The root of Christianity

[Learner]

As the old saying goes, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

I know that one. I often see it as: You should be able to take what you give out! Not for frustrated sensitive people.

 

[steve_bank]

As the old saying goes, if you can't take the heat stay out of the kitchen.

I know that one. I often see it as: You should be able to take what you give out! Not for frustrated sensitive people.

It is not with th intent you infer. If your theology and apologetics are not up to snuff yiu have some stuydying to do.

In the past A Christian I new asked me to be a volunteer judge at a regional Chridtian home schooler debate contest. Winners went t on to a national competition to compete for scholarships.

There were two forms. In one the person presented a dissertation for which judges made written commentary and assessment.

In the second two people took pro and con an an issue and debated.

They were home schooled high school kids. Of course theology and apologetics were woven into it but it was not exclusively about religion.

I found the kids to be bright and very well read.

From experience your apologetics is relatively weak.

The husband of the woman who invited me to hte event had an extensive library across philosophy and religion. We marinated a running conversation about issues like creationism vs evolution.

It is incumbent on you to improve your game.

People get a spiritual high from conversion and belief, for many Christians that is as far as they take it.

 

[atrib]

Why do you believe the gospels as truth without any corroboration, and if you truly believe how could anything we say bother you?

I asked him this question twice, why anyone should believe the stories in the Bible. This is the best he could come up with:

Why should you you believe? All I can say is you'll have to take it as you see it....

He cannot articulate a single reason why the stories should be believed. But he is willing to go out of his way to embarrass himself in public to defend them.

 

[Learner]

Why do you believe the gospels as truth without any corroboration, and if you truly believe how could anything we say bother you?

I asked him this question twice, why anyone should believe the stories in the Bible. This is the best he could come up with:

Why should you you believe? All I can say is you'll have to take it as you see it....

He cannot articulate a single reason why the stories should be believed. But he is willing to go out of his way to embarrass himself in public to defend them.

As I recall, there were varied things coming up between discussions ... originating from Lumpy's post and the different topical aspects leading out from it. But at least you were able to bring up ONE single question which you feel needs more articulate attention, and as it seems to me, you feel "my whole integrity rests upon" at least this moment.

And so... you say "this is the best I could come up with..." BUT I talk further on this, when I talked about the likelihood that these writers were not lying i.e. telling the truth etc.. You even responded to say this could be applied to other religions.

 

[Learner]

I wasn't Christian when I joined the forum. So start a petition to ban us.

Anyway. I thought it would be obvious when quoting scripture. Sometimes there's the need to correct the misrepresentions of the scriptures when you're quoting them yourselves.

Ban you? Perish the thought. That would be contrary to basis of the site. The only way to get banned is to chronically violate the TOU, usually for being hostile and abusive. On the contrary people from the forum in the past have been banned from Chrsitian sites.

Glad to hear it, but anyway... it was more a response to say "take it or leave it" because it seemed to me you were complaining about "all that theists do is quote scripture," and another post on another thread where I said at the end "I'll be back later." You replied to that with, WHY? Lol, hence the little sarcasm in my response "start a petition to ban us" if you're not happy with the quoting of scripture.

The risk for any who post on the forum not just with religion is having bad arguments perilously taken apart. It is on the poster to defend statements.

Preaching to the converted, I'm not a guru and doing the best I can.

Or Daniel in the lions den, or yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, or other common passages. Christins know the words, but may not know what it mens in practical terms of faith.

Sure but there's no issue here. I'm assuming you must also understand that Christians 'may' also know what it means, being that 'logically' as with all things with a variety of individuals. Some will know more than others.

What you pose as arguments and responses are shown to be lacking. How you take that is not our problem.

If it is the case ... I wouldn't be sensitive, or frustrated either way. I can only respond the best way I can, even if you don't accept it.

Two questions. Why do you believe the gospels as truth without any corroboration, and if you truly believe how could anything we say bother you?

Firstly, it doesn't bother me, so no issue here again ... which should be evident of my history.

Most of us atheist here can clearly articulate why we believe and what we believe, the result of debate, reading, and introspection. All we are really asking of theists is to articulate why.

