Challenge to atheists: I find your lack of faith disturbing!

[Aractus]

I am unclear as to why you felt it necessary to write so much about Peter, but it is interesting. Thank you for taking the time to share that. When I was in Rome, I visited the Vatican and took a tour of St. Peter’s Basilica. Fascinating stuff really, except the dead popes incased in glass. That was a bit morbid. But, I digress…

Simply using it as a great example of double-standards for historical accuracy/proof etc. Glad that you enjoyed learning about it in any case!

I will grant this as a horrible tragedy. Times were quite barbaric. I must say that I’m happy we no longer use such primitive forms of death penalty, and I long for a world that finds a way to achieve justice while avoiding it all together.

Barbaric, yes, but primitive? To the Romans, they saw the other cultures around them as being "primitive". They also did not use crucifixion for their own citizens - they would simply be beheaded.

It sounds like your saying that it was either a hoax, or it was true. Do you believe that somebody cannot truly believe something and yet still be mistaken?

If you go down this path, then it leads you to the problem of - where did his body go? Breaking the Roman seal was an offence punishable by death (ie crucifixion for Jews)! Would the disciples really have that much ambition to steal the body? How does Paul become a Christian? According to Luke he meets the risen Christ on the road to Damascus and is blinded by him. According to Paul himself he met the risen Christ.

Now surely you don't believe that Paul could sincerely believe that he'd met the risen Christ if he had not, correct?

I think I have the same question here. Do you believe it possible for a person to truly believe something with every fiber of their being, and yet still be mistaken?

Of course somebody could believe something that is untrue.

If it is your belief is that one could not mistake something as true if they are willing to die for it; I am curious as to whether or not you are swayed into believing in Allah, since everyday suicide bombers do that very thing in support of their cause. You did say that you do not think it makes sense for somebody to let themselves be killed for a hoax. It is my guess that you do not find their deaths convincing as proofs for their incompatible God, and if I may extend my guess further, I would guess that you believe those Muslims to also be gravely mistaken. Did I understand your proof correctly, or shall we attempt to narrow down this evidence into terms that may be easier for one such as my self to grasp?

The Muslim faith is based on a demonstrable lie - multiple lies in fact. Muslims accept the Bible as holy scripture, but are taught that it has been modified beyond repair. Well, the qumran scrolls put that theory to bed completely. They would have to come up with a whole new explanation as to why God would allow "completely corrupted" scriptures to exist for 800 straight years, etc.

But let's not forget that these suicide bombers are completely indoctrinated, and not just that, but they are actually a good example of the point I originally made about cults - and cult leaders wanting others to die for them. Did you ever see Osama Bin Laden himself strap a dynamite-laden vest to himself and go blow something up, or did he have others do it for him?

[Optimistic Mysanthrope]

If you go down this path, then it leads you to the problem of - where did his body go? Breaking the Roman seal was an offence punishable by death (ie crucifixion for Jews)! Would the disciples really have that much ambition to steal the body? How does Paul become a Christian? According to Luke he meets the risen Christ on the road to Damascus and is blinded by him. According to Paul himself he met the risen Christ.

Well, let's not forget that crucifiction was a slow, agonizing death that lasted about 3 days. So how long was jesus on the cross for? Turns out it was about 6 hours. You have to at least entertain the idea that maybe the muslims are right and jesus didn't die on the cross. It would certainly explain a few things.

Now surely you don't believe that Paul could sincerely believe that he'd met the risen Christ if he had not, correct?

So there is no possibility that paul was lying, delusional or deceived?

The Muslim faith is based on a demonstrable lie - multiple lies in fact. Muslims accept the Bible as holy scripture, but are taught that it has been modified beyond repair. Well, the qumran scrolls put that theory to bed completely. They would have to come up with a whole new explanation as to why God would allow "completely corrupted" scriptures to exist for 800 straight years, etc.

Right, hang on a minute. You say that about the quoran and yet when you examine your own holy scriptures, you think "yep, that all adds up. Makes perfect sense."???

[The Reality Salesman01]

Of course somebody could believe something that is untrue.

I appreciate your honesty. Now that we have found common ground, please allow me to bother you with one more question, and it is my hope that you do so with the same sincerity.

