patrick.net

Roger Pearse says

It is "Every normal person, whatever their religion, thinks your wrong. Only a handful of people, all evidently crazed haters, agree with you." The point is that this is not a disagreement between Christian and non-Christian. As such, I felt no need to argue it.

I got it the first time. It's still a logical fallacy of appeal to numbers. There is no argument here, no evidence presented.

Roger Pearse says

Not sure what this is about, or what it has to do with my comment. It looks like some reason to ignore professional scholars.

Yes, and I gave my reasons. Bible Scholars are not scientists, and not really dealing with evidence. They're dealing with ancient assertions made in written form by members of a religious group. They do not deal with physical evidence (there is none for Jesus), and all the near-contemporary sources are neither eyewitnesses (except Paul, but he only had a Vision of Jesus, did not meet the HJ physically) nor do we know of them from other texts they wrote, so we have no way of determining their veracity.

Again, if there was an historical Jesus, there must be a set of agreed upon facts. Anything that exists and can be shown to exist possesses at least one or more facts.

Surely, if I'm off my rocker and the Consensus(TM) is so strong, you could certainly point out where there is this widespread agreement about the facts of an historical Jesus.
Roger Pearse says

How it relates to the fact that all historians think this -- not bible scholars -- and indeed almost everyone else, whether atheist or not ... well, I don't know.

Evidence for this assertion? I've heard individual historians say that an historical Jesus is possible, but I've never been aware of any non-ideological, professional association of Historians endorse a position that the HJ is a fact.

Roger Pearse says

Apart from a bunch of documents written by people who were alive when he was, and a bunch of literature written by people who knew him or their friends, all generally known as the New Testament.

Now we may feel that we can disregard this data, on one pretext or another (although why should we? why do we want to?). But that doesn't mean there IS no evidence... only that we reject the evidence.

Now Roger, if you're asserting that the Epistles and Gospels are written between 30-40AD, that's news to me. What is your source for this?

Funny, I didn't know that Mark, Luke, John, or Matthew were Jesus' apostles. Nor did any of the gospel authors claimed to be his apostles. I hope you don't believe that the Gospels were originally written in Aramaic or Hebrew.Roger Pearse says

I am not sure that I understand this sentence. Could you say it in different words?

I think my earlier post clears this up.Roger Pearse says

Roger Pearse says

Arguments from silence are always precarious, and arguing that a book did not exist because we have no reference to it is scarily daft. Only two extant authors reference any portion of Antiquities books 11-20, you know.

But again, when you have Origen who is familiar with a well-known historical narrative author (Josephus), and Origen is citing relatively obscure passages from this author in favor of his argument, but skips the "Slam Dunk", "Cincher" one where the esteemed author he references mentions the Messiah by name and says he did miracles, that's mighty odd.

This is very vague, and whatever the argument is, it is insinuated. The US dollar gets forged. Do we believe all US dollars are forgeries, on that ground?

But we know that many dollars DO get forged, hence, anti-counterfeiting is a major big deal, and retailers and bankers arm their employees with special pens, uv lights, etc.

How about Jerome and the Pericope Adulterae, as discussed earlier in the thread?
Roger Pearse says

So ... throw all classical literature in the bin, then? Because the same is true of that too. These arguments are all obscurantist.

I'll try again. The only whole copies of Tacitus' Annals date back to the 11th Century. We only have bits and pieces from before that time for most historical, secular texts. We don't know what the original text of Tacitus' Annals looked like. Nor Josephus, nor Seutonius.

Our existing copies aren't minor variations of spellings, if they're like other texts that we DO have evidence for, chances are they have a great deal of ommitted and interpolated bits.

And yes, I do realize that I post way too many pictures of shirtless men on this site.

thunderlips11 says

We only have bits and pieces from before that time for most historical, secular texts. We don't know what the original text of Tacitus' Annals looked like. Nor Josephus, nor Seutonius.

But the same is true for most ancient texts, right? How then can we know anything about the classical world from textual sources?

We can compare them to archeological evidence, compare texts dealing with the same subject, and compare copies of the same texts found in different times and places.

About 1/5 of all existent ancient Greco-Roman texts are the works of Galen, probably because his medical 'knowledge' was the most useful to the most folks across times and cultures. That's also why, in his lifetime (and afterwards) people loved to create imitiations. His books were the most in demand because of the subject matter.

wthrfrk80 says

But the same is true for most ancient texts, right? How then can we know anything about the classical world from textual sources?

Yes, the same is true.

We know a lot, but there is much more that we don't know that we do know. The thing is that -- unless of course we believe in particular god(s) -- we don't take ancient sources as "gospel" truth. Ancient writings are used as a guide; then when corroborated with physical evidence or when in sync with other ancient sources we start to get a picture of what life was like and what people thought at the time.

Think of it this way:

Lets say you land on another planet and dig up all their old ruins. You find some old magazines, pamphlets, books, accounting ledgers (basically most ancient writing is accounting -- Joseph Smith once translated an old Egyptian text saying that is was the "book of Abraham", post Rosetta Stone it turned out to be an old accounting ledger), etc.

Would you assume that the knowledge you gained from the reading was all true and accurate? What if only one source talked about a magic guy and you needed to worship him. All other sources that mention him were written a generation or two after his death. Would you drop to your knees and start worshiping him?

YesYNot says

I do have a question for dan, leo, and thunderlips... How did you get as knowledgeable about religion as you have? I couldn't get past page 8 of the bible the couple of times I tried to read it.

Well... getting pas page 8 of the bible :)

Growing up in a very religious household made, from childhood, religion an integral part of my live. Beyond that basically a lot of reading and discussion about religion. I have read the bible cover-to-cover on two occasions and the book of mormon once. Unless another text intrigues me I doubt I will spend the time reading another religious text cover-to-cover, but I do a lot of spot reading today of religious text.

There are two reasons why I think that reading the bible is important:

1. Many of our cultural references concern bible stories. It is nice to have this common knowledge and background with others.

2. As I am sure you know so many people in our lives -- mine at least -- would love for us to be christian. It is nice to have a frame of reference to explain to them why I don't believe that the bible is a good source of knowledge about our physical world and is not a good moral guide.

3. Reading the bible with an open mind is a great critical thinking exercise and a great way of realizing how absurd it is to take it as literal "truth".

I know it can be very boring and dry, here are a couple of sources that can make learning about the bible more fun:

http://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/book-of-genesis-illustrated-by-r-crumb-r-crumb/1100872006

http://thebrickbible.com/

leoj707 says

Would you drop to your knees and start worshiping him?

Well I'm not trying to make the case that Jesus was anything more than an ancient historical figure. For example, I believe Mohammed was a real historical figure, even though I don't believe he was the Final Prophet of Allah (tm).

There seems to be this worry that if a person believes in a historical Jesus, they must also accept him as "Lord and Savior" as the Christians do.

wthrfrk80 says

For example, I believe Mohammed was a real historical figure, even though I don't believe he was the Final Prophet of Allah (tm).

Well, we know more about Mohammed than we do about Jesus. I do believe that there were others writing about him within a year so of his death.

wthrfrk80 says

There seems to be this worry that if a person believes in a historical Jesus, they must also accept him as "Lord and Savior" as the Christians do.

Fair enough my wording choice was poor. I don't think that anyone is saying this. Certainly we have a ton of evidence that Joseph Smith and L. Ron Hubbard were real historical people, but we don't think -- well, maybe some people in this forum do -- that they held the keys to "truth".

Jesus might have been a historical figure but from my perspective we just don't have enough evidence to say for sure.

YesYNot says

I do have a question for dan, leo, and thunderlips... How did you get as knowledgeable about religion as you have? I couldn't get past page 8 of the bible the couple of times I tried to read it.

Hi YesYNot,

I got into it because a friend was really into the Bible and begged me to read it. I've always loved Ancient Rome and Greece. I had read the OT, but never read the NT prior to my 20s, so I gave it a whirl. Then, I started to wonder what evidence was behind it all, how it all tied in. So I began to get books on the subject.

One of the best, though a little dated, is Issac Asimov's Guide to the Bible. Unlike Bible Scholars who work mostly within the text, Asimov corresponded with Archeologists and Historians, and breaks the Bible down into manageable sections and discusses the evidence for each section.

