I thinking of becoming christian but want to here from Exs first

[Robert_Tulip]

On 2/26/2021 at 12:13 AM, Myrkhoos said:

one does NOT need an alternate theory in order to reject the theory in question

That is true for people coming to the debate without a vested interest, but Christians have major emotional and institutional commitment to the literal truth of the resurrection.  The scientific observation from David Hume in On Miracles is that the traditional creed of the rising on the third day is more likely to be fraud or delusion than an inconsistency in the laws of nature.  But Christians are able to ignore this critique because no one has produced a more compelling and persuasive story of how the resurrection story came into existence than the creeds.  There are numerous alternative theories, but none get widespread enough acceptance to shift the prevailing paradigm of miracle.

 

My view is that Christianity evolved from earlier sun worship, with Jesus imagined as a personification of the sun. The sun is "reborn" each day out of the night, and also each year.  The annual cycle of light begins at Christmas as the first  longer day on the path to summer, and the annual cycle of life starts at Easter with the new buds of spring. That means the rising of Christ is a parable for the rising of the sun as our source of light and life.

 

I find the analogy with the sun to be a compelling explanation for the Biblical mythology around Jesus, but previously it has been used mainly as an argument to abandon faith, rather than to reform it, so this interpretation has not engaged constructively with Christian theology.  Faith in God does not have to be literal.  If it were possible to believe in Jesus as a world saviour while seeing the Bible stories as completely imaginary, Christianity might have a future that is compatible with the core moral principles of logic and evidence.

On 2/26/2021 at 6:44 PM, Wertbag said:

the charismatic preacher theory seems most likely, as this fits with how cults commonly grow (John Smith, Ron Hubbard, Muhammed, Jonestown etc). 

The big difference is that Saint Paul, who supposedly built upon the work of Christ to establish the church, almost never refers to the teachings, location, dates or life events of Christ except the imagined post-resurrection activities. Paul's writings are totally compatible with the author not knowing the Gospel story told in Mark, meaning the "Jesus of Nazareth" idea completely post-dates Paul.  Where other cults used the method of "as the founder taught", Saint Paul just says he learned everything by revelation from God, not from other people. With these other examples, (did you mean Joseph Smith?) the later institution had a clear verifiable line of connection to the founder, something glaringly and suspiciously absent from Christianity.

[Wertbag]

1 hour ago, Robert_Tulip said:

The big difference is that Saint Paul, who supposedly built upon the work of Christ to establish the church, almost never refers to the teachings, location, dates or life events of Christ except the imagined post-resurrection activities. Paul's writings are totally compatible with the author not knowing the Gospel story told in Mark, meaning the "Jesus of Nazareth" idea completely post-dates Paul.  Where other cults used the method of "as the founder taught", Saint Paul just says he learned everything by revelation from God, not from other people. With these other examples, (did you mean Joseph Smith?) the later institution had a clear verifiable line of connection to the founder, something glaringly and suspiciously absent from Christianity.

That only works if you accept the bible as a valid source of historical information.  From what we know Paul didn't write most or possibly any of the works attributed to him (Romans 16:22 "I, Tertius, who wrote down this letter...").  The bible is untrustworthy in almost every way, so to find a section that openly admits to being at least second hand at the time of writing doesn't inspire great acceptance that the writings are believable.  Looking at it from a historical, non-biblical view, all we know is a sect of Jews became enamored with a preacher character and due to a lot of luck managed to grow into a sizeable following.  

 

A cult usually has that charismatic leader in the first person.  To have a second hand claim of greatness is a lot harder sell.  Saying "I am god in flesh, look I can make a coin appear from behind your ear" is very compelling, but saying "I once knew a guy who could make coins appear, and he claimed to be god" is a pretty weak claim.

Of course its all guess work based on very limited information, so while I would say this idea is plausible, I wouldn't believe in it without considerable data to fill in the gaps in our knowledge.

 

[Robert_Tulip]

1 minute ago, Wertbag said:

That only works if you accept the bible as a valid source of historical information. 