If somebody believes something that is not true, what would it take to convince them to change their mind? More specifically, what evidence would convince you that your belief is wrong?

If your belief is supported by evidence, then it follows that there’s a possibility of some new evidence that could make it more likely false. This is true with all evidence based claims.

If somebody is delusional, no amount of evidence would convince them that they were mistaken. You would be right to ask me the same question pertaining to what I would require in order to believe, and I am prepared to answer it. But as a sign of sincerity and intellectual honesty, oblige me with your answer, and I will be happy to return the sentiment.

[Thor]

You're an idiot, either contribute, or go practise falling down someplace else please.

Insults... nice. But it's what I've come to expect when debating with believers.

Maybe you can cite ONE historical document or record written DURING THE SUPPOSED LIFETIME OF ALEXANDER THE GREAT that mentions the life and/or death of this man?

And away we go.... Here's the canard that when you're challenged to provide evidence that Jesus existed, you pull out someone from the ancient world (in this case, Alexander the Great) and challenge us to provide evidence of their existence.

Some problems here.... First of all, Alexander the Great lived over 300 years before Jesus was supposedly born. Original records from his time would be much scarcer than records from the supposed time of Jesus. Plus, there were a number of historians who lived during the time of Jesus, and none of them mention him. There are also no mentions of him in any document, record or writing. And then there's the fact that Alexander the Great is not claimed to be the embodiment of a deity, nor is it claimed that he performed impossible feats such as walking on water or rising up from the dead. So there is little reason to doubt his existence. Unlike your godboy...

My point in this thread is to draw your attention to the fact that you're a complete idiot if you doubt that Jesus was a real person, or doubt any of the other "indisputable" facts.

My guess is that there probably was a guy named Jesus who was an itinerant preacher that gained a small following. After his death stories about him became wildly exaggerated and a religion based on these tales took root. Then the religion really took hold when Constantine declared Christianity to be the state religion of the Roman Empire. Without Constantine, your religion would probably be a fringe cult today.

So what makes you believe the fantastical tales associated with "Jesus" are true?

[Aractus]

It ain't necessarily so. First I will note that Ehrman, who is certainly a critical scholar, leaves the authorship of 1 Peter as an open question. He agrees that, if Peter is responsible for the content, it would have been written by a scribe, but he also considers there is a strong possibility that it is a forgery as there are a number of works falsely claiming Peter's authorship, e.g., Gospel of Peter. The argument against authenticity does not depend on denying that Peter could have used a scribe or that he was an early Christian priest. It depends on the fact that systematic persecution of Christians did not begin until 30 years after Peter's supposed death. However, Ehrman allows that there may have been local persecutions in Peter's lifetime.

That's a pretty flimsy argument. We know that there were a number of pseudepigraphical works rejected by the early church. But what we do not have are proven examples of them being accepted in the New Testament. For instance, who do you think wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews? Paul, Luke, James, Barnabas, Clement, somebody else?

The scholarly arguments made are sometimes completely misplaced. I can think of a few examples as to why it may have been written by Paul: very similar theology, it has Paul's closing greeting:

"I appeal to you, brothers, bear with my word of exhortation, for I have written to you briefly. You should know that our brother Timothy has been released, with whom I shall see you if he comes soon. Greet all your leaders and all the saints. Those who come from Italy send you greetings. Grace be with all of you."

I generally don't much care who the author is, but some people do and get all worked up on it.

As for Peter's epistles, it's clear that there is not the same level of scholarly thought behind the reasoning for rejecting Petrine authorship.

Here's one example:

2 Peter 3:15: "And count the patience of our Lord as salvation, just as our beloved brother Paul also wrote to you according to the wisdom given him,"

The language used by the author (who we presume is Peter) is talking about a contemporary, and not the way a 2nd century writer would write about the 1st century church fathers/apostles. His reference makes it clear that Paul is still alive, he doesn't use any language which would suggest that Paul was deceased at the time of writing.

To reject Petrine authorship means that you have to account for these, and the other, discrepancies. In other words, if somebody wrote it in the 2nd century, then why are they talking about Paul as a contemporary, etc?

You are trying to smuggle in 2 Peter on the coattails of 1 Peter. Almost all non-fundamentalist scholars reject it because of "its linguistic differences from 1 Peter, its apparent use of Jude, possible allusions to 2nd-century gnosticism, encouragement in the wake of a delayed parousia, and weak external support.

