Why Do You Remain A Christian?

[JayL]

I do have to ask you - only if you willing to open up personal details - WHY did you seek God for 28 years??

I looked for God from age of 7 till age of 38. Still waiting for him to show up.

 

I was deadly serious about my faith. It didn't help.

 

Once again, if not too intrusive a question, why were you looking for God?

[JayL]

I believe you misunderstand the situation. Suppose your point is correct - that Jesus spoke in parables to 'hide the truth'. Does this make sense to you. If his goal is to hide the truth, why speak at all? Why doesn't he talk about weather instead? Why teach at all - IF his goal was to 'hide the truth'.

Because he said the truth was only given to some, and not the jews.

 

 

No, what I meant is that we have this situation. Jesus gives speech to large audience talking various parables. And then to his 12 disciples, he answered their question and expounded meanings behind the parables.

 

Now you say, Jesus was hiding truths to large public audience. I am saying that is not logical. If his goal was to 'hide the truth', why speak to them at all?? Why not just talk to his disciples??

 

In Gospel of John ( I believe ) Jesus answers one of the high priest that his teachings were in public and he can ask people who listened to his teachings. At which point, a guard struck him in the face.

 

I just cannot consider his answer to be untruthful. So I differ with you that he did anything wrong here. Yes, to his disciples who followed him for 3 years and learned from him, he can explain more. ( Just like grad students who are familiar with mathematics behind quantum mechanics. But to explain mathematical formalism to general public may just cause more misunderstanding! ) You can explain only so far to a large crowd gathered to see some miracles.

 

 

And once again, I want to point out content of his teachings to his disciples were later 'shouted from the rooftops' after the Pentecost as part of their witness for Christ.

[JayL]

Let me illustrate to you in this way. A parable, if you please. I am trying to teach you the truths of Quantum Mechanics. But unfortunately you do not have a background in partial differential equation. So i cannot prove the theory mathematically nor give you the meat of the theory. So I draw some simple diagram and try to illustrate the conclusion of this highly mathematical theory. But I had the truths out in the open.

 

Now I have some graduate students. They have been working in my research group for 3 years and they are much further along in their study of mathematics. For them, I can talk about mathematical details and they in turn can become college teachers and spread the truths of Quantum mechanics.

 

And now this Ouroborus fella shows up and accuse me teaching things 'in secret' and giving only partial truths. And I say, hey you are mistaken, my friend. Soon my grad students would be well prepared to teach and they WILL educate everyone about mathematical foundation of QM.

 

Why not teach everything to everyone?? Well, did they make commitment to work with me for 3 years? To make progress in higher mathematics?? Otherwise you cannot even follow what I am trying to teach!!!

 

 

Anyhow, I hope this PARABLE helps!

False analogy.

 

 

You see, Omni, some people will get my parable. Obviously you are a bit slow.

troll alert

 

Anyway, quantum mechanics is not my eternal soul so its a false analogy for that reason.

 

 

 

 

Jesus also said, 'What was said in private ( like his teaching to apostles ) will be shouted in public from the rooftop'. When apostles were fully ready after the day of Pentecost, they were shouting truths from the rooftop.

 

 

Ah so you figured out on your own why your own parable fails.

 

 

First the teaching is too complicated for the general public (teach only to advance grad students) then suddenly a short time later the exact same teaching it taught to everyone.

 

I call bullshit.

 

 

After the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the Apostles fully grasped what Jesus was talking about.

[TrueFreedom]

 

After the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the Apostles fully grasped what Jesus was talking about.

 

What was that, JayL? Has the spirit revealed all of Jesus' wisdom to you? Can you share it with us?

[mcdaddy]

Virtually none of this is actual history, Jay.

[mymistake]

After the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the Apostles fully grasped what Jesus was talking about.

 

It is bullshit. Want to be a surgeon?

 

Well you need to get okay grades in HS. This weads out many people.

Then you go for pre-med. Some lose the dream at that stage.

Then you get your med degree. Lots of people wash out.

Then you need to do internship & residency which knock out whoever doesn't have the endurance.

 

It's a bunch of hard work. It takes a long time to master.

 

 

Want to be an expert about God? Just say a prayer and sit passively in Church. And all these "experts" on God can't even agree among themselves what God is or isn't, what God wants, what we should do and so on.

 

Expertise on God is bullshit. It is made up. The coming of the Holy Ghost was made up.

[mcdaddy]

Funny how there exists no corroborating evidence to even suggest nearly anything in the bible actually happened as advertised.

 

How INconvenient for you, Jay.

 

Well, if you include plagiarism of older foreign myths as "corraboration" I suppose that would count.

[Guest Valk0010]

Let me illustrate to you in this way. A parable, if you please. I am trying to teach you the truths of Quantum Mechanics. But unfortunately you do not have a background in partial differential equation. So i cannot prove the theory mathematically nor give you the meat of the theory. So I draw some simple diagram and try to illustrate the conclusion of this highly mathematical theory. But I had the truths out in the open.

 

Now I have some graduate students. They have been working in my research group for 3 years and they are much further along in their study of mathematics. For them, I can talk about mathematical details and they in turn can become college teachers and spread the truths of Quantum mechanics.

 

And now this Ouroborus fella shows up and accuse me teaching things 'in secret' and giving only partial truths. And I say, hey you are mistaken, my friend. Soon my grad students would be well prepared to teach and they WILL educate everyone about mathematical foundation of QM.

 

Why not teach everything to everyone?? Well, did they make commitment to work with me for 3 years? To make progress in higher mathematics?? Otherwise you cannot even follow what I am trying to teach!!!

 

 

Anyhow, I hope this PARABLE helps!

False analogy.

 

 

You see, Omni, some people will get my parable. Obviously you are a bit slow.

troll alert

 

Anyway, quantum mechanics is not my eternal soul so its a false analogy for that reason.

 

 

 

 

Jesus also said, 'What was said in private ( like his teaching to apostles ) will be shouted in public from the rooftop'. When apostles were fully ready after the day of Pentecost, they were shouting truths from the rooftop.

 

 

Ah so you figured out on your own why your own parable fails.

 

 

First the teaching is too complicated for the general public (teach only to advance grad students) then suddenly a short time later the exact same teaching it taught to everyone.

 

I call bullshit.

 

 

After the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the Apostles fully grasped what Jesus was talking about.

You would think jesus would have such a way with words being man and god afterall....but that is too complicated for the poor christian

!!!!

[centauri]

I believe you misunderstand the situation. Suppose your point is correct - that Jesus spoke in parables to 'hide the truth'. Does this make sense to you. If his goal is to hide the truth, why speak at all? Why doesn't he talk about weather instead? Why teach at all - IF his goal was to 'hide the truth'.

Because he said the truth was only given to some, and not the jews.

 

His goal behind speaking in parables was NOT what you think. It was not so he can 'hide the truth'.

 

Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. . . .Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. . . . lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

And then he said he never hid anything when he talked later in front of the Sanhedrin. (Can't find the verse right now. Fuck, fuck, double, tripple fuck, I can't get one second alone to try to answer a post without my family and neighbors need my attention. I'll be back about which verse it is.)

I think this is the one you mean.

 

John 18:19-20

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

[mcdaddy]

I believe you misunderstand the situation. Suppose your point is correct - that Jesus spoke in parables to 'hide the truth'. Does this make sense to you. If his goal is to hide the truth, why speak at all? Why doesn't he talk about weather instead? Why teach at all - IF his goal was to 'hide the truth'.

Because he said the truth was only given to some, and not the jews.

 

His goal behind speaking in parables was NOT what you think. It was not so he can 'hide the truth'.

 

Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. . . .Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. . . . lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

And then he said he never hid anything when he talked later in front of the Sanhedrin. (Can't find the verse right now. Fuck, fuck, double, tripple fuck, I can't get one second alone to try to answer a post without my family and neighbors need my attention. I'll be back about which verse it is.)

I think this is the one you mean.

 

John 18:19-20

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

 

Contradiction: n. two opposing, unreconcilable statements.

[centauri]

In Gospel of John ( I believe ) Jesus answers one of the high priest that his teachings were in public and he can ask people who listened to his teachings. At which point, a guard struck him in the face.

 

I just cannot consider his answer to be untruthful.

John 18:19-20

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

 

Jesus gave three untruthful answers.

He did not always teach in the synagogue.

He did not speak openly, but obfuscated his messages by using parables, which he admits were used to keep some people from understanding.

He only taught the meaning of the parables privately, where the secrets were revealed to a select few.

 

And once again, I want to point out content of his teachings to his disciples were later 'shouted from the rooftops' after the Pentecost as part of their witness for Christ.

That's irrelevant in terms of the answers he gave the high priest.

His answers were false at the time he gave them.

He was testifying about his ministry, not the ministry of others that would preach after he was dead.

[Ouroboros]

Almost everyone Jesus addressed and taught ( including his 12 apostles ) were Jews.

So who was he talking about to hide the truth from then?

[Ouroboros]

Once again, if not too intrusive a question, why were you looking for God?

Christian family. Culture. Felt right at the time. Thought my parents had the truth. Wanted to believe because they believed.

[Ouroboros]

No, what I meant is that we have this situation. Jesus gives speech to large audience talking various parables. And then to his 12 disciples, he answered their question and expounded meanings behind the parables.

But not the audience.

 

Now you say, Jesus was hiding truths to large public audience. I am saying that is not logical. If his goal was to 'hide the truth', why speak to them at all?? Why not just talk to his disciples??

Not logical? Then why did he do it? He said he did. So was he illogical on purpose?

 

In Gospel of John ( I believe ) Jesus answers one of the high priest that his teachings were in public and he can ask people who listened to his teachings. At which point, a guard struck him in the face.

Exactly. In the verse I gave you he said he didn't, and then in John (I think you might be right), he said he did tell it public. So he lied.

 

I just cannot consider his answer to be untruthful. So I differ with you that he did anything wrong here. Yes, to his disciples who followed him for 3 years and learned from him, he can explain more. ( Just like grad students who are familiar with mathematics behind quantum mechanics. But to explain mathematical formalism to general public may just cause more misunderstanding! ) You can explain only so far to a large crowd gathered to see some miracles.

He said what I quoted in the earlier post. I just didn't give you the reference. So maybe he didn't say what the Bible says he said. Good. Then we know the Bible lies.

 

And once again, I want to point out content of his teachings to his disciples were later 'shouted from the rooftops' after the Pentecost as part of their witness for Christ.

I quoted a verse. But it could be a false verse.

[Ouroboros]

I believe you misunderstand the situation. Suppose your point is correct - that Jesus spoke in parables to 'hide the truth'. Does this make sense to you. If his goal is to hide the truth, why speak at all? Why doesn't he talk about weather instead? Why teach at all - IF his goal was to 'hide the truth'.

Because he said the truth was only given to some, and not the jews.

 

His goal behind speaking in parables was NOT what you think. It was not so he can 'hide the truth'.

 

Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. . . .Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. . . . lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

And then he said he never hid anything when he talked later in front of the Sanhedrin. (Can't find the verse right now. Fuck, fuck, double, tripple fuck, I can't get one second alone to try to answer a post without my family and neighbors need my attention. I'll be back about which verse it is.)

I think this is the one you mean.

 

John 18:19-20

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Exactly.

 

And the first one above is Matt 13:10-11. Who was these "them" in that verse? And why did he speak in parables to hide the truth?

 

"the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them."

 

vs

 

"in secret have I said nothing."

 

So the secrets were not given to some, but he never hid the secrets... He's a lying asshole. Simple as that.

[LifeCycle]

I don't believe that because I sincerely sought God for 28 years and not once did I have a "God" experience.

 

He just didn't love me as much as you. And since he knows everything, he knew his inaction would contribute to my lack of belief and yet continued in his silence.

 

It doesn't say much for him.

 

 

28 years is certainly very long time. I started to attend a Baptist church in high school. But in college, I became an atheist and a follower of Nietsche and Sartre. I once again started to attend a church while working then I lost interest in Christianity once again because my life was not working. 7 years later I was in a personal crisis and had an encounter with God that changed my life. I was born again and I became a Christian believer. The entire time span was about 24 years. But I was NOT seeking God for much of that time.

 

I do have to ask you - only if you willing to open up personal details - WHY did you seek God for 28 years??

 

Being born and raised without a father causes a young boy to hope for more. Tragedy makes us look at life differently. Not everyone experiences what others do and if you do, it can force you to look at the bigger picture.

 

I had to pray for what others just got. I had to work for it... I had to seek God for it... It never came. Even with my stumbling blocks, I was able to forgive God and move forward. But I still just never saw any supernatural works in my life. Everything, absolutely everything good or bad in my life can be attributed to other people. To give God the credit for what someone else does is a horrendous rip-off for that individual. I refuse to operate that way.

 

So yeah, I looked for God for a long, long time. A lot of that has to do with the Christian influences around here... It's very difficult to escape. I'm sure that has a lot to do with it.

[LifeCycle]

After the coming of the Holy Spirit on Pentecost, the Apostles fully grasped what Jesus was talking about.

 

It is bullshit. Want to be a surgeon?

 

Well you need to get okay grades in HS. This weads out many people.

Then you go for pre-med. Some lose the dream at that stage.

Then you get your med degree. Lots of people wash out.

Then you need to do internship & residency which knock out whoever doesn't have the endurance.

 

It's a bunch of hard work. It takes a long time to master.

 

 

Want to be an expert about God? Just say a prayer and sit passively in Church. And all these "experts" on God can't even agree among themselves what God is or isn't, what God wants, what we should do and so on.

 

Expertise on God is bullshit. It is made up. The coming of the Holy Ghost was made up.

 

Jesus Christ, that's a great point! Well done.

[centauri]

I believe you misunderstand the situation. Suppose your point is correct - that Jesus spoke in parables to 'hide the truth'. Does this make sense to you. If his goal is to hide the truth, why speak at all? Why doesn't he talk about weather instead? Why teach at all - IF his goal was to 'hide the truth'.

Because he said the truth was only given to some, and not the jews.

 

His goal behind speaking in parables was NOT what you think. It was not so he can 'hide the truth'.

 

Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given. . . .Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand. . . . lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.

 

And then he said he never hid anything when he talked later in front of the Sanhedrin. (Can't find the verse right now. Fuck, fuck, double, tripple fuck, I can't get one second alone to try to answer a post without my family and neighbors need my attention. I'll be back about which verse it is.)

I think this is the one you mean.

 

John 18:19-20

The high priest then asked Jesus of his disciples, and of his doctrine.

Jesus answered him, I spake openly to the world; I ever taught in the synagogue, and in the temple, whither the Jews always resort; and in secret have I said nothing.

Exactly.

 

And the first one above is Matt 13:10-11. Who was these "them" in that verse? And why did he speak in parables to hide the truth?

 

"the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them."

 

vs

 

"in secret have I said nothing."

 

So the secrets were not given to some, but he never hid the secrets... He's a lying asshole. Simple as that.

Indeed, Jesus gets completely tripped up by John 18:19-20.

He gave three false answers in his testimony.

The real problem is that the instructions from Isaiah have nothing to do with Jesus in the first place, but in their zeal to manufacture a fulfillment, the New Testament writer rips the original passage out of context.

 

Isa 6:9-12

And he(God) said, Go, and tell this people, Hear ye indeed, but understand not; and see ye indeed, but perceive not.

Make the heart of this people fat, and make their ears heavy, and shut their eyes; lest they see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and convert, and be healed.

Then said I(Isaiah), Lord, how long? And he answered, Until the cities be wasted without inhabitant, and the houses without man, and the land be utterly desolate,

And the Lord have removed men far away, and there be a great forsaking in the midst of the land.

 

Confusing the people was part of God's plan to punish Israel and initiate the exile.

It was accomplished by Isaiah hundreds of years before Jesus appeared on the scene.

[Spectrox]

Jesus of Nazareth was an extremely moral person.

 

Physically, he might have been by Iron Age standards. But what about his belief that eternal punishment is justice for finite "crimes."?

 

If you had a child, would you ever consider it moral to lock them up in the basement and torture them, even for a short time? For the "crime" of not loving you back?

 

It's highly immoral because it's harmful and cruel. If you cannot see these hell scare tactics for what they are, you're wasting your time on this site.

 

 

What you think of as 'eternal punishment in hell' is not really accurate. People who do not take advantage of what Jesus has accomplished on the cross - fully paying for your sins and winning your forgiveness - will stand before God on their own merits. Depending on what they have done while on earth, they will either be welcomed into Heaven or face eternal separation. Unfortunately for many people, their sins would separate them from God even though they may consider themselves good enough person.

 

Being separate from God is a horrible fate but it is not punishment for your sins. It is a consequence of not leading holy life but you are not being punished for any sins you may have committed. It is just that 'not being on God's side' will invite this terrible consequence - eternal separation from God.

 

There are so many things wrong with this post I don't know where to start.

 

Does God invent the rules by which souls are judged? Yes?

 

Does anything happen that is outside God's control? No?

 

Then God is logically responsible for who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. No-one sends themselves there.

 

And as Ouroboros insightfully pointed out, we ex-Cs are already separated from God and feel better for it. In fact separation from the Biblical God is a good thing because he's such an arse.

 

If you can't see that, then you are seriously deluded.

[Akheia]

... of course, we're all just debating the equivalent of whether or not Harry Potter's stepparents were good or bad people. Jay hasn't got a shred of evidence that this mystery convocation of Sanhedrin ever occurred, nor that Jesus was ever taken to trial, nor that he was ever put to death. Jay hasn't got any proof of any miracle Jesus ever did, and no proof that anything attributed to Jesus was actually anything he said. Christians might as well be spouting off about Alice in Wonderland. I'm not going to bother refuting Jay's claims about the Bible because the burden is on Jay to prove a single thing about the Bible's religious claims being true before I worry about it.

 

Occam's Razor is a rule that states that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is likely to be the correct one. In the case of the Jesus myth, the facts are these: A group of writers whose identity has never been adequately established write a series of books and letters about a man whose very existence is unverified (and disproven in many particulars, such as his birthplace). The things attributed to him are contradictory and confusing at best (the aforementioned issues with him being deceptive and sounding more like a pagan "mystery religion" adherent than anything else); flat-out lies at worst (promising to return before his listeners die; promising to answer each and every prayer in the affirmative). Absolutely nothing about this religion's spiritual "truths" is new or really all that compelling compared to the "truths" revealed by other religions of its day. None of the Bible's writers reveals any new scientific truths or provide any new advances in any sciences; everything in the book is what we'd expect the primitive humans of that era to know. A great number of things about this new religion and its founder sound eerily similar to earlier pagan religions and their founders, but the new religion insists that it's not only original but that it is the only truth. Not a single miracle has ever been independently confirmed; not a single shred of evidence supports a single one of its claims. Every "proof" Christians claim is in the form of subjective experiences (the much-derided "warm fuzzies"), and every one of these experiences is present in other religions. Christians are very certain of their religion, but so are the adherents of other religions--and of no religion at all. There are tens of thousands of denominations of this religion, each saying something slightly (or wildly) different about what their deity wants, offers, threatens, and demands; each one of these is convinced to a greater or lesser degree that every other denomination is flat-out wrong and going to hell. Whatever their deity *does* actually want, offer, threaten, and demand, he's been terribly quiet about the subject.

 

Hypothesis A: Jesus is totally legit. Despite the religion's bizarre similarities with the mystery religions of its time, this one's the real deal. Despite the lack of proof, everything the religion claims is true. Despite its lack of historicity, everything about it is real. Everybody convert or face hell!