Also, The Bible Unearthed by Finklestein is a great place to start. I also recommend Ehrman's Lost Christianities, which gives an overview of the battle of the various early church sects (no unity from the beginning), and his Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, which shows how the earliest fragments and papyri were steadily but slowly altered to reflect emerging Orthodox viewpoints over the centuries.

leoj707 says

Jesus might have been a historical figure but from my perspective we just don't have enough evidence to say for sure.

Exactly.

The historical inaccuracies, the miracles, and the conflicting narrative across the Gospels -- most Bible Scholars are willing to admit those are embellishments, inventions, oral tales distorted over time, etc. But then, they automatically assume a real person and some grain of historicity for him behind it all.

We do not do that with Hercules, even though we have stories about him that mention real places, including populated cities that did indeed exist, and while the stories conflict in places they have broad agreement generally, etc.

But if you say Jesus may not have existed, the Bible Scholars get all bent out of shape in a way that nobody does if you doubt the existence of Hercules.

I agree, The existence of a real Jesus is possible, and even plausible. But, the evidence is not a slam-dunk by a long shot.

The vitriol spouted by even the more liberal scholars is out of place; nobody gets as worked up over Cybele or Hercules. Nor does a huge complex exist for "Cybele" studies. This is because of the hegemony of tradition.

thunderlips11 says

I got it the first time. It's still a logical fallacy ... (reiteration snipped)

I looked through your post, but it appeared to be either reiteration (as here) or else introducing demands of various further sorts, all designed to ignore inconvenient data.

But, on all that you wrote, you will excuse me if I refer you to what I wrote last time.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

wthrfrk80 says

There seems to be this worry that if a person believes in a historical Jesus, they must also accept him as "Lord and Savior" as the Christians do.

I don't think that is anyone's intention. I like Jesus. "His" sayings and teachings are good. I find his message inspiring, especially if he is a man and not a man/god.

Logically, we just don't have any evidence that he existed. thunderlips11 says

This is because of the hegemony of tradition.

Well said.

YesYNot says

I do have a question for dan, leo, and thunderlips... How did you get as knowledgeable about religion as you have?

No matter one's beliefs, kudos are in order. Smart and well-read fellers!! (I assume Fellers?)

wthrfrk80 says

But the same is true for most ancient texts, right? How then can we know anything about the classical world from textual sources?

Just so. But those making the argument do so selectively. They do not, of course, assert that all the works of Galen, similarly poorly preserved as these are, are equally unreliable.

This is all special pleading, in other words, by people who don't know much history.

All the best,

Roger Pearse

CL says

don't think that is anyone's intention. I like Jesus. "His" sayings and teachings are good. I find his message inspiring, especially if he is a man and not a man/god.

Does that include his teachings about he himself judging you (and every other person) on the Day of Judgement? Or do you use the formula "I don't like teaching X, therefore Jesus didn't really say X" when reading the gospels?

thunderlips11 says

The vitriol spouted by even the more liberal scholars is out of place

I wasn't aware that more liberal scholars spouted vitriol about the idea that Jesus never existed. I thought they would be mostly in agreement with you. Which scholars are you referring to?

wthrfrk80 says

Does that include his teachings about he himself judging you (and every other person) on the Day of Judgement? Or do you use the formula "I don't like teaching X, therefore Jesus didn't really say X" when reading the gospels?

Yeah, that is my big problem with Jesus' teachings and bible morality in general. While there are some "good" lessons to be learned there also many things that I find abhorrent.

Fortunately the bible and Jesus does not have exclusive rights to ethical and moral behavior.

Ultimately, without a "last judgement", the difference between "good" and "evil" is largely academic.

We long for "cosmic justice" don't we? But of course we fear and loathe a "cosmic judge" and "cosmic judgement."

wthrfrk80 says

Ultimately, without a "last judgement", the difference between "good" and "evil" is largely academic.

I think that even minus a divine judgement "good" and "evil" are still very real. It just forces us to think about how to deal with them here and now, rather than getting comfort knowing that justice will be served in the "end".

wthrfrk80 says

We long for "cosmic justice" don't we?

Yes, it would be nice.

wthrfrk80 says

But of course we fear and loathe a "cosmic judge" and "cosmic judgement."

I don't fear or loathe a cosmic judge/judgement. Ideally if there were such a judge that judge would be just and fair, right? What would I have to worry about then?

The god of the bible however does not strike me at all as just and fair, more malevolent and petty.

wthrfrk80 says

I wasn't aware that more liberal scholars spouted vitriol about the idea that Jesus never existed. I thought they would be mostly in agreement with you. Which scholars are you referring to?

Bart Ehrman (whom I generally respect and am a bit of a fanboy of) Just came out with a book on the subject and it's caused a bit of controversy (sloppiness claims both in the work, and in the response to critics). He doesn't really address historical critics, so much as go after fringe Zeitgeist/Archaya S and 19th Century writers. He's the guy I have in mind, and the whole shitstorm over his book I think surprised even him. I heard him once a few years ago on the old internet show, "Infidel Guy", and he got instantly dismissive with Reggie when asked about HJ questions.

There's Hoffman and Fisher, who have been vitriolic. NT Wright, Mack, Borg, and Crossnan that are all about an HJ of some kind (though not vitrolic that I know of). All these guys are pretty liberal.

leoj707 says

The god of the bible however does not strike me at all as just and fair, more malevolent and petty.

Do you believe that the Jesus presented in the gospels is malevolent and petty (regardless of whether he really existed or not)?

I can't help but read his (proported) teachings and stand in awe. Even as I remain skeptical of the "weird stuff" like miracles.

wthrfrk80 says

Does that include his teachings about he himself judging you (and every other person) on the Day of Judgement? Or do you use the formula "I don't like teaching X, therefore Jesus didn't really say X" when reading the gospels?

This is complicated. I think there is ample evidence that Jesus may have been referring to an Existential Eschatology.

Depending on your translation, Jesus says, "There will be some who say, 'Look! There it is!", but don't believe them. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." (or among you).

I feel the "I" he refers to is not Jesus, but the "I" within. That would make him more in line with a lot of Eastern thought. The only way to the Father is through that wall!

I think that what likely happened was that a bunch of folks unfamiliar with both Existential Philosophy and Jewish Tradition misinterpreted the key concepts.

It wouldn't be too far off, since Jesus also says, "He who has ears let him hear!". How many in the audience don't "have ears?"

Further, most of the time he tells a parable, the story includes an audience (notable Nicodemus) who serve as a stupid patsy. Seems like even the authors of the Gospels knew that people just wouldn't understand.

The misunderstandings became codified.

wthrfrk80 says

Do you believe that the Jesus presented in the gospels is malevolent and petty (regardless of whether he really existed or not)?

Malevolent and petty might be too strong for Jesus, but he did have an opportunity to change the OT laws and he did not mention some very bad ones (slavery comes to mind); he also did say/do some pretty shitty (and at times petty -- like the killing of the fig tree) things as well as good things.

Just a quick word about the state of Biblical Studies, this is from an educational textbook from 2004 made for intro courses.

It is highly relevant to our discussion, I think. Found it on another forum and reposting the excerpt here.

In the last twenty years or so there has been a major shift in biblical studies. Consensus even about method has broken down, and the field is now a battleground of conflicting approaches, with no agreed conclusions any longer.

This can intensify a popular feeling among believing Christians and Jews that biblical scholars are the enemies of faith. In fact, most biblical scholars the world over are religious believers themselves, though not always of a very orthodox kind. Nearly all a Christians, but in recent years biblical studies have been practiced more among Jewish scholars. Only in very recent years have agnostics and even atheists come to take an interest in the bible, partly because of the turn to literary and sociological interpretations ... But a religious motivation for biblical study is still the predominant one.

...for most people who study the Bible the concern remains, as it has always been, to yield results that are helpful and informative for religious believers. Until the last couple of decades this was achieved through what is called "the historical critical method" - not really a method, more a series of questions that can be put to the text, a particular style of interrogating it.

... Just as Old Testament source criticism is important because it helps us to reconstruct how religious thought and practice developed in ancient Israel, so source analysis of the Gospels has always had at its heart the hope of getting access to the authentic sayings of Jesus and the truth about his life and deeds.

Redaction criticism has been widely seen as a return to the kind of respect for the Bible that the more “destructive” work of source and form critics had called in question. As we shall see in surveying more recent trends, there has been a widespread feeling that biblical criticism had become over-critical and unhelpful to most Bible readers, who are, after all, interested in the Bible as a book of faith rather than out of antiquarian concerns.

