What am I if I think Jesus was the best moral teacher ever but am indifferent re his divinity?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if you aren't convinced he actually existed but do think the "story" of Jesus had a profound effect on humanity? Some good, some bad.

Then I think you just appreciate good literature? I'm OP. I'm positive he existed.

You might be positive, but you can't really know. He lived too long ago, as a simple carpenter -- there is no proof of his existence. There is proof of christianity existing in the first century, but not of its founder.

This is true. If there really was a Jesus, he left no writings or his own, and no one started writing about him until the next century. Furthermore, if there really was a Jesus, why no mention in Roman histories? True, some versions of Josephus mention Jesus, but these are clearly Christian inserts. Moreover, the writings about Jesus contain nothing new. His sayings are quotations from the Old Testament. Even his throwing the money changers out of the Temple was a common practice at that time.

The first writings about Jesus were just a few decades after his death (Mark was 60-70 AD and Paul's epistles are dated to 50-60 AD), not in the next century. Among the Romans, Pliny also mentions Jesus. Most serious historians don't causally write these Roman mentions off as "clearly inserts", FWIW, especially since they're not particularly pro-Christian.

Perhaps pp was referring to extra-biblical writings about Jesus. And pp accurately characterized the Jewish historian Josephus which anyone can check for themselves. The fact that Jesus was not well known during his time or that there is not proof of his existence doesn't mean he is not worthy to be worshipped as the son of God. There is no evidence for God appearing to Moses either, or of Adam and Eve, yet Christianity uses these stories as its basis, as do Judaism and Islam.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you OP but technically no I don't think we are Christians. As in, you don't believe Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins.

There are no reliable extant sources proving Jesus ever existed. The bible is filled with stories that try to explain the origin and purpose of life on earth. If Jesus were real, scholars would have unearthed descriptions of his miracles. Yet we only have stories - written many YEARS after the crucifixion - from four men documenting this man's life.

The messages behind these stores are significant. However, they are only stories.

If you read The Evolution of God (Wright), you'll see how many polytheistic societies embraced one god, as this move allowed leaders to control the masses more efficiently. Furthermore, you'll see patterns in Christianity that mirror pagan practices - especially with death and resurrection.

So, OP, the stories are indeed didactic - but so are the messages behind fables.

And if you begin to compare religions, you'll note similarities among Mormons, Seventh Day (branched off the Mormon religion), Judaism and Islam - especially with some of the dietary laws. In fact, there were ancient beliefs that blood contained the soul of a creature. So the Jews drained the blood completely before cooking it. And Jews bottled their own wine b/c any "pagan" wine could have been used in sacrificial practices to other gods.

And just examine the similarities between Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews. I believe there was a Pew study done in fact.

These are all stories rooted in historical political moves to control people through fear and obedience.

See how silly it all is?

[Anonymous]

PP, no, I don't think it's "silly." Reducing religion to systems of control is reductive and narrow-minded. It has many facets and many purposes, some transformative and positive to society. PP, what ideology is motivating you? Who is controlling you? You don't seem enlightened to me. You seem righteous and blind.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you OP but technically no I don't think we are Christians. As in, you don't believe Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins.

There are no reliable extant sources proving Jesus ever existed. The bible is filled with stories that try to explain the origin and purpose of life on earth. If Jesus were real, scholars would have unearthed descriptions of his miracles. Yet we only have stories - written many YEARS after the crucifixion - from four men documenting this man's life.

The messages behind these stores are significant. However, they are only stories.

If you read The Evolution of God (Wright), you'll see how many polytheistic societies embraced one god, as this move allowed leaders to control the masses more efficiently. Furthermore, you'll see patterns in Christianity that mirror pagan practices - especially with death and resurrection.

So, OP, the stories are indeed didactic - but so are the messages behind fables.

And if you begin to compare religions, you'll note similarities among Mormons, Seventh Day (branched off the Mormon religion), Judaism and Islam - especially with some of the dietary laws. In fact, there were ancient beliefs that blood contained the soul of a creature. So the Jews drained the blood completely before cooking it. And Jews bottled their own wine b/c any "pagan" wine could have been used in sacrificial practices to other gods.

And just examine the similarities between Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews. I believe there was a Pew study done in fact.

These are all stories rooted in historical political moves to control people through fear and obedience.

See how silly it all is?

Albert Einstein believed Jesus existed. So there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if you aren't convinced he actually existed but do think the "story" of Jesus had a profound effect on humanity? Some good, some bad.

Then I think you just appreciate good literature? I'm OP. I'm positive he existed.

You might be positive, but you can't really know. He lived too long ago, as a simple carpenter -- there is no proof of his existence. There is proof of christianity existing in the first century, but not of its founder.

This is true. If there really was a Jesus, he left no writings or his own, and no one started writing about him until the next century. Furthermore, if there really was a Jesus, why no mention in Roman histories? True, some versions of Josephus mention Jesus, but these are clearly Christian inserts. Moreover, the writings about Jesus contain nothing new. His sayings are quotations from the Old Testament. Even his throwing the money changers out of the Temple was a common practice at that time.

The first writings about Jesus were just a few decades after his death (Mark was 60-70 AD and Paul's epistles are dated to 50-60 AD), not in the next century. Among the Romans, Pliny also mentions Jesus. Most serious historians don't causally write these Roman mentions off as "clearly inserts", FWIW, especially since they're not particularly pro-Christian.

Perhaps pp was referring to extra-biblical writings about Jesus. And pp accurately characterized the Jewish historian Josephus which anyone can check for themselves. The fact that Jesus was not well known during his time or that there is not proof of his existence doesn't mean he is not worthy to be worshipped as the son of God. There is no evidence for God appearing to Moses either, or of Adam and Eve, yet Christianity uses these stories as its basis, as do Judaism and Islam.

I am a PP - former Catholic, now an atheist. If archaeologists can unearth artifacts from prehistoric days, certainly they would have discovered primary accounts of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. There are many stories stemming from pagan beliefs, however, that share common themes with the life of Jesus - virgin birth, death, resurrection, magical skills.

Once upon a time - long before we had the scientific method - we thought that gods controlled nature. Did you even think about the phrase, Acts of God, found in insurance claims? These many gods controlled too many groups of people who were able to be unified under one god. Remember that leaders once upon a time were the direct line to God - similar to a priest's role when he absolves you of your sins.

So these many gods were combined into one. And while the Hebrew god, Yaweh, became "the God," Yaweh is rooted in Asherah, which was a pagan goddess.

I could go on and on, especially about the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians, which was most likely another story, but I'll end it here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:PP, no, I don't think it's "silly." Reducing religion to systems of control is reductive and narrow-minded. It has many facets and many purposes, some transformative and positive to society. PP, what ideology is motivating you? Who is controlling you? You don't seem enlightened to me. You seem righteous and blind.

I am self-motivated. I believe in doing good for humanity just for the sake of helping others. I've shared over 20 years of my life teaching teens in challenging schools. I'm not selfishly motivated by an afterlife, and I certainly don't need an ancient text to guide me.

I'm sorry if you think that belief in a heaven "enlightens" people. To me, it's just another form of control.

And to the Einstein poster? I'm happy for Einstein. But religions are a belief system NOT rooted in any scientific fact. Until science finds a way - perhaps through physics - to join religion and scientific theory, then I may become "enlightened." But Jesus is a story. Compare his stories - which are very few - to the many Greek and Roman extant plays also designed to control the illiterate masses through entertainment. If the works of Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, and Aristophanes can exist, why can't a primary account of Jesus exist? Certainly not all people back then witnessing his acts were illiterate.

But alas! I am not enlightened. So what do I know?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, no, I don't think it's "silly." Reducing religion to systems of control is reductive and narrow-minded. It has many facets and many purposes, some transformative and positive to society. PP, what ideology is motivating you? Who is controlling you? You don't seem enlightened to me. You seem righteous and blind.

I am self-motivated. I believe in doing good for humanity just for the sake of helping others. I've shared over 20 years of my life teaching teens in challenging schools. I'm not selfishly motivated by an afterlife, and I certainly don't need an ancient text to guide me.

I'm sorry if you think that belief in a heaven "enlightens" people. To me, it's just another form of control.

And to the Einstein poster? I'm happy for Einstein. But religions are a belief system NOT rooted in any scientific fact. Until science finds a way - perhaps through physics - to join religion and scientific theory, then I may become "enlightened." But Jesus is a story. Compare his stories - which are very few - to the many Greek and Roman extant plays also designed to control the illiterate masses through entertainment. If the works of Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, and Aristophanes can exist, why can't a primary account of Jesus exist? Certainly not all people back then witnessing his acts were illiterate.

But alas! I am not enlightened. So what do I know?

I'm the PP you're responding to. Lady, you just proved my point that you're narrow-minded. Who said anything about needing to believe in heaven? I don't. You have an incredibly narrow view of what religion is and can be. And you're basically just ranting. The question was whether the historical Jesus existed. There is evidence that he did. Can you argue with it? Sure, you can. But it's not ridiculous to believe he existed, apart from the question of whether he was divine. I'll stick with Einstein on that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm with you OP but technically no I don't think we are Christians. As in, you don't believe Christ died on the cross to save us from our sins.