 

Hypothesis B: The early church founders needed explanations for their religion and a way to keep it going, so they said whatever they had to say to keep things moving, edited the books however they needed to so they sounded authoritative, and led the church in the direction they thought they had to so it'd last. Over the last two thousand years, the religion's leaders have honed their manipulative message to a razor sheen, but this religion is no more true or valid than any other of its day. It's perfectly safe to ignore its claims and demands.

 

Hmm... which do I pick....

[Guest Valk0010]

C: I personally the more that I have been thinking about it would go with, fail prophet turned messiah because the apostles didn't like the idea of there "ends times coming now cult" ending.

 

But I am not a bible historian in any way, so I wouldn't put my weight on that assessment.

 

The bible is unbelievable even if historically reliable. Hence things like the, deception arguement we have been having.

[Spectrox]

... of course, we're all just debating the equivalent of whether or not Harry Potter's stepparents were good or bad people. Jay hasn't got a shred of evidence that this mystery convocation of Sanhedrin ever occurred, nor that Jesus was ever taken to trial, nor that he was ever put to death. Jay hasn't got any proof of any miracle Jesus ever did, and no proof that anything attributed to Jesus was actually anything he said. Christians might as well be spouting off about Alice in Wonderland. I'm not going to bother refuting Jay's claims about the Bible because the burden is on Jay to prove a single thing about the Bible's religious claims being true before I worry about it.

 

Occam's Razor is a rule that states that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is likely to be the correct one. In the case of the Jesus myth, the facts are these: A group of writers whose identity has never been adequately established write a series of books and letters about a man whose very existence is unverified (and disproven in many particulars, such as his birthplace). The things attributed to him are contradictory and confusing at best (the aforementioned issues with him being deceptive and sounding more like a pagan "mystery religion" adherent than anything else); flat-out lies at worst (promising to return before his listeners die; promising to answer each and every prayer in the affirmative). Absolutely nothing about this religion's spiritual "truths" is new or really all that compelling compared to the "truths" revealed by other religions of its day. None of the Bible's writers reveals any new scientific truths or provide any new advances in any sciences; everything in the book is what we'd expect the primitive humans of that era to know. A great number of things about this new religion and its founder sound eerily similar to earlier pagan religions and their founders, but the new religion insists that it's not only original but that it is the only truth. Not a single miracle has ever been independently confirmed; not a single shred of evidence supports a single one of its claims. Every "proof" Christians claim is in the form of subjective experiences (the much-derided "warm fuzzies"), and every one of these experiences is present in other religions. Christians are very certain of their religion, but so are the adherents of other religions--and of no religion at all. There are tens of thousands of denominations of this religion, each saying something slightly (or wildly) different about what their deity wants, offers, threatens, and demands; each one of these is convinced to a greater or lesser degree that every other denomination is flat-out wrong and going to hell. Whatever their deity *does* actually want, offer, threaten, and demand, he's been terribly quiet about the subject.

 

Hypothesis A: Jesus is totally legit. Despite the religion's bizarre similarities with the mystery religions of its time, this one's the real deal. Despite the lack of proof, everything the religion claims is true. Despite its lack of historicity, everything about it is real. Everybody convert or face hell!

 

Hypothesis B: The early church founders needed explanations for their religion and a way to keep it going, so they said whatever they had to say to keep things moving, edited the books however they needed to so they sounded authoritative, and led the church in the direction they thought they had to so it'd last. Over the last two thousand years, the religion's leaders have honed their manipulative message to a razor sheen, but this religion is no more true or valid than any other of its day. It's perfectly safe to ignore its claims and demands.

 

Hmm... which do I pick....

 

THIS! Spot on as usual Akheia! Marvellous!

[Akheia]

Thanks I was thinking about mystery religions a lot yesterday and how the idea might fit with how Jesus was so weirdly, coyly deceptive. Notice that he took his favorite people aside later to teach them what he *REALLY* meant, leaving the rank-and-file to wonder and be confused. Mystery religions were a regular facet of life in that area and at that time; there were several floating around, such as Mithraism. Something about the human psyche loves to feel like it's on the next level, like we know something the plebes just don't, like there's some super-special important information that we're privy to that regular schmucks don't get to see. One might even argue the use of the past tense in the sentences above--as various organizations prove even today, people love to feel like they know something earth-shattering and are part of a special club. We talk a big game about knowledge being free and about the goal of equalizing access to it, but we gleefully follow Tumblrs about rich kids in their bubble worlds and tolerate if not breathlessly read stories about clubs like the yaoi-frat "Skulls." Still, we don't associate those sorts of clubs with religion much. When a super-secret org gets mentioned in connection with religion, like Opus Dei, it's usually in a negative light. When the NT's writers have Jesus taking his favorite followers aside for the various tete-a-tetes that he was to deny later in lies told to the Sanhedrin, I wonder if there was some cultural resonance to that bit of folklore that people from a far more democratic/populist culture miss today.

[♦ ficino ♦]

... of course, we're all just debating the equivalent of whether or not Harry Potter's stepparents were good or bad people. Jay hasn't got a shred of evidence that this mystery convocation of Sanhedrin ever occurred, nor that Jesus was ever taken to trial, nor that he was ever put to death. Jay hasn't got any proof of any miracle Jesus ever did, and no proof that anything attributed to Jesus was actually anything he said. Christians might as well be spouting off about Alice in Wonderland. I'm not going to bother refuting Jay's claims about the Bible because the burden is on Jay to prove a single thing about the Bible's religious claims being true before I worry about it.

 

Occam's Razor is a rule that states that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is likely to be the correct one. In the case of the Jesus myth, the facts are these: A group of writers whose identity has never been adequately established write a series of books and letters about a man whose very existence is unverified (and disproven in many particulars, such as his birthplace). The things attributed to him are contradictory and confusing at best (the aforementioned issues with him being deceptive and sounding more like a pagan "mystery religion" adherent than anything else); flat-out lies at worst (promising to return before his listeners die; promising to answer each and every prayer in the affirmative). Absolutely nothing about this religion's spiritual "truths" is new or really all that compelling compared to the "truths" revealed by other religions of its day. None of the Bible's writers reveals any new scientific truths or provide any new advances in any sciences; everything in the book is what we'd expect the primitive humans of that era to know. A great number of things about this new religion and its founder sound eerily similar to earlier pagan religions and their founders, but the new religion insists that it's not only original but that it is the only truth. Not a single miracle has ever been independently confirmed; not a single shred of evidence supports a single one of its claims. Every "proof" Christians claim is in the form of subjective experiences (the much-derided "warm fuzzies"), and every one of these experiences is present in other religions. Christians are very certain of their religion, but so are the adherents of other religions--and of no religion at all. There are tens of thousands of denominations of this religion, each saying something slightly (or wildly) different about what their deity wants, offers, threatens, and demands; each one of these is convinced to a greater or lesser degree that every other denomination is flat-out wrong and going to hell. Whatever their deity *does* actually want, offer, threaten, and demand, he's been terribly quiet about the subject.

 

Hypothesis A: Jesus is totally legit. Despite the religion's bizarre similarities with the mystery religions of its time, this one's the real deal. Despite the lack of proof, everything the religion claims is true. Despite its lack of historicity, everything about it is real. Everybody convert or face hell!

 

Hypothesis B: The early church founders needed explanations for their religion and a way to keep it going, so they said whatever they had to say to keep things moving, edited the books however they needed to so they sounded authoritative, and led the church in the direction they thought they had to so it'd last. Over the last two thousand years, the religion's leaders have honed their manipulative message to a razor sheen, but this religion is no more true or valid than any other of its day. It's perfectly safe to ignore its claims and demands.

 

Hmm... which do I pick....

 

Great post, as usual, Akheia! I think this has come up before, so I apologize if you've already answered it, but... what is your reply to the Who Moved the Stone argument that the disciples faced persecution and would not undergo it if they were knowingly promulgating a lie. I know that one reply is to demand proof that the people identified in the NT as witnesses of the resurrected Jesus also were persecuted, and to say that we only know of the persecution of the so-called original disciples from the NT itself, or sources that depend on it. Is there another reply?

