Christ is Dead

[Raphael Meade]

 

[Hungry Joe]

Absolute rubbish. The vast majority of historians? Twaddle.

Attila the hun has firm documentary evidence. Alexander the great has firm documentary evidence. Socrates has firm documentary evidence. Pythagoras has firm documnetary evidence. There is more historical evidence for the existance of Helen of Troy than there is for the existance of the nazarene.

This is a man who supposedly so upset the Roman empire they specifically arranged to have him executed on trumped charges and not one piece of evidence from that time exists that references him. The earliest known writing from non-religious sources that refers to him is at least 70 years after he was supposed to have died.

Find me a reputable historian who is willing to categorically state that the man existed. Not one that says he may have existed, not one that says I believe he existed. One that says categorically that historical evidence shows he existed.

So what you're saying is you need categorical historical evidence to accept that someone who lived two thousand years ago that the vast majority of historians 'believed' existed for you to accept he did? Fair enough. I'm happy to go with their educated hunches.

I note that you've conveniently ignored Stumpy Tim's post though. And try to lay of the 'care to provide', 'absolute rubbish' and 'twaddle' stuff when you don't agree with someone, it makes you look a bit of a dick.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

easter is a pagan festival based on the equinox.

the resurection of a sun god has been done many time (horus, dionysis, mithra) and has been copied and used by the catholics.

the resurrection story goes back to Osiris and the resurrection of the soul.

the 3 days is to do with the sun (sun god) at xmas where the sun dies for 3 days and then is reborn on the 25th december.

research astrotheology.

christianity is a joke and keeps people in fear and guilt, and keeps self power quashed.

rant over.

Has anyone else noticed this post-Christian fad called "Paganism". There seem to be a lot of people around these days who talk about sun gods and earth mothers as if they were real or as if there is some evidence that ancient people believed in them.

I think most of this was invented in the 1980s, although you can trace a lot of the nonsense back to the Victorians who dreamt up all sorts of fantasies about what prehistoric and non-European societies might have believed in.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Has anyone else noticed this post-Christian fad called "Paganism". There seem to be a lot of people around these days who talk about sun gods and earth mothers as if they were real or as if there is some evidence that ancient people believed in them.

I think most of this was invented in the 1980s, although you can trace a lot of the nonsense back to the Victorians who dreamt up all sorts of fantasies about what prehistoric and non-European societies might have believed in.

brilliant

 

[manilaseagull]

Here in the Philippines they crucify many people each Good Friday,

many more men walk the streets whipping their backs for penance,

The following pics were taken This Morning at a crucifixion, its the first one I have attended and it was quite bizarre


Blessed are the cheesemakers!!

 

[Grendel]

Find me a reputable historian who is willing to categorically state that the man existed. Not one that says he may have existed, not one that says I believe he existed. One that says categorically that historical evidence shows he existed.

Find one who's willing to categorically state that he didn't exist.

 

[manilaseagull]

Sorry their big but I dont have time to rescale them..

Feel free if anyone wants to

 

[Tom Bombadil]

Find one who's willing to categorically state that he didn't exist.

Thats not the argument though is it. We're talking about the difference between faith and fact.

For the record, i believe the story is an amalgamation of several messianic claimants from the centuries leading up to the 2nd century AD. The fact is that many of the stories of the new testament are rehashes of existing legends.

 

[Hungry Joe]

For the record, i believe the story is an amalgamation of several messianic claimants from the centuries leading up to the 2nd century AD. The fact is that many of the stories of the new testament are rehashes of existing legends.

Do you believe that the historical Jesus as a person existed amongst these claimants? I find it difficult to think he didn't and that somehow the whole story of his life is fabrication.

For the record I'm an Agnostic as I find both absolute faith and absolute non-faith are both equally problematic. What we're debating here though isn't a question of religion but of the existence of an important historical figure. I guess the faith comes down to whether you believe in someone without seeing unquestionable factual documentation of thier existence. I do.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

For the record, i believe the story is an amalgamation of several messianic claimants from the centuries leading up to the 2nd century AD. The fact is that many of the stories of the new testament are rehashes of existing legends.

Just as "Paganism" was invented in the 1980s, I suspect this line of argument first came to prominence in the late twentieth century.

What the two arguments have in common is the attempt to explain away the troublesome fact that, over the centuries and right up to the present day, there are lots of people who seem to possess something called "faith".

"Faith" simply makes no sense to folk who derive their own sense of superiority from a belief that science and education represent the pinnacle of human achievement. So they come up with dubious arguments that look like they are based on some sort of scholarship (but rarely are), purporting to demonstrate a knowledge of what ancient peoples thought.

The "facts" are different. Apart from the writings of the Greeks and Romans, there is very little evidence of what ancient peoples actually believed in.

Trying to "explain" the widespread modern phenomenon of "faith" by claiming that it is a distorted residue of (unspecified) ancient legends is, frankly, ridiculous.



Incidentally ... most of what we "know" about ancient cultures (including the Greeks and Romans) comes from the Victorians, who wrote about the history of the world from one perspective - the "certain" knowledge that the history of mankind was the progression from polytheistic (ignorant) superstition to monotheistic (science based) civilisation.

This was the intellectual justification for the British Empire conquering the entire world. We were bringing civilisation to people who were craving for it.

What we see today is exactly the same line of thinking, but with the superiority of monotheism excluded from the package.

 

[Hungry Joe]

Just as "Paganism" was invented in the 1980s, I suspect this line of argument first came to prominence in the late twentieth century.

What the two arguments have in common is the attempt to explain away the troublesome fact that, over the centuries and right up to the present day, there are lots of people who seem to possess something called "faith".

"Faith" simply makes no sense to folk who derive their own sense of superiority from a belief that science and education represent the pinnacle of human achievement. So they come up with dubious arguments that look like they are based on some sort of scholarship (but rarely are), purporting to demonstrate a knowledge of what ancient peoples thought.

The "facts" are different. Apart from the writings of the Greeks and Romans, there is very little evidence of what ancient peoples actually believed in.

Trying to "explain" the widespread modern phenomenon of "faith" by claiming that it is a distorted residue of (unspecified) ancient legends is, frankly, ridiculous.



Incidentally ... most of what we "know" about ancient cultures (including the Greeks and Romans) comes from the Victorians, who wrote about the history of the world from one perspective - the "certain" knowledge that the history of mankind was the progression from polytheistic (ignorant) superstition to monotheistic (science based) civilisation.

This was the intellectual justification for the British Empire conquering the entire world. We were bringing civilisation to people who were craving for it.

Absolutely. If you're interested LB there's a good program on Discovery at 9pm tonight 'The Bible: A History' where novelist Howard Jacobson looks at some of these issues. From The Radio Times: "...Howard Jacobson isn't religious, yet the story of the Creation resonates with him. What's more, he's angered with the "new atheists" who are so witheringly dismissive of the Bible. "Blind faith is fatuous but so is blind doubt" he says. Here Jacobson insists evolution and Creation can live side by side; that the Bible stories are made up, bu can still be enthralling.

Should be good.

 

[Fungus]

Absolutely. If you're interested LB there's a good program on Discovery at 9pm tonight 'The Bible: A History' where novelist Howard Jacobson looks at some of these issues. From The Radio Times: "...Howard Jacobson isn't religious, yet the story of the Creation resonates with him. What's more, he's angered with the "new atheists" who are so witheringly dismissive of the Bible. "Blind faith is fatuous but so is blind doubt" he says. Here Jacobson insists evolution and Creation can live side by side; that the Bible stories are made up, bu can still be enthralling.

Should be good.

Hmm, recently watched a program with him talking about religion, and it would be a bit difficult to describe him as "not religious". He was very defensive about religion - how can you believe in "Creation" without believing the religious teachings?

Equating blind faith with blind doubt implies that the truth is somewhere in the middle - but that's false reasoning.

Still interesting, though, in a shouting-at-the-TV sort of way!

 

[Hungry Joe]

Hmm, recently watched a program with him talking about religion, and it would be a bit difficult to describe him as "not religious". He was very defensive about religion - how can you believe in "Creation" without believing the religious teachings?

Equating blind faith with blind doubt implies that the truth is somewhere in the middle - but that's false reasoning.

Still interesting, though, in a shouting-at-the-TV sort of way!

Don't want to preempt what he has to say but I would suggest you don't have to believe in Creation in a literal sense to have some of it's stories resonating with you in an allegorical kind of way. It's the accertation by the 'blind doubters' that nothing of worth can come from faith that doesn't sit well with me, it's just too bleak and inhuman. I'd describe myself as not religious but I believe that people can learn a lot about human decency from some of the religious fables (Christian and otherwise). Indeed I believe a lot of prophets and religious teachers treat(ed) their teachings in a much less literal sense than many of the 'followers' took them. I'm not sure you can even talk about things in terms of 'the truth' in this sense, so I think he may well have a point.

 

[Fungus]

Did you know there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Creation Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Hungry Joe]

Did you know there were dinosaurs on Noah's Ark? Creation Museum - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Now that definitely doesn't resonate, no matter how many drugs you've taken. Don't get me wrong, I think literal Creationists are bonkers.

 

[Fungus]

Now that definitely doesn't resonate, no matter how many drugs you've taken. Don't get me wrong, I think literal Creationists are bonkers.

Trouble is, they want it both ways - "literal", but with a few "tweaks" to try make it seem to fit with selective bits of current knowledge.

Oh, and they have lots of money to publicise their views...

 

[Questions]

Jesus certainly existed. It's God that didn't...

Well just go and tell Jesus then that he had no father upon high and see what he says mate.

 

[Wilko]

Don't want to preempt what he has to say but I would suggest you don't have to believe in Creation in a literal sense to have some of it's stories resonating with you in an allegorical kind of way. It's the accertation by the 'blind doubters' that nothing of worth can come from faith that doesn't sit well with me, it's just too bleak and inhuman. I'd describe myself as not religious but I believe that people can learn a lot about human decency from some of the religious fables (Christian and otherwise). Indeed I believe a lot of prophets and religious teachers treat(ed) their teachings in a much less literal sense than many of the 'followers' took them. I'm not sure you can even talk about things in terms of 'the truth' in this sense, so I think he may well have a point.

What I do not like about this thinking is that you need religion for morals and an ethical way of living. I am not religious, in fact from attending a Roman Catholic school I would say that I am pretty anti-religion, it was enough to put anyone off for life.

Anyway - I don't steal, I do not cheat etc etc but I do not have to have the threat of going to hell or the wrath of God to stop me doing these things. My own conscience is enough for me to decide what is morally/ethically correct.

Why can't you teach about respect and goodness to fellow man without slapping a religious figure on the moral of the story?

 

[Trufflehound]

Well just go and tell Jesus then that he had no father upon high and see what he says mate.

I'd like to see Mary try and get that 'Virgin birth' excuse past Joseph in today's savvy world.

Sounds suspiciously like Rohypnol to me - I bet their milkman is the spitting image of Jesus.

 

[beorhthelm]

to be fair i think its quite resonable to suppose there was a chap called Jesus or similar running round the red sea, kicking up a fuss and being a revolutionary. put it this way, if he didnt exist, who invented him? its a fairly radical message being put forward and im not sure someone would project that on to a ficticious and not want the credit. unless maybe it was all invented by Paul? as far as acedemic acceptance goes, there are enough historians to ask questions about "who was he really" to suggest there was a "someone". I recal in one theory he was the leader of a terrorist movement, and that was backed by evidence of such a group. there is quite a lot of evidnece of such things from those days, its the detail of specific stories you have to question, which cannot hope to have been passed along to the gospel writers completely accurately.

the interesting thing about all this is that if Christianity jettisoned the old testment and the stuff after the gospels, you end up with the story of a philospher preist who few would disagree with had good ideas. its a pity all the God baggage has to come with him.