Shit. What The Hell. Jesus Never Existed

[Aractus]

Bob you're uninformed, I'd be very surprised if you could articulate arguments that actually defend your "points". As for their motivations - why would people willingly die for a hoax? Come on you don't really think that Paul and his companions would be willing to die for their "fake religion" do you?

[Redbeard The Pink]

Bob you're uninformed, I'd be very surprised if you could articulate arguments that actually defend your "points". As for their motivations - why would people willingly die for a hoax? Come on you don't really think that Paul and his companions would be willing to die for their "fake religion" do you?

I happen to know that many modern faith healers who knowingly use charlatanism and conjuring tricks for their trade actually do believe in the Gaud they're supposedly serving, and that's actually how they justify deceiving people in those demonstrations in the first place. The rationale seems to be this: since they know that Gaud exists and they know he refuses to show evidence of himself, they think it's ok to "help Gaud along" by fabricating evidence and events. As long as they're trying to convince people of what they believe to be true, any means necessary is acceptable.

So yes, the apostles and early writers may have been motivated to finagle a more convincing story if they somehow realized that the version they were willing to die for would not be particularly convincing to other people. If people are willing to die for a cause, they're often also willing to lie, steal, and cheat for it, too.

[Cyberman]

And kill. Don't forget that one.

[GrandizerII]

To those sort of questions, I would respond that they may have done so simply to give the illusion of truth. People can be sneaky. Analyzing their motivations is a choppy business. (I don't feel the need to identity as anything, I simply have my own conclusions as per my checklist.)

Wow, I thought my checklist was going to cause a shitstorm

Sure, ok. Do you want to come up with a reason for them being unnecessarily sneaky?

This is about plausibility, rob. You want to muse about Jesus' nonexistence, you're free to do so, lol.

Analyzing motivations is part of what scholars do.

[Redbeard The Pink]

To those sort of questions, I would respond that they may have done so simply to give the illusion of truth. People can be sneaky. Analyzing their motivations is a choppy business. (I don't feel the need to identity as anything, I simply have my own conclusions as per my checklist.)

Wow, I thought my checklist was going to cause a shitstorm

Sure, ok. Do you want to come up with a reason for them being unnecessarily sneaky?

This is about plausibility, rob. You want to muse about Jesus' nonexistence, you're free to do so, lol.

Analyzing motivations is part of what scholars do.

As I stated above, people who are convinced of their religious convictions are not always above using deceitful tactics to convince others. The rationale often goes something like, "I know this to be true, and I'm convinced that everyone should believe it's true, so if they don't believe on the same evidence I do, I'm willing to come up with whatever evidence it takes, even if I have to make some of it up. The most important thing is that people believe."

I used the example of faith healers, some of whom truly believe in Jehovah and are willing to "help him along" by fabricating miracles for people to believe in. Not every charlatan is an atheist or even a skeptic.

[GrandizerII]

Sure, ok. Do you want to come up with a reason for them being unnecessarily sneaky?

This is about plausibility, rob. You want to muse about Jesus' nonexistence, you're free to do so, lol.

Analyzing motivations is part of what scholars do.

As I stated above, people who are convinced of their religious convictions are not always above using deceitful tactics to convince others. The rationale often goes something like, "I know this to be true, and I'm convinced that everyone should believe it's true, so if they don't believe on the same evidence I do, I'm willing to come up with whatever evidence it takes, even if I have to make some of it up. The most important thing is that people believe."

I used the example of faith healers, some of whom truly believe in Jehovah and are willing to "help him along" by fabricating miracles for people to believe in. Not every charlatan is an atheist or even a skeptic.

I don't think you're addressing what I actually said earlier couple posts ago.

I don't dispute that charlatans can be sincere believers in God. The authors of the gospels could be charlatans for all I care, the question still remains:

Why Nazareth if it could have been much much easier to just stick to Bethlehem?

[Aractus]

I happen to know that many modern faith healers who knowingly use charlatanism and conjuring tricks for their trade actually do believe in the Gaud they're supposedly serving, and that's actually how they justify deceiving people in those demonstrations in the first place. The rationale seems to be this: since they know that Gaud exists and they know he refuses to show evidence of himself, they think it's ok to "help Gaud along" by fabricating evidence and events. As long as they're trying to convince people of what they believe to be true, any means necessary is acceptable.

So yes, the apostles and early writers may have been motivated to finagle a more convincing story if they somehow realized that the version they were willing to die for would not be particularly convincing to other people. If people are willing to die for a cause, they're often also willing to lie, steal, and cheat for it, too.

You can't have it both ways. Either they're liars and they know they are, or they honestly believe in their beliefs that they say they believe in. Paul repeatedly talks about the need to be generous and specifically warns against greed (1 Cor. 5.11) as well as Jesus telling his disciples that "How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." after rebuking the rich young ruler, and the same thing appearing in 1 Timothy where the author (claiming to be Paul) declares that the love of money is a root to every kind of evil. It is quite clear that Christianity led to persecution (starting with John the Baptist) in the early church and the evidence for this is overwhelming in the later centuries.

Further along the line as you well know power corrupts - or to put it more correctly absolute power corrupts absolutely. And this is what you saw from the Church in the middle ages - the church leaders were clearly incensed with power; yet this is not a valid motivation for Paul, James, and Peter in the first century. None of them held any power, none of them appeared to aspire to it preferring to preach the gospel of Salvation that had its roots in Jesus. That is the motivating force, and this is clear when you read the New Testament - to claim otherwise is simply absurd. If Christianity was invented by Paul, Peter and James then they would have claimed one of them to be the prophet instead of Jesus. Jesus is the one who came up with and preached the gospel of Salvation. He claimed to be the Messiah. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that he believed that he was deity - in fact he probably did not believe that - but its a belief that his followers formed in the years following his execution.

[robvalue]

Irrational: I'm saying the fact that something appears real because it has been inconvenient for the authors to include is not enough evidence that it was actually real. Not for me, anyway. If it's enough for you, that's fine The whole point of religious propaganda is to convince people of stuff that isn't true, so I wouldn't be at all surprised at them being sneaky this way. I'm not saying they were, I'm saying it's enough doubt for me to not be easily convinced. I'd rather say I don't know than draw a conclusion I'm not confident about.

By including something that seems a bad choice, it's a fake embarressing detail. If that was their intention, it seems to be working, yeah?

The gospels are a pile of shit.

Does anyone agree with my checklist, by the way?

[Redbeard The Pink]

I happen to know that many modern faith healers who knowingly use charlatanism and conjuring tricks for their trade actually do believe in the Gaud they're supposedly serving, and that's actually how they justify deceiving people in those demonstrations in the first place. The rationale seems to be this: since they know that Gaud exists and they know he refuses to show evidence of himself, they think it's ok to "help Gaud along" by fabricating evidence and events. As long as they're trying to convince people of what they believe to be true, any means necessary is acceptable.

So yes, the apostles and early writers may have been motivated to finagle a more convincing story if they somehow realized that the version they were willing to die for would not be particularly convincing to other people. If people are willing to die for a cause, they're often also willing to lie, steal, and cheat for it, too.

You can't have it both ways. Either they're liars and they know they are, or they honestly believe in their beliefs that they say they believe in. Paul repeatedly talks about the need to be generous and specifically warns against greed (1 Cor. 5.11) as well as Jesus telling his disciples that "How difficult it is for those who have wealth to enter the kingdom of God! 25 For it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God." after rebuking the rich young ruler, and the same thing appearing in 1 Timothy where the author (claiming to be Paul) declares that the love of money is a root to every kind of evil. It is quite clear that Christianity led to persecution (starting with John the Baptist) in the early church and the evidence for this is overwhelming in the later centuries.

Further along the line as you well know power corrupts - or to put it more correctly absolute power corrupts absolutely. And this is what you saw from the Church in the middle ages - the church leaders were clearly incensed with power; yet this is not a valid motivation for Paul, James, and Peter in the first century. None of them held any power, none of them appeared to aspire to it preferring to preach the gospel of Salvation that had its roots in Jesus. That is the motivating force, and this is clear when you read the New Testament - to claim otherwise is simply absurd. If Christianity was invented by Paul, Peter and James then they would have claimed one of them to be the prophet instead of Jesus. Jesus is the one who came up with and preached the gospel of Salvation. He claimed to be the Messiah. Now that doesn't necessarily mean that he believed that he was deity - in fact he probably did not believe that - but its a belief that his followers formed in the years following his execution.

I'm not asking for it both ways. Charlatanism is a means to gain, not just a means to gaining money. It is possible for sincerely believing Christians to justify using a charlatan's tactics to gain believers; I used the example of faith healing because I know this exact thing goes on amongst their ranks. Some of them are in it for the money, sure, but some of them are in it because they actually believe that their god exists, and they are willing to drive people toward that god through whatever means will convince them, even if the means themselves are dishonest.


Just as faith healers can be motivated to use conjuring tricks to convince everyone else of something they themselves are convinced of, the early church scribes could have been motivated to bend and/or fabricate text to support a conclusion that they themselves were convinced of. Like I said before, if people believe something to be true so insistently that they're willing to die over it, then they're willing to lie over it, too. Science isn't even immune from this problem; history provides various examples of scientists who were so convinced of a foregone conclusion that they were willing to misinterpret and even fabricate evidence to support it.

[Minimalist]

If jesus is phony so are the fucking apostles and disciples. 

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/apostles.html

The apostles should be twelve of the most famous people in history. We're told they were hand picked by Jesus to witness his wondrous deeds, learn his sublime teachings, and take the good news of his kingdom to the ends of the earth.
Which makes it all the more surprising that we know next to nothing about them. We can't even be sure of their names: the gospels list a collection of more than twenty names for the so-called twelve disciples – with Bartholomew sometimes showing up as Nathanael, Matthew as Levi and Jude as Thaddeus, Lebbaeus, or Daddaeus!
It should be apparent that if the twelve were actual historical figures, with such an important role in the foundation and growth of the Church, it would be impossible to have such wild confusion over the basic question of who they really were.
But what do we know about any of them?
 
"Twelve Good Men and True"?
The fact is that for seven of the twelve, our only early source, the Gospels, say nothing about them at all. They are just names on a list.

Once you take the holy blinders off this holy shit looks even shittier.