There are no reliable extant sources proving Jesus ever existed. The bible is filled with stories that try to explain the origin and purpose of life on earth. If Jesus were real, scholars would have unearthed descriptions of his miracles. Yet we only have stories - written many YEARS after the crucifixion - from four men documenting this man's life.

The messages behind these stores are significant. However, they are only stories.

If you read The Evolution of God (Wright), you'll see how many polytheistic societies embraced one god, as this move allowed leaders to control the masses more efficiently. Furthermore, you'll see patterns in Christianity that mirror pagan practices - especially with death and resurrection.

So, OP, the stories are indeed didactic - but so are the messages behind fables.

And if you begin to compare religions, you'll note similarities among Mormons, Seventh Day (branched off the Mormon religion), Judaism and Islam - especially with some of the dietary laws. In fact, there were ancient beliefs that blood contained the soul of a creature. So the Jews drained the blood completely before cooking it. And Jews bottled their own wine b/c any "pagan" wine could have been used in sacrificial practices to other gods.

And just examine the similarities between Evangelical Christians and Orthodox Jews. I believe there was a Pew study done in fact.

These are all stories rooted in historical political moves to control people through fear and obedience.

See how silly it all is?

Not really, except for the dietary rules. In fact Jesus apparently agreed with you on those being silly, because he got rid of them, declaring, "God cares what's in your heart, not what goes into your mouth."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:What if you aren't convinced he actually existed but do think the "story" of Jesus had a profound effect on humanity? Some good, some bad.

Then I think you just appreciate good literature? I'm OP. I'm positive he existed.

You might be positive, but you can't really know. He lived too long ago, as a simple carpenter -- there is no proof of his existence. There is proof of christianity existing in the first century, but not of its founder.

This is true. If there really was a Jesus, he left no writings or his own, and no one started writing about him until the next century. Furthermore, if there really was a Jesus, why no mention in Roman histories? True, some versions of Josephus mention Jesus, but these are clearly Christian inserts. Moreover, the writings about Jesus contain nothing new. His sayings are quotations from the Old Testament. Even his throwing the money changers out of the Temple was a common practice at that time.

The first writings about Jesus were just a few decades after his death (Mark was 60-70 AD and Paul's epistles are dated to 50-60 AD), not in the next century. Among the Romans, Pliny also mentions Jesus. Most serious historians don't causally write these Roman mentions off as "clearly inserts", FWIW, especially since they're not particularly pro-Christian.

Perhaps pp was referring to extra-biblical writings about Jesus. And pp accurately characterized the Jewish historian Josephus which anyone can check for themselves. The fact that Jesus was not well known during his time or that there is not proof of his existence doesn't mean he is not worthy to be worshipped as the son of God. There is no evidence for God appearing to Moses either, or of Adam and Eve, yet Christianity uses these stories as its basis, as do Judaism and Islam.

I am a PP - former Catholic, now an atheist. If archaeologists can unearth artifacts from prehistoric days, certainly they would have discovered primary accounts of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. There are many stories stemming from pagan beliefs, however, that share common themes with the life of Jesus - virgin birth, death, resurrection, magical skills.

Once upon a time - long before we had the scientific method - we thought that gods controlled nature. Did you even think about the phrase, Acts of God, found in insurance claims? These many gods controlled too many groups of people who were able to be unified under one god. Remember that leaders once upon a time were the direct line to God - similar to a priest's role when he absolves you of your sins.

So these many gods were combined into one. And while the Hebrew god, Yaweh, became "the God," Yaweh is rooted in Asherah, which was a pagan goddess.

I could go on and on, especially about the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians, which was most likely another story, but I'll end it here.

I don't disagree with any of this. I don't think it's inconsistent with the above that Jesus of Nazareth did exist, however.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:PP, no, I don't think it's "silly." Reducing religion to systems of control is reductive and narrow-minded. It has many facets and many purposes, some transformative and positive to society. PP, what ideology is motivating you? Who is controlling you? You don't seem enlightened to me. You seem righteous and blind.

I am self-motivated. I believe in doing good for humanity just for the sake of helping others. I've shared over 20 years of my life teaching teens in challenging schools. I'm not selfishly motivated by an afterlife, and I certainly don't need an ancient text to guide me.

I'm sorry if you think that belief in a heaven "enlightens" people. To me, it's just another form of control.