Of the texts taken from the corroboration of 64,000 manuscripts: I believe this also comes through Archeology, psycology, history/ historic events, and the geography.

 

[steve_bank]

Glad to hear it, but anyway... it was more a response to say "take it or leave it" because it seemed to me you were complaining about "all that theists do is quote scripture," and another post on another thread where I said at the end "I'll be back later." You replied to that with, WHY? Lol, hence the little sarcasm in my response "start a petition to ban us" if you're not happy with the quoting of scripture.

The risk for any who post on the forum not just with religion is having bad arguments perilously taken apart. It is on the poster to defend statements.

Preaching to the converted, I'm not a guru and doing the best I can.

Or Daniel in the lions den, or yea though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear no evil, or other common passages. Christins know the words, but may not know what it mens in practical terms of faith.

Sure but there's no issue here. I'm assuming you must also understand that Christians 'may' also know what it means, being that 'logically' as with all things with a variety of individuals. Some will know more than others.

What you pose as arguments and responses are shown to be lacking. How you take that is not our problem.

If it is the case ... I wouldn't be sensitive, or frustrated either way. I can only respond the best way I can, even if you don't accept it.

Two questions. Why do you believe the gospels as truth without any corroboration, and if you truly believe how could anything we say bother you?

Firstly, it doesn't bother me, so no issue here again ... which should be evident of my history.

Most of us atheist here can clearly articulate why we believe and what we believe, the result of debate, reading, and introspection. All we are really asking of theists is to articulate why.

Of the texts taken from the corroboration of 64,000 manuscripts: I believe this also comes through Archeology, psycology, history/ historic events, and the geography.

There is no archeological or documentary evidence of the existence of Jesus and the supernatural stories, it is Christian fabrication. There are no contemporary accounts. Josephus was hear say.

There are many Christian pseudo science shows that create a false narrative. On the order of Loch Ness monster tv shows. A picture taken from an airplane was interpreted to be Noah's Ark, but of course the regional authorities permitted no exploration.

You will have to cite chapter and verse on those 64,000 items. The Dead Sea Scrolls while historically important are not any kind of proof. I read a book on the translation.

What we do know with some certainty is the Jewish social, political, and religious turmoil of the day. Jews took the prophesy to mean a warrior king, aka David, to return them to power. Jesus would have been one of a number of doom and gloomers
clai ing to be the prophesy. One leader led Jews to a tragic end at Masada, the Jewish rebellion. Masda was real, it has been excavated. Th Roman ramp built up the mountain can be discerned. Writings were left on pottery.

No such evidence exists for first Christians, who were actually heretic Jews. The Christian identity separate from Jews came somewhat later as Gentiles adopted it.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Glad to hear it, but anyway... it was more a response to say "take it or leave it" because it seemed to me you were complaining about "all that theists do is quote scripture," and another post on another thread where I said at the end "I'll be back later." You replied to that with, WHY? Lol, hence the little sarcasm in my response "start a petition to ban us" if you're not happy with the quoting of scripture.



Preaching to the converted, I'm not a guru and doing the best I can.


Sure but there's no issue here. I'm assuming you must also understand that Christians 'may' also know what it means, being that 'logically' as with all things with a variety of individuals. Some will know more than others.

What you pose as arguments and responses are shown to be lacking. How you take that is not our problem.

If it is the case ... I wouldn't be sensitive, or frustrated either way. I can only respond the best way I can, even if you don't accept it.

Two questions. Why do you believe the gospels as truth without any corroboration, and if you truly believe how could anything we say bother you?

Firstly, it doesn't bother me, so no issue here again ... which should be evident of my history.

Most of us atheist here can clearly articulate why we believe and what we believe, the result of debate, reading, and introspection. All we are really asking of theists is to articulate why.

Of the texts taken from the corroboration of 64,000 manuscripts: I believe this also comes through Archeology, psycology, history/ historic events, and the geography.

There is no archeological or documentary evidence of the existence of Jesus and the supernatural stories, it is Christian fabrication. There are no contemporary accounts. Josephus was hear say.

There are many Christian pseudo science shows that create a false narrative. On the order of Loch Ness monster tv shows. A picture taken from an airplane was interpreted to be Noah's Ark, but of course the regional authorities permitted no exploration.

You will have to cite chapter and verse on those 64,000 items. The Dead Sea Scrolls while historically important are not any kind of proof. I read a book on the translation.

What we do know with some certainty is the Jewish social, political, and religious turmoil of the day. Jews took the prophesy to mean a warrior king, aka David, to return them to power. Jesus would have been one of a number of doom and gloomers
clai ing to be the prophesy. One leader led Jews to a tragic end at Masada, the Jewish rebellion. Masda was real, it has been excavated. Th Roman ramp built up the mountain can be discerned. Writings were left on pottery.

No such evidence exists for first Christians, who were actually heretic Jews. The Christian identity separate from Jews came somewhat later as Gentiles adopted it.

To add to this, the success of the Jesus movement added to the mythologisation of him. Anyone joining a new religious movement weren't blank slates. They all had their own ideas. They would project those ideas onto Jesus. They all wanted to follow an impeccably moral man. Who doesn't? So they would place their own ideas into the mouth of Jesus, just assuming that any guy that awesome of course shared their own beliefs. Rapidly turning a real person into a fictional character. It's easy to see how this process can work even if all of the participants are honest and well meaning people

 

[fromderinside]

Yeah, but, was he, was he any of that? Seems it was right time for Israelis to grumble against Rome and for Rome to desire another way to believe. Really think Rome took advantage of pissy merchants on road to Alexandria, cooped Judaism, appended Love thy brother and built the armored state of Military-monotheism in the image of Emperors. Nothing like adding trials and tribulations to two boy Titty-sucker origins story.

Just sayin'.

 

[ideologyhunter]

To add to this, the success of the Jesus movement added to the mythologisation of him. Anyone joining a new religious movement weren't blank slates. They all had their own ideas. They would project those ideas onto Jesus. They all wanted to follow an impeccably moral man. Who doesn't? So they would place their own ideas into the mouth of Jesus, just assuming that any guy that awesome of course shared their own beliefs. Rapidly turning a real person into a fictional character. It's easy to see how this process can work even if all of the participants are honest and well meaning people

It's strange that Christians -- especially those Christians who actually read their Bible through the week, who have well-thumbed New Testaments marked extensively in highlighters -- do not sense that the Jesus in John's gospel speaks nothing -- nothing -- like the Jesus of the synoptic gospels. In those gospels, he speaks curtly, decisively, in workmanlike phrases, and he constantly makes his point in spare, chisel-pointed parables. He sometimes throws a question back at his accusers, with a "So you say" response. In John, he becomes a poet/theologian given to long extended meditations and metaphor. There are no parables; by that alone, the Christians should know that whoever wrote John created a fictionalized character and was 'inspired' to give him lofty speeches. A teacher who uses wit and terse statement and utilitarian parables does not change style and launch into lyricism. I remember the first time I actually read the gospels and hit this stylistic breakwall of the sudden density in John. It's clear to me that the speaker, thinker, and poet is the gospel's author.

 

[Politesse]

To add to this, the success of the Jesus movement added to the mythologisation of him. Anyone joining a new religious movement weren't blank slates. They all had their own ideas. They would project those ideas onto Jesus. They all wanted to follow an impeccably moral man. Who doesn't? So they would place their own ideas into the mouth of Jesus, just assuming that any guy that awesome of course shared their own beliefs. Rapidly turning a real person into a fictional character. It's easy to see how this process can work even if all of the participants are honest and well meaning people

It's strange that Christians -- especially those Christians who actually read their Bible through the week, who have well-thumbed New Testaments marked extensively in highlighters -- do not sense that the Jesus in John's gospel speaks nothing -- nothing -- like the Jesus of the synoptic gospels. In those gospels, he speaks curtly, decisively, in workmanlike phrases, and he constantly makes his point in spare, chisel-pointed parables. He sometimes throws a question back at his accusers, with a "So you say" response. In John, he becomes a poet/theologian given to long extended meditations and metaphor. There are no parables; by that alone, the Christians should know that whoever wrote John created a fictionalized character and was 'inspired' to give him lofty speeches. A teacher who uses wit and terse statement and utilitarian parables does not change style and launch into lyricism. I remember the first time I actually read the gospels and hitting this stylistic breakwall of the sudden density in John. It's clear to me that the speaker, thinker, and poet is the gospel's author.