Yes, but what gives them an accurate gague of the writing style, etc, of Jude or 1 Peter? 1 Single short epistle from each of them? As I said, it's a weak argument, and yes plenty of well meaning scholars have fallen into the trap of believing it, primarily due to the fact that they've not accounted for the element of the "unknown". All evidence is valuable, however with unknown variables you can't take every piece of evidence as being 100% of the picture.

In addition, specific passages offer further clues in support of pseudepigraphy, namely the author's assumption that his audience is familiar with multiple Pauline epistles (2Peter 3:15-16), his implication that the Apostolic generation has passed (2Peter 3:4), and his differentiation between himself and "the apostles of the Lord and Savior" (2Peter 3:2)."

Well, again, 2 Peter 3:2 reads to me as if the apostles are contemporaries of the writer. There's nothing about it that suggests that the writer is referencing apostles from some unspecified time in the future.

I know you will not agree, but I think there is good evidence that where the gospels have Jesus speak of his sacrificial death (mainly around the Last Supper) we have later writers putting words in his mouth. Jesus teaching (Sermon on the Mount and parables) was all organized around his sincere belief that the world was going to end within the lifetime of his contemporaries, Matthew 24:36.

That makes for an interesting theory, but the world's end is not a recurring theme in the New Testament the way in which would be expected if it was a core belief.

John 21:18-19: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”'

That passage has always read to me as if Peter would die later than AD 68. It also discredits the idea that he was crucified upside down since Jesus tells hime he will be dressed and lead to his death - not stripped down and lead to his death. So all these theories that rely solely upon church history from tradition are easily discredited. And if Jesus believed that the world would end in his lifetime, then why does he tell Peter that he will die old?

In any case you are positing a false dichotomy when you claim that the doctrine must be true because early Christians would not die for a hoax. What about dying for a sincerely mistaken belief? As far as that goes many people have been willing to risk death for causes that did not promise immortal life, for example in wars to protect one's country, and this includes the atheists you will find in foxholes. Muslims have been willing to die for their faith from the time of Mohammed to the present. Does that prove that Mohammed got it right?

Was Mohammed martyred for his belief, or only his followers?

[xpastor]

That's a pretty flimsy argument. We know that there were a number of pseudepigraphical works rejected by the early church. But what we do not have are proven examples of them being accepted in the New Testament. For instance, who do you think wrote the Epistle to the Hebrews? Paul, Luke, James, Barnabas, Clement, somebody else?

Many of the shorter epistles including 2 Peter were considered dubious by the Church Fathers—as usual, no opinion recorded from the Church Mothers. They were called antilegomena, i.e., spoken against. You are indulging in the usual fundamentalist cherry-picking: the Church Fathers are reliable near-contemporary witnesses when they support your position, and blithely ignored when they don't.

The language used by the author (who we presume is Peter) is talking about a contemporary, and not the way a 2nd century writer would write about the 1st century church fathers/apostles. His reference makes it clear that Paul is still alive, he doesn't use any language which would suggest that Paul was deceased at the time of writing.

To reject Petrine authorship means that you have to account for these, and the other, discrepancies. In other words, if somebody wrote it in the 2nd century, then why are they talking about Paul as a contemporary, etc?

That's easy enough to explain. There were forgeries, people writing under the name of a long-dead authority.

Well, again, 2 Peter 3:2 reads to me as if the apostles are contemporaries of the writer. There's nothing about it that suggests that the writer is referencing apostles from some unspecified time in the future.

The phrase "long ago" is repeatedly used, indicating that it has been a long wait for the second coming, ancestors are dead, etc.

That makes for an interesting theory, but the world's end is not a recurring theme in the New Testament the way in which would be expected if it was a core belief.

John 21:18-19: 'Truly, truly, I say to you, when you were young, you used to dress yourself and walk wherever you wanted, but when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go.” (This he said to show by what kind of death he was to glorify God.) And after saying this he said to him, “Follow me.”'

That passage has always read to me as if Peter would die later than AD 68. It also discredits the idea that he was crucified upside down since Jesus tells hime he will be dressed and lead to his death - not stripped down and lead to his death. So all these theories that rely solely upon church history from tradition are easily discredited.

The end of the world is indeed the central theme of the NT, both for Jesus and for Paul, who expected that Jesus would return while he was still living.

I wouldn't appeal to the Gospel of John for anything about Jesus' teaching. There is next to nothing authentic in it as compared to the 3 synoptics. It's a bunch of theologizing by some anonymous person at the end of the century.

Even if we accepted John, I don't know where you get the idea that it would put Peter's death later than 68 AD. First, you are assuming that Jesus can infallibly predict the future which no skeptic would accept without proof. Second, if Peter was about the same age as Jesus, that would make him 74 in 68 AD, which can surely be called old. Third, as above, you consider church traditions very valuable only when they agree with your pre-established opinions.

Similarly in an earlier post you said that the Jewish historian Josephus probably got the date wrong for the census under Quirinius. As far as I can see, you base that solely upon a belief that Luke cannot make mistakes since his writing was bound up in THE BIBLE™ centuries after his death. It was a credulous age. Herodotus tells miracle stories which I don't believe, so does Luke. They both contain some historical truth, but there is no reason to think that either of them is free of errors.

You never attempted to answer my earlier post about the birth narratives for Jesus. Specifically, Luke says that Mary, Joseph and Jesus headed back to Nazareth 41 days after the birth. No time there for the excursion to Egypt which Matthew tells us happened. Not unless God furnished them with a flying horse as Allah did several centuries later for Mohammed. You remember he flew from Mecca to Jerusalem in a single night, so the trip to Egypt and back would be no problem. After all, Bethlehem to Alexandria is a shorter trip as the Pegasus flies.

[WesOlsen]

Aractus

Just a couple of things

"Now let me address your question. That is best answered by what I've consistently said. 1. Jesus dies crucified on a cross. If he was insincere he would not die for a hoax. 2. early Christian leaders were also martyred, and again, it simply does not make sense that they would die for a hoax. Think about contemporary cults - usually the cult leader expects others to die for him, or to otherwise profit him. "

Like all the dead Taliban and Islamic millitant elders who knew full well that by taking on a leadership role that every living second of every living hour involved a huge degree of risk. The comms tactics of Osama Bin Laden were quite commendable from a tactical point of view (during the heydey of his field-based millitant campaign any way) but he knew he was still a viable target, as do the countless numbers of millitant elders who issue rules AND fight on the front line. Not that i'm congratulating them on their bravery, but since we're talking about cults (which christianity presumably doesn't cosntitute as) it's worth noting that leaders of lunatic movements are dying in their droves, daily.

Also my other question to you, and i'd like you to be as honest as possible please with this one > If we are to assume that Jesus was a historical person, and that the biblical accounts, despite their disagreements and contradictions here and there, are 100% accurate in that when they say Jesus rose from the dead that he absolutely must have etc..........If all your convictions rely purely on these narratives, and your absolute devotion and certainty rests on what a handful of blokes wrote down (and if we ignore the wealth of evidence available showing that the many modern editions of the bible underwent heavy modification throughout the last 1000 years by various bodies). If all of this...........then why don't you accept Mohammed as the final prophet and Islam as the sugar-daddy sexy man that he evidently is?

. Immediate followers documening his every day actions and teachings - Check

. Lots of fantastic stories of superhuman feats (flying around on a horse, night flights to the holy city etc) - check

. Corroborated accounts from non Islamic sources during and immediately after his lifetime, confirming that this bloke definitely existed and that he had many followers who died for him (why would they die for him if it was a hoax? You say suicide bombers are indoctrinated but that Jesus' followers were/are presumably not indoctrinated) and that he actually rode in to battle himself knowing full well he might die (why would he not do this unless he was sure of his convictions?) - check

. A massive fan club, both at the time and throughout history until now, because if people followed him then it means truth - check

. Really mundane and uninspiring rules regarding trading livestock, slaves and wives, none of which point to any recognition of a future civilisation that didn't center around tedious desert tribal culture - oh boy CHECK dat ya'll

"The Muslim faith is based on a demonstrable lie - multiple lies in fact. Muslims accept the Bible as holy scripture, but are taught that it has been modified beyond repair. Well, the qumran scrolls put that theory to bed completely. They would have to come up with a whole new explanation as to why God would allow "completely corrupted" scriptures to exist for 800 straight years, etc."

Why would god create a plan, but then allow things to exist that might jeapordise that plan? You mean, why would god give his mission to the world, and tolerate something that competes with it/makes an erroneous claim? Why would a god do any number of innane things that's he purported to have done in the bible then? Muslims accept that the Quran is an updated and final message, to overwrite previous messages, much in the same way as the new testement did by overwriting the old testement.

....

With all your biblical scholarship aside, your case rests on two main asumptions:

1. Everything that is written in the bible must be 100% truth. You're prepared to concede some room for debate on certain specifics such as exact numbers and dates, but the superhuman shit doesn't set alarm bells ringing, citing that only a sincere person would die for their beliefs, rather than a mentally ill person? (A mentally ill bloke stabbed a girl to death on a Birmingham bus a few months back because he heard voices telling him to do it, he did it knowing that he would throw his whole life away by being locked up for it, now why would he ruin his life like that?)

and

2. Other texts of equal worth have been written, before and since, including the huge Islamic texts that overwrote existing abrahamic texts (just as the new testement did with the old) and the adventures of Joseph smith which is kinda like an add on pack to the bible more than a replacement. For some reason you picked Christianity out of the sack rather than the other ones.

Thoughts please.

[Aractus]

---

I appreciate your honesty. Now that we have found common ground, please allow me to bother you with one more question, and it is my hope that you do so with the same sincerity.

If somebody believes something that is not true, what would it take to convince them to change their mind? More specifically, what evidence would convince you that your belief is wrong?

If your belief is supported by evidence, then it follows that there’s a possibility of some new evidence that could make it more likely false. This is true with all evidence based claims.

If somebody is delusional, no amount of evidence would convince them that they were mistaken. You would be right to ask me the same question pertaining to what I would require in order to believe, and I am prepared to answer it. But as a sign of sincerity and intellectual honesty, oblige me with your answer, and I will be happy to return the sentiment.

---

Correct.

If you could provide evidence that either: a. Jesus did not die on a cross, or b. That he did not rise from the dead, then you would convince me that Christianity is wrong. However as those two facts, I believe, are firmly established, they form the basis of the evidence that convinces me that Christianity is right.

---

Many of the shorter epistles including 2 Peter were considered dubious by the Church Fathers—as usual, no opinion recorded from the Church Mothers. They were called antilegomena, i.e., spoken against. You are indulging in the usual fundamentalist cherry-picking: the Church Fathers are reliable near-contemporary witnesses when they support your position, and blithely ignored when they don't.

Not at all. I think much of what they recorded is valuable. Especially so when writing about contemporary matters. They record the history of the early church as best as they can, however there is certainly room for error.

That's easy enough to explain. There were forgeries, people writing under the name of a long-dead authority.

Then what was it's purpose? It didn't introduce a heresy or any new theology, so why did somebody write a false epistle that had no purpose?

The phrase "long ago" is repeatedly used, indicating that it has been a long wait for the second coming, ancestors are dead, etc.

He uses it twice, that's hardly "repeatedly".

• For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son, with whom I am well pleased,” we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. And we have the prophetic word more fully confirmed, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation. For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.
  
  But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

And I don't see how its use in any way indicates that the original apostles are long-since dead. The phrase "their condemnation from long ago" refers to being condemned for their (unrepented) sins, even though they are still alive. You just have to read the whole passage in context to see clearly that the text is referring to contemporise that have been "condemned long ago".

The end of the world is indeed the central theme of the NT, both for Jesus and for Paul, who expected that Jesus would return while he was still living.

I wouldn't appeal to the Gospel of John for anything about Jesus' teaching. There is next to nothing authentic in it as compared to the 3 synoptics. It's a bunch of theologizing by some anonymous person at the end of the century.

Even if we accepted John, I don't know where you get the idea that it would put Peter's death later than 68 AD. First, you are assuming that Jesus can infallibly predict the future which no skeptic would accept without proof. Second, if Peter was about the same age as Jesus, that would make him 74 in 68 AD, which can surely be called old. Third, as above, you consider church traditions very valuable only when they agree with your pre-established opinions.

