity a myth? It all goes together, although I understand the difference you are pointing out. :162: