RE: Does Jesus Mythicism give atheism a bad name?
May 11, 2016 at 4:30 am
(This post was last modified: May 11, 2016 at 4:30 am by TheRocketSurgeon.)
(May 11, 2016 at 4:20 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:(May 7, 2016 at 11:15 pm)Jehanne Wrote: The best evidence is probably the Q document:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Q_source#S...ature_of_Q
And you've put your finger on the problem right there. Our "best evidence" for Jesus is a document which is pure speculation, as there is no actual evidence of its existence.
While I agree with your overall assessment (speculation), I don't think that's a fair representation of why they think there was a Q Document.
In genetics, they perform similar comparisons of common inherited elements, in order to draw conclusions about the ancestral population's gene pool. The stuff in the alleged Q Document doesn't describe any of the miracles or divinity found in the Gospels, but is simply a collection of sayings. That's backed up a bit by the description in the book of James (one of the oldest-written) of the Sermon on the Mount, etc., in which a very human rabbi was teaching people how to be kind to one another, preaching an early type of Reform Judaism.
To me, the Q Document is evidence that Jesus was not any sort of god, nor claimed to be, and that the increasing claims of magic and divinity in the Gospels are later add-on layers. However, since we're discussing the possibility that Jesus was a real human (as opposed to entirely made out of whole cloth), I think the similarities that caused scholars to speculate about a Q Document provide some evidence that there really was such a teacher, out of whom the later followers crafted a mythology that we see today. Besides, it's a bit of an Occam's Razor situation: it's a simpler explanation than trying to claim Paul and Peter made up Jesus ex nihilo.
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
