So is crucifiction a bad or a good thing?

[ignoramus]

Maybe Jesus was the first stigmata sufferer?

[Crossless2.0]

Huggy, I don't doubt for a moment that in any other instance of a work of literature showing such a high degree of symbolic parallelism, you wouldn't hesitate to ascribe it to authorial artifice. Please justify your treating the Gospels differently.

"I really, really believe it" isn't a good enough reason.

What are you saying exactly? That Jesus and Judas never existed, but were a fabrication in order to parallel Genesis? The Bible has around 40 writers over the period of around 1500 years, yet it dovetails perfectly.

What other "work of literature" can you say the same about?

I'm not a Jesus myther, so I wouldn't be inclined to say that Jesus and Judas are whole cloth fabrications. What I am saying is that I find it likely that Jesus' followers tried to make sense of his death in the only way they knew: they scoured their holy writings to find an explanatory framework with which they could come to grips with the crucifixion and frame it as a victory rather than the gruesome defeat it must have seemed as it was happening. By reading their and Jesus' experiences back into the holy books, they found what they thought was prophetic evidence that it was all part of God's plan all along.

Am I supposed to be surprised that around 40 writers, working within a tradition that claimed to have the stamp of divine inspiration, would offer a narrative arc that dovetails, as you put it? What else would you expect? That each writer would feel free to wander off the reservation? However, working within such a tradition hardly eliminates artifice. I should think it encourages it, since events must be made to fit a framework that is already accepted as true and holy.

[Minimalist]

The whole fucking thing is just a "catholic scam."

The Ebionites did not think much of this paul fucker.

http://ebionite.com/Evidence_of_the_Ebionites.htm

Modern Christianity is founded upon the 4th century Roman doctrine that Paul was the only one who knew the real Jesus, and his disciples were too Jewish to understand his teachings.  With the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls we now know that the vast majority of Gentiles were too Pagan to comprehend the true teachings of Jesus, and too heathen to comprehend the very Spiritually founded Gnostic teachings of Paul.    

The great theologian Soren Kierkegaard, writing in The Journals, echoes the above sentiment: "In the teachings of Christ, religion is completely present tense: Jesus is the prototype and our task is to imitate him, become a disciple. But then through Paul came a basic alteration. Paul draws attention away from imitating Christ and fixes attention on the death of Christ The Atoner. What Martin Luther. in his reformation, failed to realize is that even before Catholicism, Christianity had become degenerate at the hands of Paul. Paul made Christianity the religion of Paul, not of Christ Paul threw the Christianity of Christ away, completely turning it upside down. making it just the opposite of the original proclamation of Christ"

Bet you don't want to hear that your hero 'paul' was just a bullshitter, eh drippy?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What are you saying exactly? That Jesus and Judas never existed, but were a fabrication in order to parallel Genesis? The Bible has around 40 writers over the period of around 1500 years, yet it dovetails perfectly.

What other "work of literature" can you say the same about?

I'm not a Jesus myther, so I wouldn't be inclined to say that Jesus and Judas are whole cloth fabrications. What I am saying is that I find it likely that Jesus' followers tried to make sense of his death in the only way they knew: they scoured their holy writings to find an explanatory framework with which they could come to grips with the crucifixion and frame it as a victory rather than the gruesome defeat it must have seemed as it was happening. By reading their and Jesus' experiences back into the holy books, they found what they thought was prophetic evidence that it was all part of God's plan all along.

Am I supposed to be surprised that around 40 writers, working within a tradition that claimed to have the stamp of divine inspiration, would offer a narrative arc that dovetails, as you put it? What else would you expect? That each writer would feel free to wander off the reservation? However, working within such a tradition hardly eliminates artifice. I should think it encourages it, since events must be made to fit a framework that is already accepted as true and holy.

The crucifixion story is BS because it goes against human nature.  In the story Jesus is the leader of a gang of malcontents.  He's hanging out with them when he was captured.  Yet the posse only took him.  In real life they would have taken the whole herd and crucified them as well.  They would not have left them alone to continue their rabble-rousing.  

An English committee wrote the Bible, which is why the story flows as an unified tale.

[Cyberman]

I'm not a Jesus myther, I'm a Jesus myther's mate.
I'm only mything Jesus 'cos the Jesus myther's late.

[Drich]

NO sorry, that is fake pain, like a stage illusionist. If the plot of the story were truly selfless Jesus wouldn't care about a new religion being started in his name.

The 'religion' was not originally started in his name. The name "Christian" was given by unbelieveing greeks as a derogatory name, something used to make fun of "the believers, brothers, the followers of the way..."

The story isn't about selflessness. The story is about glorifying God. Just like Muslims use Mohammed to glorify Allah.

How exactly are the two stories the same? Maybe start with how the God of Islam and the God of Christianity receive glory.

Doing the right thing in reality is doing it without expectation of attention.

So when researchers seek and find treatment for cancer, they should do it anomously and for free? Should the US not entered WWII unless it could be done in such away as no one would ever know? Should homeless shelters and pantries only feed people if no one knows they are doing it? Can you see how foolish your assertion is yet, and why?
Because if no one ever knew what was done then how is the movement to be supported?
In each case (including Christianity) we are speaking of an out reach to the people to our community. As such communal awareness is needed.
That means we have to talk about what has been done.

No it is not good for anyone.

Why?

Nobody has the right to demand I forgive someone. I also don't have the right to demand anyone forgive me.

If you owe what you can not pay and it has been forgiven, then in turn it CAN be asked that you forgive what others owe you. Otherwise what you owe will not be forgiven.

In human reality, in the civil west, regardless of your old comic book, humans have the right to associate or part company with those whom they don't agree with. Humans have the right to accept the apology of those who hurt them or not accept that apology. 

Forgiveness us not an apology.
Forgiveness is the release of a debt. It is not taking vengence or what is owed when the oppertunity allows for it.

Your Jesus character did not exist at all.

Their is more period evidence of Christ than any other person of that time period. to question the existance of Christ is to call into question every other historical figure of that time period.

But as an idea it is vile. It takes away your own decision making, and not only does that, but does so to seek attention for him.

What makes you think the decisions you make are truly your to begin with?
are you so foolish to think you truly have complete autonmy?

The story idea sucks, as a motif.

Of course you find him to be your hero, but it sucks for those whose only mistake is picking the wrong club.

What do you mean by club?

I hate to tell you this, but the idea of a super hero being the cure all for all human beings is not an idea unique to Christianity. You simply have a different fairy tale.

Examples?

I don't doubt your intent and I don't doubt you truly believe what you claim. But the Jesus story was not written with our modern knowledge of scientific reality, nor does it match our western idea of modern pluralism.

so?

[The Grand Nudger]

What debt?  I am neither saved nor one of your gods people. I've made no agreements, I've borrowed nothing, I will not receive any favors. What could I possibly owe, is it remotely coherent to talk of debt in this manner?

[Wyrd of Gawd]

What debt?  I am neither saved nor one of your gods people.  I've made no agreements, I've borrowed nothing, I will not receive any favors.  What could I possibly owe, is it remotely coherent to talk of debt in this manner?

Always remember what religion is about.  It's about complete belief and obedience without exception.  You rightly don't believe in an invisible celestial deity because such an entity doesn't exist.  But you do believe in a "god" of sorts.  That "god" is your national identity and leaders.  You agree to abide by their rules in exchange for the social and financial benefits you get by being a good follower.  You will die for them without a second thought under the right conditions.  That's powerful faith in action.  

Even though you never set foot inside a church to hear a traditional religious fairy tale you swim in a sea of constant propaganda that your national "god" and leaders spew 24/7/365.  You willingly follow their commandments and get highly pissed when other people don't, sometimes to the point of wanting to kill them for their disobedience.  

The purpose of religion is to get people to attribute that behavior to devotion to a magical  "God" creature so that the political system can use it without being directly tied to it.  So when the imaginary "God" character says to kill everyone in the town over the hill and burn it to the ground such an act becomes easy to do because the creator of the universe said to do it.  People can't wait to go to war to kill the scum over the hill because they are only doing what their "God" wants them to do.  A rational person would say "are you nuts?  Those scum have never done anything against me.  So why should I go kill them when I personally don't believe in killing anyone?"  But people are not very rational and they will do very horrible things to please their favorite "god".  And we all have favorite "gods".

Wannabe "god" Cruz wants to bomb people until the sand glows.  http://crooksandliars.com/2015/12/ted-cr...sand-glows.  Of course he himself will never, ever, do that himself but his worshippers will give their very lives to make it happen and to please him.  That's the power of religion.

[Minimalist]

Their is more period evidence of Christ than any other person of that time period. to question the existance of Christ is to call into question every other historical figure of that time period.

No there is not, drippy.  It's just shit made up later by assholes who are no smarter than you....which should be a scary thought.

[Wyrd of Gawd]

Their is more period evidence of Christ than any other person of that time period. to question the existance of Christ is to call into question every other historical figure of that time period.

No there is not, drippy.  It's just shit made up later by assholes who are no smarter than you....which should be a scary thought.

But what about all of those Jesus movies?  Are you saying they weren't filmed in real time 2,000 years ago?