The feeling that biblical criticism was somehow insufficiently reverent toward what is, for Jews and Christians, a sacred text has not been felt only by people outside the academic world of biblical studies: it is felt also by some biblical scholars themselves, and always has been. Wellhausen gave up his chair in Theology because he felt that he was making his students less fit for service as Lutheran pastors. Consequently there have been periodic attempts to “reintegrate” biblical studies into theology, or to “give the Bible back to the Church."

No Agreed Conclusions any Longer... Methodology Broken Down... a Feeling that Scholarship is too Critical... Bible Scholars are mostly motivated by religious feeling... Agnostics and Atheists only recently showing interest...

CL says

Depending on your translation, Jesus says, "There will be some who say, 'Look! There it is!", but don't believe them. The Kingdom of Heaven is within you." (or among you).
I feel the "I" he refers to is not Jesus, but the "I" within. That would make him more in line with a lot of Eastern thought. The only way to the Father is through that wall!
I think that what likely happened was that a bunch of folks unfamiliar with both Existential Philosophy and Jewish Tradition misinterpreted the key concepts.

Could you elaborate or be more specific? I don't understand what you're getting at.

wthrfrk80,

You discount material yourself, like "miracles". I'm sure you don't believe in the parentage and lineage of Jesus illustrated in Matthew, do you? It seems like there are some things that YOU choose to believe as literal or historical, and others you do not.

Seems like those of us on this side are saying that none of it is either literal nor likely historical, (with the main distinction being that I agree with many religious concepts whereas the others mostly disagree).

That makes it appear as though you have personal reasons that you can't get past the history v. myth issue. Am I wrong?

leoj707 says

but he did have an opportunity to change the OT laws

Well he did change a few OT laws, right? He specifically goes against the "eye for an eye" teaching of Moses as well as the "hate your enemies" teaching. Those two examples are well known in Christian circles, both "liberal" and "conservative." Aren't there other examples as well?

leoj707 says

he did not mention some very bad ones (slavery comes to mind)

No, but he does say to "love our neighbors are ourselves" and "do unto others what you would have done to you"; which pretty much rules out slavery, no?

wthrfrk80 says

Could you elaborate or be more specific? I don't understand what you're getting at.

(Personal observations below)

Westerners interpreted some desert dwellers' philosophies incorrectly. They applied linear, historical logic to a text that was never meant to be read that way.

There are at least two "I"s in our minds. One is small and self-oriented, and one sits in judgement of the small I.

The paradox you'll find common in most religion is that you "lose yourSELF to find yourSELF". The last will be first and the first will be last.

Take Taoism, the "Sage has no self of his own. He makes the self of others his own. He is gentle to the gentle, he is gentle to the harsh, for virtue is gentle".

When one shrinks their ego to the proper size (born as we are with an inflated ego), the real Self manifests itself. WE all have that Self in us too.

When Jesus refers to himself, it could be that he is talking about that substance in us all that transcends his own persona.

"Nobody gets to the Father except through the Me that is in all of you".

Therefore, heaven is not a place you go where you meet an old man on a throne, but is in the here and now, and accessible to everyone.

CL says

I'm sure you don't believe in the parentage and lineage of Jesus illustrated in Matthew, do you?

I know what you are referring to, but I don't know much about it. If I can find the time, I'll look into it.

CL says

It seems like there are some things that YOU choose to believe as literal or historical, and others you do not.

I consider most things I read to be "innocent until proven guilty." With regard to the gospels, I tend to be skeptical of the miracle accounts. Why? Maybe it's because I'm an engineer and I tend to see the world in terms of fixed, immutable "laws of physics." Perhaps I am guilty of the "personal incredulity" fallacy?

CL says

That makes it appear as though you have personal reasons that you can't get past the history v. myth issue. Am I wrong?

I would say that if Christianity is just another pious fraud (like say, Mormonism, Islam, or Scientology) then what good is it? If anything, it's probably harmful to place one's entire hopes on something that isn't true. Right? Who wants to be a "sucker"? "Read carefuly before you invest" as they say.

Why do I take interest in Christianity? Because it makes claims in the sphere of ordinary history. The apostles creed states "[Jesus] suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, died, and was buried", for example.