 

Best, F

[mcdaddy]

... of course, we're all just debating the equivalent of whether or not Harry Potter's stepparents were good or bad people. Jay hasn't got a shred of evidence that this mystery convocation of Sanhedrin ever occurred, nor that Jesus was ever taken to trial, nor that he was ever put to death. Jay hasn't got any proof of any miracle Jesus ever did, and no proof that anything attributed to Jesus was actually anything he said. Christians might as well be spouting off about Alice in Wonderland. I'm not going to bother refuting Jay's claims about the Bible because the burden is on Jay to prove a single thing about the Bible's religious claims being true before I worry about it.

 

Occam's Razor is a rule that states that the explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is likely to be the correct one. In the case of the Jesus myth, the facts are these: A group of writers whose identity has never been adequately established write a series of books and letters about a man whose very existence is unverified (and disproven in many particulars, such as his birthplace). The things attributed to him are contradictory and confusing at best (the aforementioned issues with him being deceptive and sounding more like a pagan "mystery religion" adherent than anything else); flat-out lies at worst (promising to return before his listeners die; promising to answer each and every prayer in the affirmative). Absolutely nothing about this religion's spiritual "truths" is new or really all that compelling compared to the "truths" revealed by other religions of its day. None of the Bible's writers reveals any new scientific truths or provide any new advances in any sciences; everything in the book is what we'd expect the primitive humans of that era to know. A great number of things about this new religion and its founder sound eerily similar to earlier pagan religions and their founders, but the new religion insists that it's not only original but that it is the only truth. Not a single miracle has ever been independently confirmed; not a single shred of evidence supports a single one of its claims. Every "proof" Christians claim is in the form of subjective experiences (the much-derided "warm fuzzies"), and every one of these experiences is present in other religions. Christians are very certain of their religion, but so are the adherents of other religions--and of no religion at all. There are tens of thousands of denominations of this religion, each saying something slightly (or wildly) different about what their deity wants, offers, threatens, and demands; each one of these is convinced to a greater or lesser degree that every other denomination is flat-out wrong and going to hell. Whatever their deity *does* actually want, offer, threaten, and demand, he's been terribly quiet about the subject.

 

Hypothesis A: Jesus is totally legit. Despite the religion's bizarre similarities with the mystery religions of its time, this one's the real deal. Despite the lack of proof, everything the religion claims is true. Despite its lack of historicity, everything about it is real. Everybody convert or face hell!

 

Hypothesis B: The early church founders needed explanations for their religion and a way to keep it going, so they said whatever they had to say to keep things moving, edited the books however they needed to so they sounded authoritative, and led the church in the direction they thought they had to so it'd last. Over the last two thousand years, the religion's leaders have honed their manipulative message to a razor sheen, but this religion is no more true or valid than any other of its day. It's perfectly safe to ignore its claims and demands.

 

Hmm... which do I pick....

 

Great post, as usual, Akheia! I think this has come up before, so I apologize if you've already answered it, but... what is your reply to the Who Moved the Stone argument that the disciples faced persecution and would not undergo it if they were knowingly promulgating a lie. I know that one reply is to demand proof that the people identified in the NT as witnesses of the resurrected Jesus also were persecuted, and to say that we only know of the persecution of the so-called original disciples from the NT itself, or sources that depend on it. Is there another reply?

 

Best, F

 

I'd like to give a brief answer to this if I could, Fic.

 

IMO, there was no empty tomb. there was no stone. there were no real "12 disciples". Its all basically fiction. There was no tomb veneration until the 3rd-4th century IIRC when the church, under Constantine or one of his successors, "found" it.

 

I think the whole argument about the how the disciples "wouldnt perpetuate a lie" is wrong for 2 reasons. 1) If they WERE real in any sense, this happens all the time. Look at Islam. 2) They didn't actually exist, and the whole story about them moving the stone, being persecuted, is just tradition based off of stories, with maybe a small nugget of truth in them.

 

Just my somewhat-educated opinion.

 

EDIT: after re-reading your question to Ak, i may have not even really answered it, I think you maybe were just looking for answers OTHER than what I said?