Indoctrination & Mental Gymnastics

[goodwithoutgod]

In the referenced post you write

No. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that if one seeks God with a true heart, and responds to the light God provides him, he will find him. All who are saved are saved through Jesus Christ. I could know I'm a sinner in need of God's forgiveness, and never have heard the name Jesus, but still believe in Jesus in essence.

The reason Christian’s have been sending missionaries out into the world since the apostles is to “bring the good word” and save souls. No Jesus = no salvation.

I suppose I pick on Christianity more than the other religions because I was brought up in it. If I knew more about Islam, Judaism and Hinduism I’m sure I would lambaste them more so forgive me for showing any favoritism.

I’ve been traveling a lot lately; I spent nearly a month in Indonesia (most populous Islamic country in the world, the one exception within the country is the island of Bali which is mostly Hindu) and even more recently traveled to Colombia as well. On both trips I have taken many photographs of children and that brings me to this discussion about who is saved and gets to go to Heaven and who isn’t and goes to Hell.

In the Bible it says, “the only way to the Father is through Me” (John 14:16 as I already quoted). Most everyone I talk to takes this to mean that unless you know of Jesus and have accepted Him in your mind as TOTG (The One True God) you’re SOOL (Shit Out Of Luck). I think this applies to Islam as well but they replace JC with Muhammad (as prophet only and not TSOG, The Son of God). The Jews just skip the middle-man altogether and go straight to the Source until the day they are convinced the real Messiah shows up through the proper gate this time bearing favorable rates or something like that.

Back to the children and my original thought; so JC shows up in one little town and roams around the countryside laying down the law. This law is to be applied to everyone evenly from here on out (what happened to all the humans who preceded Him is another story). There is no internet, cell phones, TV, mail, loudspeakers or the like so it takes many generations for the Word to get around and reach some of the now seven billion plus people in the world. I use the word “some” because I can assure you that most of these kids I have been photographing in far-flung islands and deep jungle don’t have a clue what the hell we’re talking about (cue the missionaries).

What happened or happens to all the people who didn’t get the memo?

Like
1) Those that came before the memo was issued
2) those that were contemporaries but didn’t live within a couple of donkey rides from the memo writer
3) those that came after but never got the memo
4) those that got the memo at the point of a sword
5) those that got a garbled memo and couldn’t make heads or tails of it
6) those that got the memo but thought it was a joke
7) those that had already received previous memos that conflict with the new one and
8) those that were/are not capable of deciphering or understanding the memo.

If I am to believe what the Bible says there are a lot of people, including these children I have been photographing, that are going to Hell. Personally, I just don’t buy it.

Whoever has been tweaking this memorandum all these years has yet to tie up all the loose ends to this fanciful tale. There are just so many holes in it that if people weren’t so superstitious or scared they would file this one away in the drama/fiction/horror heading at Barnes & Noble bookstore and give it no more weight than a second rate novel.

You’re right that my thoughts are not scripture and neither are yours.

Show me where I claimed they were.

You are saying that because there was an example of scapegoating in ancient Syria, that Jesus' saving act was a myth based on this example? This may be your opinion or even the opinion of some scholars, but it's not even close to justifying your conclusion. I don't doubt that other cultures had beliefs involving the same concept. That’s like saying that some society in the past had a certain custom and, because we have a similar custom today, that our custom is derived from that society.

lek, you wrote this about scapegoating, and I quote again, “It’s not an extension of any tradition.” I gave you links showing that there was, indeed, a long tradition of the practice. This is a fact not an opinion.

As for the inference that the Jesus myth of vicarious redemption is a co-opting of an existing, ancient practice, yes that is what I think based on historical scholarly work from the likes of Dr. Richard Carrier for one.

Great point Full Circle

The jesus myth is a fascinating study. Here are a few of my notes. The interesting thing is not only that is no evidence of a historical jesus, but the fact that no one who ever wrote of jesus, knew him. Also, I agree with Dr carrier that most likely the jesus myth was borrowed heavily from Romulus, who predates him by 800 years...

Mythology has always fascinated me. When you research mythology, you find the common strains, a rhythm, a philosophical skeletal system where the “hero god” is constructed, and the same system is used time and time again. It is almost as if one borrowed from another throughout time. It is impossible to ignore the implication of systematic fabrication. The jesus story, however, was not original. The entire story seems to have been plagiarized in bits and pieces, and sometimes blatantly intact, from ancient god/man mythology passed down by Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures.

The list is long, from Horus in 3000 BCE Egypt all the way to jesus, but I will focus on just one…Romulus 771 BCE. In Plutarch’s biography of Romulus, the founder of Rome, we are told he was the son of god, born of a virgin; an attempt is made to kill him as a baby, and he is saved, and raised by a poor family, hailed as King, and killed by the conniving elite; that he rises from the dead, appears to a friend to tell the good news to his people, and ascends to heaven to rule from on high. Sound familiar? Just like Jesus.

Plutarch also tells us about annual public ceremonies that were still being formed, which celebrated the day Romulus ascended to heaven. The story goes as follows: at the end of his life, amid rumors he was murdered by conspiracy of the Senate, the sun went dark, and Romulus’s body vanished. The people wanted to search for him but the Senate told them not to, “for he had risen to join the gods”. Most went away happy, hoping for good things from their new god, but “some doubted”. Soon after, Proculus, a close friend of Romulus, reported that he met Romulus “on the road” between Rome and a nearby town and asked him, “why have you abandoned us?”, To which Romulus replied that he had been a God all along but had come down to earth and become incarnate to establish a great kingdom, and now had to return to his home in heaven. Then Romulus told his friend to tell the Romans that if they are virtuous they will have all worldly power (Carrier 56).

Folks, does any of this ring any bells for you? You do realize this story predates Jesus by 800 years right? Fabricators of religion borrow from previous religions Man/God/hero constructs and have all the way back to 3000 B.C.E.

So the fact that the jesus son of god myth story has clearly been plagiarized from older Greek, Roman, Egyptian, and Persian cultures, coupled with the fact that no one who wrote of Jesus actually knew him should make a thinking person take a pause, and reflect on the basis of their faith.
In regards to my posit; paragraph three speaks about the ceremony celebrating Romulus's ascension actually going on at the time, so he is a witness, unlike the lack of witnesses in the NT of jesus. More importantly the tale of Romulus itself though was widely attested as pre-christian: in Romulus (27-28), Plutarch, though writing c. 80-120 CE, is certainly recording a long established Roman tale and custom, and his sources are unmistakenly pre-christian: Cicero, Laws 1.3, Republic 2.10; Livy, From the founding of the city 1.16.2-8 (1.3-1.16 relating the whole story of Romulus); Ovid, Fasti 2.491-512 and Metamorphoses 14.805-51; and Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Roman Antiquities 2.63.3 (1.171-2.65 relating the whole story of Romulus); a later reference: Cassius Dio, Roman History 56.46.2. The story's antiquity was even acknowledged by christians: Tertullian, Apology 21.

So as you can see, before christianity was even beginning to be fabricated, the story of Romulus was solidly incorporated into the Roman culture. So it would be a false and disingenuous posit to suggest that the story of Romulus was fabricated after jesus, and based on jesus, when it fact it is the exact opposite. It is also false to say it was interpolations (besides the fact it is all an obvious made up fabrication) as interpolations are additions to writings to make them seem more in line with whatever view the forger wishes to support after the fact. Conjecture? No, it was actually pre-christian, and as I provided above, easy to find within respectable writers from differing times and places. If Plutarch was the only one to write of it, OR he and the other writers were all writing about some "god" named Romulus from 800 years ago, and were writing it after jesus, then you could absolutely draw a correlation to the posit that the story of Romulus was based on jesus, or that it was fabricated to throw suspicion on the jesus story, sadly the facts do not reflect that.

Works cited:

Carrier, Richard. On the historicity of Jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

and on jesus...

Why there are no records of Jesus Christ

It is not possible to find in any legitimate religious or historical writings compiled between the beginning of the first century and well into the fourth century any reference to Jesus Christ and the spectacular events that the Church says accompanied his life.

This confirmation comes from Frederic Farrar (1831-1903) of Trinity College, Cambridge:
"It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind ... there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels."
(The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)

This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
"We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century."
(Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)

There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a "fable"

No one who ever wrote of jesus, actually knew him. When you learn this, and validate this, it throws the whole Christianity belief basis out the window, thus discrediting it. Lets look at this real quick..

The epistles were written after the mythical jesus's death;

1) paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. See the bottom where I get into Paul a bit more.

2) James - Epistle of James mentions Jesus only once as an introduction to his belief. Nowhere does the epistle reference a historical Jesus and this alone eliminates it from an historical account.

3) Peter - Many scholars question the authorship of Peter of the epistles. Even within the first epistle, it says in 5:12 that Silvanus wrote it. Most scholars consider the second epistle as unreliable or an outright forgery. The unknown authors of the epistles of Peter wrote long after the life of the traditional Peter. Moreover, Peter lived (if he ever lived at all) as an ignorant and illiterate peasant (even Acts 4:13 attests to this). In short, no one has any way of determining whether the epistles of Peter come from fraud, an author claiming himself to know what Peter said (hearsay), or from someone trying to further the aims of the Church. Encyclopedias usually describe a tradition that Saint Peter wrote them. However, whenever you see the word "tradition" it refers to a belief passed down within a society. In other words: hearsay. This is the definition of Pseudepigrapha; a book written in a biblical style and ascribed to an author who did not write it.

4) Jude - Even early Christians argued about its authenticity. It quotes an apocryphal book called Enoch as if it represented authorized Scripture. Biblical scholars do not think it possible for the alleged disciple Jude to have written it because whoever wrote it had to have written it during a period when the churches had long existed. Like the other alleged disciples, Jude would have lived as an illiterate peasant and unable to write (much less in Greek) but the author of Jude wrote in fluent high quality Greek..more forgery.

Then there are the non-christian sources as follows;

1) Josephus Flavius, (37–100 CE) the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written. Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Josephus, a prolific and comprehensive Jewish historian, who would frequently write a few pages on the execution of common Jewish thieves, has not one authentic line that mentions Yeshua. “He” does mention “Christ” on two occasions, yet both have been convincingly exposed as interpolations.

2) Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

3) Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

4) Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

5) Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

6) Thallus/africanus, In the ninth century a Byzantine writer named George Syncellus quoted a third-century Christian historian named Sextus Julius Africanus, who quoted an unknown writer named Thallus on the darkness at the crucifixion: 'Thallus in the third book of his history calls this darkness an eclipse of the sun, but in my opinion he is wrong.' All of the works of Africanus are lost, so there is no way to confirm the quote or to examine its context. We have no idea who Thallus was, or when he wrote. Third century would have put him being born long after jesus's alleged death, thus hearsay.

7) Phlegon of Tralles was a Greek writer and freedman of the emperor Hadrian, who lived in the 2nd century AD. case closed, more hearsay, born after the alleged jesus's death.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

So when we consider that during times of miraculous events, no one AT THE TIME thought they were significant enough to even write down, it kind of of makes a thinking person contemplate the validity of a story told and written down based on myth and hearsay 60-150 years later..For example;

Matthew 27:45 Now from the sixth hour there was darkness over all the land unto the ninth hour.

Mark 15:33 And when the sixth hour was come, there was darkness over the whole land until the ninth hour.

Luke 23:44-48 And it was about the sixth hour, and there was a darkness over all the earth until the ninth hour.

Unfortunately, there is not one shred of evidence that this happened...zero, all of the royal scribes, historians, philosophers, and literate people who wrote down and recorded EVERYTHING of any significance, failed to note the whole earth going dark mid-day for three hours...an eclipse lasts about 7.5 mins max, so it wasn’t that....nothing, .....zero. Never happened.

Another example:

Matthew 27:51-53
King James Version (KJV)
51 And, behold, the veil of the temple was rent in twain from the top to the bottom; and the earth did quake, and the rocks rent;
52 And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
53 And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.

Again…no one thought a zombie invasion was worthy of writing down…seems rather odd.

When you research authorship of each book of the bible, you find out they were not written by whom you think, which makes them suspect for any level of validity. Let’s look at the gospels a bit more…

Writings of the Gospels: Mark (60 to 75 CE), Matthew (80 to 90 CE), Luke (80 to 90 CE based on the Gospels of Mark), and John (80 to 110 CE) (Albl 283). I have shown before in various venues the issues with the Gospels, the fact that we don’t know who wrote the gospels, the community effort that put them together, and the fact that they don’t agree with one another, all of which make them a suspect source of empirical evidence. When one posits a super natural, extraordinary story, one requires extraordinary evidence....sadly it doesn't exist, except philosophically.

The Gospel of Matthew is generally believed to have been composed between 70 and 110, with most scholars preferring the period 80–90; a pre-70 date remains a minority view, but has been strongly supported. The anonymous author was probably a highly educated Jew, intimately familiar with the technical aspects of Jewish law, and the disciple Matthew was probably honored within his circle. The author drew on three main sources to compose his gospel: the Gospel of Mark; the hypothetical collection of sayings known as the Q source; and material unique to his own community, called "Special Matthew", or the M source. Note the part where I said...disciple matthew honored...and anonymous writer.

I find it interesting that the writer of matthew refers to "matthew" in the third person. Matthew claims jesus was born in "the days of herod the king." Yet Herod died in 4 BCE. Luke reports that jesus was born "when Cyrenius (Quirinius) was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 CE...that is a discrepancy of 9 years. Luke says Jesus was born during a roman census, and it is true there was a census in 6 CE. This would have been when jesus was 9 years old according to matthew. There is no evidence of an earlier census during the reign of Augustine. Which is true?

Matthew also reports that Herod slaughtered all first born in the land in order to execute jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, ever mentions this alleged genocide, an event that should have caught someones attention....like the many miraculous stories of jesus, no one at the time thought they were cool enough to record...odd don't you think?

The gospel of Mark; Most modern scholars reject the tradition which ascribes it to Mark the Evangelist, the companion of Peter, and regard it as the work of an unknown author working with various sources including collections of miracle stories, controversy stories, parables, and a passion narrative. Mark is the oldest of the synoptic gospels, of which the authors of matthew, and luke based their stories. All scholars agree that the last 12 verses of Mark, are highly dubious and are considered interpolations. The earliest ancient documents of mark end right after the women find the empty tomb. This means that in the first biography, on which the others based their reports, there is no post-resurrection appearance or ascension of jesus.

Luke: Tradition holds that the text was written by Luke the companion of Paul (named in Colossians 4:14). Many modern scholars reject this view, although the list of scholars maintaining authorship by Luke the physician is lengthy, and represents scholars from a wide range of theological opinion. According to Raymond E. Brown, opinion concerning Lukan authorship was ‘about evenly divided’ as of 1997.

John: The gospel identifies its author as "the disciple whom Jesus loved." Although the text does not name this disciple, by the beginning of the 2nd century, a tradition had begun to form which identified him with John the Apostle, one of the Twelve (Jesus' innermost circle). Although some notable New Testament scholars affirm traditional Johannine scholarship, the majority do not believe that John or one of the Apostles wrote it, and trace it instead to a "Johannine community" which traced its traditions to John.

paul - written about 60 C.E., of the 13, he actually wrote 8. Not a single instance in any of Paul's writings claims that he ever meets or sees an earthly Jesus, nor does Paul give any reference to Jesus' life on earth (except for a few well known interpolations - Bible interpolation, or Bible redaction, is the art of adding stuff to the Bible). Therefore, all accounts about a Jesus could only have come from other believers or his imagination. Hearsay.

There’s no indication from Scripture that Paul and Jesus ever met before the Damascus Road incident. And Acts 9:4-7 doesn’t specify whether the Lord’s encounter with Paul was physical or not. It only says Paul saw a bright light and heard a voice. (hallucination/lie)The men with him heard a loud sound but didn’t see anything. In subsequent re-tellings of the encounter Paul never indicated that He had actually seen Jesus at that time.

Various works cited or used:

Mueller, J.J., Theological Foundations: Concepts and Methods for Understanding the Christian Faith. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2011. Print.

Albl, Martin C. Reason, Faith, and Tradition: Explorations in Catholic Theology. Winona: Anselm Academic, Christian Brothers Publications, 2009. Print.

The Catholic Study Bible: The New American Bible 2nd ed. Oxford: Oxford University press, Inc., 2011. Print.

Moule, C. F. D., The birth of the New Testament. New York: Harper & Row, 1962. Print

Lieu, Samuel N. C., and Montserrat, Dominic, Constantine: History, Historiography, and Legend. London: Routledge, 2002. Print.

O'Collins, Gerald, Christology: A Biblical, Historical, and Systematic Study of Jesus. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009. Print.

Carrier, Richard, On the historicity of jesus: why we might have reason for doubt. Sheffield, England: Sheffield Phoenix press, 2014. Print.

[The Grand Nudger]

LOL, mountains of text between all posters... but I just wanted to pick out the one gem that really popped. "Theological theory". So what does that entail, dropping rea in the bowl and reading the patterns on the rim? Shit you not, I'm going to remember how amusing those two words are when crammed together for a very long while.

[robvalue]

Christianity wants us to believe that all those obviously made up stories related to previous cultures are nonsense, but now they are strung together with a few details changed and a coat of paint- it all happened! It's fake histroy repeating itself, as real history.

But I know jesus is real because 73 people told me.

[Lek]

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.

So, it seems that very intelligent men philosophical men pondered for a long to make up a story that the ignorant masses would believe. That[/quote] means that only unintelligent people would would believe the myth of Jesus? Of course, the highly christian western world has led the world in science and technology throughout the centuries since the time of Jesus.

[FatAndFaithless]

Of course, the highly christian western world has led the world in science and technology throughout the centuries since the time of Jesus.

Y'know..besides the whole Dark Ages thing.. And the progresses we've made in science have very often been made in the face of religious restrictions and objections, not because of them.

[Lek]

In summary, this complex, dramatic Christian theological concept is obviously a fabrication of much thought and introspective philosophy. Perhaps they could have put all that time and effort into something more constructive. Creating a subservient, subjugative crutch for people with low mental resilience, apparent inability to use reason and logic to comprehend the world around them, and wild imaginations seems unnecessary. In my opinion, religion and faith block the believer’s ability to utilize appropriate epistemological methods to process and gain knowledge. As apparent by the fact that a recent study showed that one fourth of America believed the sun revolved around the earth. This is the perfect example of how religious thought handicaps a person’s ability to learn.

So you say that obviously intelligent, philosophical men wrote the new testament with the intention of coming up with something that would appeal to to ignorant masses. So are you implying that anyone who believes these writings is unintelligent and crippled in their ability to distinguish the truth of the natural world?

[FatAndFaithless]

So are you implying that anyone who believes these writings is unintelligent and crippled in their ability to distinguish the truth of the natural world?

Don't know where the hell you got that idea.

[The Grand Nudger]

So you say that obviously intelligent, philosophical men wrote the new testament with the intention of coming up with something that would appeal to to ignorant masses.

Seems so. Course, that they were intelligent or "philosophical" doesn't mean they got it right (Hi Stimbo), or that the ignorant masses would have believed them because they were "intelligent and philosophical", or that if they had, they believed them because they were the ignorant masses.

It also seems, in case you missed it, that the farther(Hi again!) we get away from jesusism in time or ideology, the farther(I can do this all day) we progress in science and technology.

[RobbyPants]

You've got it wrong. I'm not saying that everyone who has never heard of Christ will be saved because of their ignorance. According to Romans Chapter 1, because of the evidence in nature, no one has an excuse not to believe in God. Therefore, we all should be believers in God. There are people who have never heard of Christ, but have honestly believed in God and have searched for the truth about him. These people, I believe, would have salvation. There are other people who have not heard of Christ, but refuse to seek out God. These would not receive salvation.

Two things:

1) I was responding to what Glitch's friend said, not what you said.

2) Even if nature was proof of God's existence (which it isn't), it wouldn't be proof of YHWH's existence. That's always been the problem with Intelligent Design; it only would ever point to a god, not any specific god. So, when you start with ID as the seed to your argument, then use that to prop up belief in the Christian God, it's a total non sequitur.

By what you said, a Muslim could look at nature, "find" Allah, and continue believing it without coming to Christ. It in no way refutes what Glitch's friend said.

[Lek]

The reason Christian’s have been sending missionaries out into the world since the apostles is to “bring the good word” and save souls. No Jesus = no salvation. [/

quote]

You still haven't shown how Jesus' saving act doesn't apply to those who have never heard of him. I wrote of a person who has not heard of Jesus, but understands that he is a sinner and is reliant on God for salvation. He strives to do God's will and asks for forgiveness. Does he not believe in Jesus? He is saved through Jesus' atoning sacrifice.

lek, you wrote this about scapegoating, and I quote again, “It’s not an extension of any tradition.” I gave you links showing that there was, indeed, a long tradition of the practice. This is a fact not an opinion.

As for the inference that the Jesus myth of vicarious redemption is a co-opting of an existing, ancient practice, yes that is what I think based on historical scholarly work from the likes of Dr. Richard Carrier for one.

Okay. And you're entitled to hold that opinion, even though it's not the consensus of historians and bible scholars.