Jesus Christ - reasons for skepticism

and [SIZE=""]NO[/SIZE], i am not a Mormon.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I think religion/s will continue to evolve to remain pertinent to the times we live in. If you look at how Christianity has evolved over time to remain accessible to 21st Century man, would this not simply continue? Also it is debatable whether religion is becoming more or less popular. Look at the resurgence of the Orthodox Church in Russia. And of course the US Christian lobby remains firmly entrenched. The repeated attempts at installing Creationism into the classrooms is somewhat worrying.

Life can be good without the trappings of religious dogma. There is little doubt that morality often improves when religion is cast aside. Along with the trappings of elitism, intolerance and abuse.

Leaving organized religion behind, but acknowledging the existence of a power greater than ourselves seems a reasonable approach.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I don't have a problem with Mormans. They like their religion regardless of wether the origin was miraculous or banal. Most ancient myths contain a grain of truth. Oral history was also entertainment, they could not get away with it being boring, so invention was a virtue.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

this is where i first heard of them

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

 

This is an offshoot of Christianity. But what instigated Christianity? What solid seed was sown so that the tree has grow steadfastly for two millennia?

 

Seeds are by definition small. The basics of the story reflect common mythology of the time, a sacrifice, a martyr for his cause. Besides, the true story isn't what became popular (that was mostly lost to history), it was the creation of Paul of Tarsus. The seed need not have been solid, it could be pure fantasy, as long as it strikes a chord in the human heart.

 

What do you think it may have been?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

The true story? Jesus was a pseudo-Essene Jewish religious philosopher with charisma and speaking ability. He gathered some followers but pissed off the Jewish leadership and drew attention to himself as a kind of rebel. The Romans dealt with such people harshly, Pilot was particularly cruel, and made him an example. The grief his followers must have experienced caused visions and hallucinations. The disciple Mary was explicit that the visions were worthwhile for themselves and not literal. A hundred years later, Paul adapted the story to fit Jewish prophecies of the messiah.

If not for Rome adopting Christianity, if not for so many Christians dying as martyrs by Roman hands, his story would have faded away as no doubt many others have been.

 

Spidergoat the Prophet.

 

Why not? I'm a Jewish carpenter (of sorts).

 

That is quite a reasonable take Spider. Its got legs.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Of course the visions and hallucinations could have been caused by cultish concoctions as well as grief. Perhaps there was a fledgling Timothy Leary amongst the ranks?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

I doubt it. They tended to avoid intoxicants. Religious fervor is quite enough, just look at any pentacostal revival meeting.

 

Religious fevor never really did much for me. That spooky vacant look of the celebrants is very off putting.

 

Paul’s letters were written even before the gospels, and some of his information, for example, what he passes on in his first letter to the Corinthian church about the resurrection appearances, has been dated to within five years after Jesus’s death.

 

Five years? Never heard his writings being dated that early.
Most sources seem to agree with the first letter being written about 25 yrs at the earliest:

"The epistle was written from Ephesus (16:8). According to Acts of the Apostles, Paul founded the church in Corinth (Acts 18:10-17), then spent approximately three years in Ephesus (Acts 19:8, 19:10, 20:31). The letter was written during this time in Ephesus, which is usually dated as being in the range of 53 to 57 AD"

 

I thought so too, but further research might suggest otherwise. The death of Jesus was probably not originally written by Mark. Rather Mark used a source for this narrative. Since Mark is the earliest gospel, his source must be even earlier. In fact, Rudolf Pesch, a German expert on Mark, says the Passion source must go back to at least AD 37, just seven years after Jesus’s death.

 

The one that gets me -- nobody was even trying when life evolved to what it is today. When somebody says they can purposefully bring something to life -- well that's just totally illogical. Does that make sense. :shrug:

 

So when somebody says a God purposefully brought something to life, like all life, that is illogical? I tend to agree, but I'm surprised you would say that. Perhaps that's not what you meant.

 

Visions and hallucinations aren't even necessary - all that is required is stories of visions and miracles. I suspect that an account of something that someone thought, or thought they saw, or would have liked to have seen, can easily become a miracle after only a few (even only three or four) retellings.

I agree that the story of Christianity is better understood as the story of Paul rather than the story of Jesus. I would not be awfully surprised if the letters of Paul in the Bible today are an extraordinarily accurate account of the man's original words, and neither would I be surprised if he fully believed everything he wrote (except perhaps for some spin-doctoring of some of the political relationships) himself. I don't doubt that Paul had a profound experience on the road to Damascus, I don't doubt this spurred him into his chosen role as the prophet for the Messiah, and I understand how his zeal, drive, and apparent charisma enabled him to influence enough others into forming the foundations of Christianity as we know it today.

I'm surprised at "one hundred years later", but the exact time is irrelevant. A year or ten later would be enough.

 

I'm saying it is illogical for man to create life from inert chemicals. But without anyone even trying, life is here. Intelligence can't create life -- at least that seems to be the atheistic view, and a supreme intelligence would be supremely incapable of creating life. :shrug: