RE: I still don't understand why anyone would make up a person like the Biblical Christ..
August 9, 2011 at 10:54 am
OK, one more time:
Being a skeptic of the Gospel story does NOT mean you think "someone just made up Jesus one day".
I'm really so sick of that strawman.
Folklore and myths about epic heroes of all kinds don't need to be written by a sole author all at once. Neither are such tales created out of whole-cloth. Typically, they draw from inspiration from a variety of sources, including previous beliefs of the society, beliefs of neighboring civilizations and exaggerated accounts of real life events. They then evolve over time. Things are added, sometimes consciously by those with an agenda, sometimes by copyist error or accidental interpolation and sometimes by those deluded enough to think they have knowledge of the matter.
The process is understood by observing the superstitious today. I've spoken with numerous Christians who expressed beliefs that had neither scriptural nor traditional basis. There was nothing to base their beliefs on except it "felt good" or "sounded right" to them. If they lived 2000 years ago, their ideas might have found their way into scripture.
Just look at Mark, the first Gospel. Compare it to Matthew and Luke, which came later. And then read John, which came still later (likely, much later given the advanced theology). You can see in the very scriptures how the story got better with the telling.
Mark is comparatively basic. No story of Jesus' childhood, virgin birth, wise men, etc. It starts with a put down of John the Baptist (his following were rivals of the early Christians for centuries). It goes on to describe a successful ministry, pithy words of wisdom (some of which are lifted from the OT) and quite a few miracles. It ends with his death and resurrection (although the account needed later revisions in chapter 16).
Matthew and Luke both read like Mark with a lot added on. His childhood is fleshed out. John the Baptist becomes increasingly subservient. Pilate is softened. Matthew adds a lot of "fulfilled prophecies" based on OT verses wrenched out of context. Luke seems to be written more for pagan audiences.
Finally, we have John which takes Jesus from a demigod servant of Yahweh, separate from and subordinate to his heavenly father, to a Trinitarian-style God incarnate. Clearly, Christian theology had to wrestle with reconciling pagan concepts of a savior intercessor with strict Jewish monotheism.
In sum, the story wasn't intelligently designed. It evolved.
Being a skeptic of the Gospel story does NOT mean you think "someone just made up Jesus one day".
I'm really so sick of that strawman.
Folklore and myths about epic heroes of all kinds don't need to be written by a sole author all at once. Neither are such tales created out of whole-cloth. Typically, they draw from inspiration from a variety of sources, including previous beliefs of the society, beliefs of neighboring civilizations and exaggerated accounts of real life events. They then evolve over time. Things are added, sometimes consciously by those with an agenda, sometimes by copyist error or accidental interpolation and sometimes by those deluded enough to think they have knowledge of the matter.
The process is understood by observing the superstitious today. I've spoken with numerous Christians who expressed beliefs that had neither scriptural nor traditional basis. There was nothing to base their beliefs on except it "felt good" or "sounded right" to them. If they lived 2000 years ago, their ideas might have found their way into scripture.
Just look at Mark, the first Gospel. Compare it to Matthew and Luke, which came later. And then read John, which came still later (likely, much later given the advanced theology). You can see in the very scriptures how the story got better with the telling.
Mark is comparatively basic. No story of Jesus' childhood, virgin birth, wise men, etc. It starts with a put down of John the Baptist (his following were rivals of the early Christians for centuries). It goes on to describe a successful ministry, pithy words of wisdom (some of which are lifted from the OT) and quite a few miracles. It ends with his death and resurrection (although the account needed later revisions in chapter 16).
Matthew and Luke both read like Mark with a lot added on. His childhood is fleshed out. John the Baptist becomes increasingly subservient. Pilate is softened. Matthew adds a lot of "fulfilled prophecies" based on OT verses wrenched out of context. Luke seems to be written more for pagan audiences.
Finally, we have John which takes Jesus from a demigod servant of Yahweh, separate from and subordinate to his heavenly father, to a Trinitarian-style God incarnate. Clearly, Christian theology had to wrestle with reconciling pagan concepts of a savior intercessor with strict Jewish monotheism.
In sum, the story wasn't intelligently designed. It evolved.
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