Oddly enough, making John a more "professional" biography by the standards of the day, more like the kind of book a classical era Mediterranean author would normally be expected to write about a monarch or famous philosopher.

I think part of the reason conservatives love to pound the idea of "The Bible" so hard is to prevent their parishioners from comparing and contrasting the various books in the anthology. It's always chapter-and-verse, little tiny fragments cut and paste together from a collection of books, to obscure the autonomous qualities of each author and give the false impression of homogeneity. If most people took Christianity seriously as a topic, Christianity as an institution would immediately fall apart.

 

[DrZoidberg]

To add to this, the success of the Jesus movement added to the mythologisation of him. Anyone joining a new religious movement weren't blank slates. They all had their own ideas. They would project those ideas onto Jesus. They all wanted to follow an impeccably moral man. Who doesn't? So they would place their own ideas into the mouth of Jesus, just assuming that any guy that awesome of course shared their own beliefs. Rapidly turning a real person into a fictional character. It's easy to see how this process can work even if all of the participants are honest and well meaning people

It's strange that Christians -- especially those Christians who actually read their Bible through the week, who have well-thumbed New Testaments marked extensively in highlighters -- do not sense that the Jesus in John's gospel speaks nothing -- nothing -- like the Jesus of the synoptic gospels. In those gospels, he speaks curtly, decisively, in workmanlike phrases, and he constantly makes his point in spare, chisel-pointed parables. He sometimes throws a question back at his accusers, with a "So you say" response. In John, he becomes a poet/theologian given to long extended meditations and metaphor. There are no parables; by that alone, the Christians should know that whoever wrote John created a fictionalized character and was 'inspired' to give him lofty speeches. A teacher who uses wit and terse statement and utilitarian parables does not change style and launch into lyricism. I remember the first time I actually read the gospels and hitting this stylistic breakwall of the sudden density in John. It's clear to me that the speaker, thinker, and poet is the gospel's author.

Oddly enough, making John a more "professional" biography by the standards of the day, more like the kind of book a classical era Mediterranean author would normally be expected to write about a monarch or famous philosopher.

I think part of the reason conservatives love to pound the idea of "The Bible" so hard is to prevent their parishioners from comparing and contrasting the various books in the anthology. It's always chapter-and-verse, little tiny fragments cut and paste together from a collection of books, to obscure the autonomous qualities of each author and give the false impression of homogeneity. If most people took Christianity seriously as a topic, Christianity as an institution would immediately fall apart.

I hate defending Christian conservatives. But that's how you are supposed to read ancient wisdom litterature. It's not supposed to be a coherent narrative. You're just supposed to open it somewhere and read a snippet, and then meditate on that.

Or more accurately, someone litterate would read a snippet aloud to a group of people. Who then discuss it.

Its written so that you can read anything out of context and it should make sense.

Pretty much all ancient texs is of this type.

I think they didn't care that much that the Jesus's in the different books are so different. I don't think they thought anybody would have a problem with that. I think they assumed smarter readers. Who understood how unlikely it would be that this would be a factually accurate story of Jesus. That's what I think based on having read every surviving ancient text ever written (in translation).

Ps! It's not that hard

 

[Swammerdami]

Many of the Gospel stories focus on Jesus' healing. I don't think healing was a power expected of the Messiah, but the Gospels are very clear that Jesus was an excellent healer. Much of his healing may have seemed "miraculous." Some scholars think that his role of healer is an essential fact to be gleaned about the historic Jesus. Obviously some of the healing stories would end up exaggerated.

Most of us will agree that truly "supernatural" events are EXTREMELY unlikely, a priori. But in Jesus' place and time a very talented healer might be thought to have supernatural powers. (Set aside for now: What Jesus' healing power was and how he acquired it.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

... Henry 8th['s] English bible translation made him and his line to be the will of god....

Interesting. Can you be specific?

 

[Elixir]

Many of the Gospel stories focus on Jesus' healing. I don't think healing was a power expected of the Messiah, but the Gospels are very clear that Jesus was an excellent healer.

Are you sure he wasn't an excellent Heeler?
Cross them with border collies and you don't even need a shepherd.

 

[funinspace]

Oddly enough, making John a more "professional" biography by the standards of the day, more like the kind of book a classical era Mediterranean author would normally be expected to write about a monarch or famous philosopher.

I think part of the reason conservatives love to pound the idea of "The Bible" so hard is to prevent their parishioners from comparing and contrasting the various books in the anthology. It's always chapter-and-verse, little tiny fragments cut and paste together from a collection of books, to obscure the autonomous qualities of each author and give the false impression of homogeneity. If most people took Christianity seriously as a topic, Christianity as an institution would immediately fall apart.

I hate defending Christian conservatives. But that's how you are supposed to read ancient wisdom litterature. It's not supposed to be a coherent narrative. You're just supposed to open it somewhere and read a snippet, and then meditate on that.

Or more accurately, someone litterate would read a snippet aloud to a group of people. Who then discuss it.

Its written so that you can read anything out of context and it should make sense.

Two words (relative to conservative Christian theology): Biblical hermeneutics

What you wrote may or may not be the intent of the authors some 2-3 millennia ago, and how some people today think about it, but I don't see how your notion accurately applies to conservative Christian theology.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Oddly enough, making John a more "professional" biography by the standards of the day, more like the kind of book a classical era Mediterranean author would normally be expected to write about a monarch or famous philosopher.

I think part of the reason conservatives love to pound the idea of "The Bible" so hard is to prevent their parishioners from comparing and contrasting the various books in the anthology. It's always chapter-and-verse, little tiny fragments cut and paste together from a collection of books, to obscure the autonomous qualities of each author and give the false impression of homogeneity. If most people took Christianity seriously as a topic, Christianity as an institution would immediately fall apart.

I hate defending Christian conservatives. But that's how you are supposed to read ancient wisdom litterature. It's not supposed to be a coherent narrative. You're just supposed to open it somewhere and read a snippet, and then meditate on that.

Or more accurately, someone litterate would read a snippet aloud to a group of people. Who then discuss it.

Its written so that you can read anything out of context and it should make sense.

Two words (relative to conservative Christian theology): Biblical hermeneutics

What you wrote may or may not be the intent of the authors some 2-3 millennia ago, and how some people today think about it, but I don't see how your notion accurately applies to conservative Christian theology.

Sure. But even a broken watch shows the correct time twice a day

 

[steve_bank]

According to the Oxford bible commentary volume I read the gospels in the literary form of the day are what we would call action adventure. The hero dies in the end, a tragedy. The Acts would be the sequel that brings closure to the story and characters.

A docu-drama. A story loosely based on facts with a lot of literary license. Fill in the blanks with fictional drama. We see it a lot today in fictionalized movies based on real events and people.

Old movies about Custer vary in how he is presented. The movies 10 Commandments and Cleopatra. Viewed today to me they are just plain goofy yet in my generation they were a major influence of how we saw history. Ben Hur was another.

 

[fromderinside]

I am Spartacus.

 

[DrZoidberg]

Many of the Gospel stories focus on Jesus' healing. I don't think healing was a power expected of the Messiah, but the Gospels are very clear that Jesus was an excellent healer. Much of his healing may have seemed "miraculous." Some scholars think that his role of healer is an essential fact to be gleaned about the historic Jesus. Obviously some of the healing stories would end up exaggerated.

Most of us will agree that truly "supernatural" events are EXTREMELY unlikely, a priori. But in Jesus' place and time a very talented healer might be thought to have supernatural powers. (Set aside for now: What Jesus' healing power was and how he acquired it.)

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

... Henry 8th['s] English bible translation made him and his line to be the will of god....

Interesting. Can you be specific?

The New Testament mentions the apostles also healing.

They had faith healing back then to. And it works the same way. Always a scam.