But of course if Jesus never even existed and was just another mythological figure (like Zeus or Thor), then why would I wan't to put my faith in him as a "savior"?

Hope that clears things up.

CL says

Westerners interpreted some desert dwellers' philosophies incorrectly. They applied linear, historical logic to a text that was never meant to be read that way.

Can you provide evidence of that? The gospels are presented like ordinary history (this happened, then this happened, then this happened). The same goes for all of the New Testament save for Revelation, which is wacky. You say you've read the New Testament, but I'm finding that harder and harder to believe the more I talk to you.

CL says

When Jesus refers to himself, it could be that he is talking about that substance in us all that transcends his own persona.
"Nobody gets to the Father except through the Me that is in all of you".
Therefore, heaven is not a place you go where you meet an old man on a throne, but is in the here and now, and accessible to everyone.

Did you get that from Elaine Pagels? Your position seems to be closer to the New Age movement than classical Christianity.

wthrfrk80 says

Well he did change a few OT laws, right?

Yes, but he also said that all the old laws were still valid.

Luke 16:17
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Matthew 5:17
Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

5:18
For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

wthrfrk80 says

He specifically goes against the "eye for an eye" teaching of Moses as well as the "hate your enemies" teaching.

* * * * *

No, but he does say to "love our neighbors are ourselves" and "do unto others what you would have done to you"; which pretty much rules out slavery, no?

Well...this is the passage in the KJ version:

Matthew 7:12
Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

Sounds to me more like, "whatever someone does to you it is OK to do to them."

Jesus also says:

Luke 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Matthew 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

Jesus also reaffirms that parents should be able to kill their children who "curse" them (OT law in Leviticus 20:9):
Matthew 15:4
For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

---------------------
Anyway, the examples could go on and on. Many of which are things that I don't think people would want done to them. There are contradictions in the bible and Jesus' teachings are not an exception to that.

In such a convoluted text I would not try and imply that slavery was not OK unless Jesus specifically stated that it was now forbidden. It is a very clear part of the "old" law and Jesus made it very clear that the old law was still to be followed (except a few exceptions that he gives).

People choose to cherry-pick around the things they disagree with.

leoj707 says

Malevolent and petty might be too strong for Jesus,

OK, after going back and doing a little reading for the above post I am going to have to revise my opinion and say Jesus sounds very petty.

In Matthew 15 where Jesus is saying to kill you kids he does it because Jesus' disciples were not washing their hands before eating.

Yes...when Jesus is asked why his disciples are not following the tradition of washing hands before eating (silly tradition I know -- of course they did not need to follow it). Jesus' response was basically, "Fuck you, God commands that you should be following the tradition of killing your kids that curse you."

Wash your hands = killing your kids

Yeah...petty and a huge asshole.

leoj707 says

Yes, but he also said that all the old laws were still valid.

I had thought the same thing.

But regarding the following wthrfrk80 says

He specifically goes against the "eye for an eye" teaching of Moses as well as the "hate your enemies" teaching. Those two examples are well known in Christian circles, both "liberal" and "conservative."

Scholars say that measured justice was a huge leap forward. In other words, stopping a feud from escalating into a Hatfield/McCoy battle was considered moral progress at the time.

Of course, the Golden Rule predates Jesus anyway.
wthrfrk80 says

Can you provide evidence of that?

Sure. I don't think you really want any proof though. I've already told you that nobody believes what you think they do. The Gospels are not eye-witness accounts. The Hebrew scriptures aren't either. Jesus was a Jew. That's how they wrote. They debated the meanings in the Temples. They disagree today and they don't mind the disagreements.

Christians take the Bible and God to be interpreted only one way, the correct way. And all others are wrong and the one true God is angry with them for being wrong.

Jews have a different relationship. The Hebrew Scriptures and their companion writings have good Jews angry at God...complaining to God...running away from God (like Moses tried to do). Their relationship is almost completely different than Christianity.

Did Christianity change the relationship to God? Not if you believe Jesus, like Leo shows above.

Did Christians begin to misinterpret Jewish law? Maybe while they were surrounded by Gentiles in Rome, and the Empire? More likely.