And to the Einstein poster? I'm happy for Einstein. But religions are a belief system NOT rooted in any scientific fact. Until science finds a way - perhaps through physics - to join religion and scientific theory, then I may become "enlightened." But Jesus is a story. Compare his stories - which are very few - to the many Greek and Roman extant plays also designed to control the illiterate masses through entertainment. If the works of Aeschylus, Euripides, Sophocles, and Aristophanes can exist, why can't a primary account of Jesus exist? Certainly not all people back then witnessing his acts were illiterate.

But alas! I am not enlightened. So what do I know?

Great posts, PP.

[Anonymous]

Yes, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, who was after all a poor carpenter from a humble family. History in that era was, as we know, about emperors and heroes. Jesus' own followers were by and large illiterate. Until a few decades later when Jesus and his message became "important" enough for officials like Josephus and Pliny to write about.

I wonder that 12/25 10:21 wants to toss out all four gospels and Paul, which together show that Jesus' teachings and the movement around him were strong and vibrant just 2-3 decades (Paul and Mark) after his death. Sure, if you disregard the several major narrative documents that appeared a few decades after Jesus' death then you're forced to rely on accounts from 80-90AD and later, and th historical links become more tenuous. But simply tossing out the earlier sources seems disingenuous.

It's also odd that some of you are trying to claim that all religion is about "controlling the masses." Who exactly created this fundamentally anti-Roman, anti-Temple ideology with the purpose of "controlling the masses"? If anything, more historians would say that Christianity developed in revolt against the Roman conquerors, instead of as a tool used by them. But then there's also the tricky question around how Jesus was also opposed to the logical alternative leaders, the Temple lawyers and priests.

So who, exactly, developed this supposed "controlling ideology"? And how did it suddently appear as a significant movement, seemingly out of nowhere, by 55 AD?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I am a PP - former Catholic, now an atheist. If archaeologists can unearth artifacts from prehistoric days, certainly they would have discovered primary accounts of Jesus raising Lazarus from the dead. There are many stories stemming from pagan beliefs, however, that share common themes with the life of Jesus - virgin birth, death, resurrection, magical skills.

Once upon a time - long before we had the scientific method - we thought that gods controlled nature. Did you even think about the phrase, Acts of God, found in insurance claims? These many gods controlled too many groups of people who were able to be unified under one god. Remember that leaders once upon a time were the direct line to God - similar to a priest's role when he absolves you of your sins.

So these many gods were combined into one. And while the Hebrew god, Yaweh, became "the God," Yaweh is rooted in Asherah, which was a pagan goddess.

I could go on and on, especially about the Jews being enslaved by the Egyptians, which was most likely another story, but I'll end it here.

Groundhog! You're still here pushing Horus and his golden penis, and Mithras, being born from a rock and staying a bull!

I feel sorry for anybody who has such an absolutist view of the world that they are unable to contemplate any supernatural, extra-scientific presence in our lives. I don't care if you reject Christianity, Judaism, Islam, or Wicca.

I do find this dogmatic atheist viewpoint extreme in its own rigidity of thought.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, who was after all a poor carpenter from a humble family. History in that era was, as we know, about emperors and heroes. Jesus' own followers were by and large illiterate. Until a few decades later when Jesus and his message became "important" enough for officials like Josephus and Pliny to write about.

I wonder that 12/25 10:21 wants to toss out all four gospels and Paul, which together show that Jesus' teachings and the movement around him were strong and vibrant just 2-3 decades (Paul and Mark) after his death. Sure, if you disregard the several major narrative documents that appeared a few decades after Jesus' death then you're forced to rely on accounts from 80-90AD and later, and th historical links become more tenuous. But simply tossing out the earlier sources seems disingenuous.

It's also odd that some of you are trying to claim that all religion is about "controlling the masses." Who exactly created this fundamentally anti-Roman, anti-Temple ideology with the purpose of "controlling the masses"? If anything, more historians would say that Christianity developed in revolt against the Roman conquerors, instead of as a tool used by them. But then there's also the tricky question around how Jesus was also opposed to the logical alternative leaders, the Temple lawyers and priests.

So who, exactly, developed this supposed "controlling ideology"? And how did it suddently appear as a significant movement, seemingly out of nowhere, by 55 AD?

I should add that Jesus' followers thought, in the early years after his death, that the world was going to end soon. It was an apocalyptic view. So they saw no reason to write anything down during his mission (which after all was only during the last 2-3 years of his life) or right after his death. It was only a few decades later that they began to think the second coming might not be on their lifetimes, the original witnesses started dying off, et centers. Then they started making records.

And as I mentioned, Romans weren't writing about carpenters no matter how outlandish the tales that reached them, until a particular carpenter's movement starting being an actual political threat.