I just mentioned that's how it's always read to me. The more important thing is the phrase Jesus uses which is that "when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go". That phrase describes beheading and not crucifixion. People that were crucified were stripped naked, and then were led (not carried) to their cross.

In any case it clearly show that Jesus doesn't believe that the world will end in his lifetime.

Another clear example, which I know you won't accept, is Mark 14:58:
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”

Now it's interesting to note that nowhere in the synoptic gospels do we see Jesus make such a statement. This is not the same as the prophecy of the destruction of Jerusalem - Jesus is talking about the symbolic destruction of the temple as a house of worship. Yet we do find him saying it in John:

• So the Jews said to him, “What sign do you show us for doing these things?” Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.” The Jews then said, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and will you raise it up in three days?”

I don't know why you think John is unreliable.

Even if I was to accept that Jesus can't predict the future, all that would mean is that "when you are old, you will stretch out your hands, and another will dress you and carry you where you do not want to go" is written after Peter's death, and if that's the case then there's no possibility of getting the facts wrong is there? My point that it's a more reliable account than that from the 2nd century church fathers still stands - Peter can't have been crucified, it's inconsistent with the text.

Similarly in an earlier post you said that the Jewish historian Josephus probably got the date wrong for the census under Quirinius.

No I'm sorry, you misunderstood me. I don't think that he probably got the date wrong.

As far as I can see, you base that solely upon a belief that Luke cannot make mistakes since his writing was bound up in THE BIBLE™ centuries after his death.

No, it was bound up just decades after his death, here's proof:

You never attempted to answer my earlier post about the birth narratives for Jesus. Specifically, Luke says that Mary, Joseph and Jesus headed back to Nazareth 41 days after the birth. No time there for the excursion to Egypt which Matthew tells us happened. Not unless God furnished them with a flying horse as Allah did several centuries later for Mohammed. You remember he flew from Mecca to Jerusalem in a single night, so the trip to Egypt and back would be no problem. After all, Bethlehem to Alexandria is a shorter trip as the Pegasus flies.

Because you've used a deceptive technique to try and discredit the scripture. Luke says that the baby is cleansed in the temple 41 days after he is born (according to the law). Then there is a 2-year gap which he doesn't attempt to fill in between that and the return to Nazareth.

Just because he left out a detail doesn't mean it didn't happen. Luke would have had a copy of both Matthew and Mark's gospels when he wrote his. And in fact, he also had materials that Josephus would later use too.

[pocaracas]

If you could provide evidence that either: a. Jesus did not die on a cross, or b. That he did not rise from the dead, then you would convince me that Christianity is wrong. However as those two facts, I believe, are firmly established, they form the basis of the evidence that convinces me that Christianity is right.

Bold and underline added.

Therein lies your problem. None of that is "firmly established". If it was firmly established, then we wouldn't be here, in this forum, would we?

It is written in a book... well, several books and letters, most based on one of those books.
An extraordinary tale written in a book, retold in others... and told differently in others still... is... is not how to write history.... not when the subject is that important. Not when the subject is that significant.

Similarly extraordinary tales have been written in books apart from yours... and yet, you don't attribute them any sort of "establishment"... they're myths, right?

[Einharjar]

To the OP/thread starter:

I don't deny Jesus existed. Even if the name was "added" after and the real name was something else. It doesn't matter. I've found plenty to convince me that some crazy but wise rabbi was out and about in the region saying he was the Son of God and seemed to be professing that he was fulfilling Old Testament prophecy. And in general? He seemed pretty legit on his moral grounds anyway. Might have been crazy to say he was "his own son of an omnipotent being" but other wise, had some real good common sense stuff to say!
But religiously?
What's it matter?
To me, the whole Judean faith tree crumbles under it's own weight like any spiritual religion does. Religions are forced to evolve in order to persist through the ages. Christianity was born of Judaism, which was born of Babylonian mythos which was born out of Sumerian mythos. For the most part? The Buck stops there as far as we know but just going back that far, we can see that everything was born out've mythological crap.

So we have two options:

There for, Aliens

-or-

There for, we made it up due to our ignorance of our universe.

I'd like to clarify though that, I still think this "Jesus" individual said some pretty meaningful things. It's just, I find no reason that his God is needed to support the common sense the man was preaching on a daily basis.