They called fortune tellers, stage magicians, snake oil salesmen and religious evangelists all prophets. People enjoyed getting amazed by performers as much then as they do now.

Plenty of the things attributed to Jesus are known and documented famous stage magician trucks from the ancient world.

I'm not saying Jesus and his disciples were stage magicians. But I can easily see how other prophets might have gotten confused with Jesus over time. Or he did magic tricks. Sathya Sai Baba famously did magic tricks.

Who knows what miracles, ie stage magicians tricks, were wrongly attributed to Jesus.

I think it's pretty obvious that either Jesus also dabbled in stage tricks OR he has been confused with someone similar who did.

Either way I highly doubt he actually performed real miracles. Occam says "no".

 

[atrib]

Of the texts taken from the corroboration of 64,000 manuscripts: I believe this also comes through Archeology, psycology, history/ historic events, and the geography.

Show me a link to the 64,000 manuscripts that corroborate the Bible miracle stories. Provide a link to the archaeology, psychology, history and geography sources that corroborate the Bible miracle stories.

You can't do that because these sources don't exist. You are either grossly misinformed, or you are making up falsehoods again.

 

[atrib]

I asked him this question twice, why anyone should believe the stories in the Bible. This is the best he could come up with:



He cannot articulate a single reason why the stories should be believed. But he is willing to go out of his way to embarrass himself in public to defend them.

As I recall, there were varied things coming up between discussions ... originating from Lumpy's post and the different topical aspects leading out from it. But at least you were able to bring up ONE single question which you feel needs more articulate attention, and as it seems to me, you feel "my whole integrity rests upon" at least this moment.

And so... you say "this is the best I could come up with..." BUT I talk further on this, when I talked about the likelihood that these writers were not lying i.e. telling the truth etc.. You even responded to say this could be applied to other religions.

Why should we believe the Bible miracle stories? Because the authors weren't lying.

Why should we believe the authors weren't lying? Because the Bible miracle stories are true.

Talk about circular logic. Why should we believe that the authors weren't lying, or mistaken, or simply repeating stories they had heard from others?

Here are a few things we do know:

We don't know who authored the gospels, or even when.
We don't know why they wrote these stories, or anything about their motivations and agendas.
We don't know where they heard these stories.
We don't know what fact-checking the authors did to verify the authenticity of the stories. Or if they did any fact-checking at all.
We know that the Bible stories we read today are copies of copies of copies of translations of copies of copies, and there is no way to establish what elements of the stories go back to the first century.
We don't know what elements of the stories were meant to be allegorical; some clearly are.
We know of no evidence outside the Bible to corroborate the Bible miracle claims.
We know of no historians who reported these stories around the time the stories were written.
We have no record of Romans documenting any of these events as part of their routine practice. The Romans were excellent administrators and kept detailed records, yet there is no mention of Jesus performing miracles in their records.
We know that humans are really good at making up stories. Humans have made up tens of thousands of stories about gods, none of which are supported by credible evidence.
We know that stories involving dead-and-risen heroic characters who had undergone great hardships and triumphed over death were not uncommon in that part of the world at the time the Jesus stories were written.
We know that most serious historians do not consider the Bible miracle stories to be factual.
We know that many of the Bible stories are demonstrably false: like Noah's ark, the age of the Earth, the origin of humans and other living things and so on.
We know humans are gullible and easily fooled. Even with the resources available to us today, many people still get fooled into believing falsehoods and taken advantage of by conmen. People attending magic shows often get fooled into believing that the magician can bend the laws of nature and perform impossible tasks.
We know that of the billions of people who have died, none have risen up from the grave and flown off into space.
We know humans lack the flight control surfaces to fly.
We know that there is zero credible evidence for intervention by supernatural entities.
We know that there is zero credible evidence for the existence of supernatural entities.
We know we should be skeptical of extraordinary claims, especially claims that violate natural laws.

We need to disregard all of these facts to believe the Jesus miracles stories. We need to set aside everything we know about reality and human behavior in order to believe these stories. Because you know that the authors didn't lie, and that trumps everything. You have put together a masterclass in cognitive dissonance in this thread.