Hi Wertbag, I think you have misread my comment.  What I said about the complete absence of "Jesus of Nazareth" from the Epistles totally implies that the Bible is NOT a valid source of historical information, except in the sparse points that have external corroboration.  These include the existence of Pilate, Caiaphas, the Herods and Emperor Tiberius in the New Testament, and some town locations where the Old Testament guided archaeologists to find them.  As to Bible figures other than these real historical people, I view them as fiction.  But very beautiful and meaningful fiction with important moral messages.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

19 minutes ago, Robert_Tulip said:

But very beautiful and meaningful fiction with important moral messages.

 

And some horribly immoral messages to make a good balanced mix

 

[Robert_Tulip]

2 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

And some horribly immoral messages to make a good balanced mix

 

I focus on the bits I like, guided by the principle of the wheat and tares.

[Christianchat_Chat]

5 hours ago, Robert_Tulip said:

I focus on the bits I like, guided by the principle of the wheat and tares.

 

@DarkBishop

 

"Don’t go by reports, by legends, by traditions, by scripture, by logical deduction, by inference, by analogies, by agreement through pondering views, by probability, or by the thought, “This contemplative is our teacher.”

 

To the Kālāmas
Kālāma Sutta  (AN 3:66)

NAVIGATIONSuttas/AN/3:66

 

Although this discourse is often cited as the Buddha’s carte blanche for following one’s own sense of right and wrong, it actually sets a standard much more rigorous than that. Traditions are not to be followed simply because they are traditions. Reports (such as historical accounts or news) are not to be followed simply because the source seems reliable. One’s own preferences are not to be followed simply because they seem logical or resonate with one’s feelings. Instead, any view or belief must be tested by the results it yields when put into practice; and—to guard against the possibility of any bias or limitations in one’s understanding of those results—they must further be checked against the experience of people who are observant and wise. The ability to question and test one’s beliefs in an appropriate way is called appropriate attention. The ability to recognize and chose wise people as mentors is called having admirable friends. According to Iti 16–17, these are, respectively, the most important internal and external factors for attaining the goal of the practice. For further thoughts on how to test a belief in practice, see MN 60, MN 61, MN 95, AN 7:80, and AN 8:53. For thoughts on how to judge whether another person is wise, see MN 110, AN 4:192, and AN 8:54.

 

from: https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/AN/AN3_66.html

[Joshpantera]

On 2/27/2021 at 3:37 PM, Christianchat_Chat said:

not an ex-Christian, but ...  i would suggest you study into the history of Christianity.  from my understanding of it - it has changed much over time and many people could have/seem to have changed things in it and understandings of it over time - a LOT in ways.  also, the Bible speaks of elementary understandings, and of the going beyond, to a maturing in Christ (in understandings of things, like of - EVERYTHING, i believe - for one thing).

 

Well apparently we have the same advice - study the history of christianity! 

 

Not the bullshit history given through the biases of the churches, the actual history according to the historical record. It has CHANGED much over time.

 

So what does that mean? 

 

Well, it reveals things about the bible. To understand this very well you have go through textual criticism. Read everything from Bart Ehrman. Will you do that? Do you want to know how many things were changed and all of the various evidences that reveal what can be demonstrated through textual criticism?

 

If not, well, then perhaps you aren't very interested in figuring out what's true and what isn't. 

 

If that's the case, then I have to ask what business you have speaking to Poci or anyone else here about TRUTH? If you are not very concerned with figuring out what's true and what is demonstrably false??

 

 

[LogicalFallacy]

I think @poci has left the chat.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

On 2/27/2021 at 5:03 PM, SuperBigV said:

 

When this text was written, the Scriptures consisted of the Old Testament, right?  So what do we say about a spirit who tells you to ignore Moses and pretty much most of the Old Testament? 

 

I don't know know what you mean by a "spirit", but it sounds like a good idea to ignore the old testament. 

 

I am reading a book that I highly recommend if you want to see the overall evolution of religions.  A LITTLE HISTORY OF RELIGION, by Richard Holloway.