The Greeks et al. were not steeped in Jewish Theology. They interpreted these messages through their own cultural eyes.

wthrfrk80 says

You say you've read the New Testament, but I'm finding that harder and harder to believe the more I talk to you.

That's cute. I'll send you a copy of my Degree in Theology (with Honors!!). I even have a "Diploma of Ministry!".

Yes, it seems to me that often non-believers tend to know more about the bible than believers. Ain't that some sad shit?

leoj707 says

Malevolent and petty might be too strong for Jesus, but he did have an opportunity to change the OT laws and he did not mention some very bad ones (slavery comes to mind);

Jesus was just some smuck Jeremiah Wright type preacher among many such preachers during his time. He didn't have much of a following, and probably didn't consider himself to be god -- I'm assuming he had some degree of sanity here. He probably just considered himself a righteous preacher trying to get the sinful to turn away from sin.

He was made into a god, without his consent or knowledge, posthumously by jackasses trying to use his following to their own political and economic gain. The real Jesus, if he did exist, would probably be pissed off at the Christian church that was founded in his name.

Essentially Mohammad and Joseph Smith did the exact same thing. They took popular existing religions and created a new religion from existing sects and making themselves the power center of that new religion.

wthrfrk80 says

Yes, it seems to me that often non-believers tend to know more about the bible than believers. Ain't that some sad shit?

As Penn Jillette said, read the Bible because we need more atheists.

Also good,
http://www.youtube.com/embed/Y_sb2fSRByI

The part where Penn says to read the Bible is the at the end of this video...
http://www.youtube.com/embed/ISWUTPVqIDU

CL says

I've already told you that nobody believes what you think they do.

Are you suggesting I'm the only one that thinks the gospels are mostly ordinary historical narrative? Please, make that case! Ever read the beginning of Luke's gospel? Apparently not.

CL says

That's cute. I'll send you a copy of my Degree in Theology (with Honors!!). I even have a "Diploma of Ministry!".

Wow! From where? The Church of Oprah? Is a theology degree any more valuable than a degree in basket-weaving these days? Apparently not. Leo and Thunder have added far more value to this discussion (even though I often disagree with them) than you have. Do they have theology degrees?

wthrfrk80 says

Ever read the beginning of Luke's gospel?

Yes. And I've watched Star Wars. It is told as a narrative too, "In a galaxy far, far away....".

Your logic is odd, which makes me wonder why you are so invested in supporting the notion of a historical Jesus. Why are you afraid to believe this, when you have never, not once, ever supported it with a link, author or article?

Further, you are the supplicant here. You've asked all of us for insight into the material. I can appreciate why you have praised the others; they're extremely informed and insightful (and good writers, to boot!).

Yet, I take umbrage with your assertions. I've given answers that are the products of years of study. What, if anything, of value have you contributed to the discussion? You are a taker, and in this instance, an ingrate.

I don't have a horse in this race. I like Jesus, but haven't found a source that proves he walked the earth that the science-minded would believe. The others you praise find the whole notion unsupportable.

If you believe it, support it with facts, not silly ad hominem attacks. They make you look small.

I just went back over the beginning of this thread and saw that someone disliked this video.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/l3Y52kD0G2c

Um, what asshole disliked that video? I'm just wandering how big of a douche someone has to be to thumbs down Neil Patrick Harris telling gay kids who are being bullied that it gets better.

I just saw an article that reminded me of another jem of wisdom from Jesus.

A 20-year-old man cut off his penis...
The victim was not under the influence of drugs or alcohol...He also faces a psychological evaluation....

Why the psychological evaluation? Perhaps he was just following Jesus' advice.

Matthew 19:12
For there are some eunuchs, which were so born from their mother's womb: and there are some eunuchs, which were made eunuchs of men: and there be eunuchs, which have made themselves eunuchs for the kingdom of heaven's sake. He that is able to receive it, let him receive it.

I believe that there might be a few other references where Jesus (or others?) advise men to cut their penis off.

@Patrick
Dan, as far as the dislikes go, the dislike button is right where I put my thumb when scrolling on a cell phone. I've accidentally hit that before. Not saying I did it this time, but others may have the same issue. I guess it would be nice to have a way to remove an accidental like or dislike. As far as I can tell, there is no way to see if you have personally liked/disliked something or remove it.