So believe or don't. I for one, as a history major, am not troubled by the lack of evidence until the AD 50s. And I don't agree that we should just toss Mark or Paul out the window because....why should we toss them out? And while I can accept that the Early church grew into a means of political control, that wasn't until centuries later--centuries later, folks.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, who was after all a poor carpenter from a humble family. History in that era was, as we know, about emperors and heroes. Jesus' own followers were by and large illiterate. Until a few decades later when Jesus and his message became "important" enough for officials like Josephus and Pliny to write about.

I wonder that 12/25 10:21 wants to toss out all four gospels and Paul, which together show that Jesus' teachings and the movement around him were strong and vibrant just 2-3 decades (Paul and Mark) after his death. Sure, if you disregard the several major narrative documents that appeared a few decades after Jesus' death then you're forced to rely on accounts from 80-90AD and later, and th historical links become more tenuous. But simply tossing out the earlier sources seems disingenuous.

It's also odd that some of you are trying to claim that all religion is about "controlling the masses." Who exactly created this fundamentally anti-Roman, anti-Temple ideology with the purpose of "controlling the masses"? If anything, more historians would say that Christianity developed in revolt against the Roman conquerors, instead of as a tool used by them. But then there's also the tricky question around how Jesus was also opposed to the logical alternative leaders, the Temple lawyers and priests.

So who, exactly, developed this supposed "controlling ideology"? And how did it suddently appear as a significant movement, seemingly out of nowhere, by 55 AD?

There is evidence to support that Josephus' account was later inserted by Christians. Similarly, Tacitus, scholars claim, simply reiterated what he heard from Christians. There may also be confusion between Christus and Chrestus.

So you're picking and choosing small accounts, which are not necessarily accurate, to prove that Jesus existed. Again, there are extant works of famous Greek playwrights that are studied to this day. Yet there are only a few accounts of so-called Jesus who performed miracles.

Study your history, scholar. The pageant plays were designed to bring these biblical stories to the masses. It's called indoctrination, and it was in the form of entertainment. Greek tragedies were didactic. If you pissed off the gods, you were doomed. not much different from today, eh?

Look - this is your belief. I get it. Many people NEED to believe in something to get them through life. But faith isn't based on facts. It's a feeling. So even if scholars explain to you the reasons behind certain beliefs, your faith will trump evidence.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, there are no contemporaneous accounts of Jesus, who was after all a poor carpenter from a humble family. History in that era was, as we know, about emperors and heroes. Jesus' own followers were by and large illiterate. Until a few decades later when Jesus and his message became "important" enough for officials like Josephus and Pliny to write about.

I wonder that 12/25 10:21 wants to toss out all four gospels and Paul, which together show that Jesus' teachings and the movement around him were strong and vibrant just 2-3 decades (Paul and Mark) after his death. Sure, if you disregard the several major narrative documents that appeared a few decades after Jesus' death then you're forced to rely on accounts from 80-90AD and later, and th historical links become more tenuous. But simply tossing out the earlier sources seems disingenuous.

It's also odd that some of you are trying to claim that all religion is about "controlling the masses." Who exactly created this fundamentally anti-Roman, anti-Temple ideology with the purpose of "controlling the masses"? If anything, more historians would say that Christianity developed in revolt against the Roman conquerors, instead of as a tool used by them. But then there's also the tricky question around how Jesus was also opposed to the logical alternative leaders, the Temple lawyers and priests.

So who, exactly, developed this supposed "controlling ideology"? And how did it suddently appear as a significant movement, seemingly out of nowhere, by 55 AD?

I should add that Jesus' followers thought, in the early years after his death, that the world was going to end soon. It was an apocalyptic view. So they saw no reason to write anything down during his mission (which after all was only during the last 2-3 years of his life) or right after his death. It was only a few decades later that they began to think the second coming might not be on their lifetimes, the original witnesses started dying off, et centers. Then they started making records.

And as I mentioned, Romans weren't writing about carpenters no matter how outlandish the tales that reached them, until a particular carpenter's movement starting being an actual political threat.

So believe or don't. I for one, as a history major, am not troubled by the lack of evidence until the AD 50s. And I don't agree that we should just toss Mark or Paul out the window because....why should we toss them out? And while I can accept that the Early church grew into a means of political control, that wasn't until centuries later--centuries later, folks.

Polytheistic cultures used gods to control, too. This isn't simply a Christian "thing.' But one god made controlling the masses a little easier. Prior to that, you had smaller groups of people who idolized smaller gods. That made it difficult to gain control over larger masses of land. But make many gods into one, and you're set.

Religion is all about control. Scientology is no different from specific sects in Christianity, for example. Adherents grab onto a system of beliefs, and some will even die for those beliefs.

These beliefs are MAN-made - unless you're Wiccan, of course.