Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: May 16, 2022, 12:17 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
#21
RE: Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
(June 9, 2021 at 11:19 am)Mister Agenda Wrote:
(June 8, 2021 at 11:28 pm)Fake Messiah Wrote: The only historical figure that at least some small part of the Gospels was based on was Jesus ben Ananias, so maybe he was a "historical Jesus"?

I think there are a few more historical figures in the Gospels than that.

There most certainly are real people and real places mentioned in the NT. But that is misleading. For example, the city of New York existed long before the creation of the comic book character Superman. So by theists logic, Superman is real because after the fact, a comic book writer mentioned/depicted a real city in it's comic book.

No theologian I have ever run into or debated, has ever been willing to consider, that real places and people were peppered into the story after the fact, in retrofitting to lend a false sense of credibility.

We can all prove that Abraham Lincoln was a real person, but nobody sane buys the B-movie crap "Abraham Lincoln. Vampire Slayer".
Reply
#22
RE: Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
(June 17, 2021 at 7:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote: There most certainly are real people and real places mentioned in the NT. But that is misleading. For example, the city of New York existed long before the creation of the comic book character Superman. So by theists logic, Superman is real because after the fact, a comic book writer mentioned/depicted a real city in it's comic book.

No theologian I have ever run into or debated, has ever been willing to consider, that real places and people were peppered into the story after the fact, in retrofitting to lend a false sense of credibility.

We can all prove that Abraham Lincoln was a real person, but nobody sane buys the B-movie crap "Abraham Lincoln. Vampire Slayer".

You could have gone with Spiderman.  Or the Fantastic Four.  Even though there was no Daily Bugle or Baxter Building.  There was a New York.

Superman fought the villains of Metropolis.  And that's why I can't take DC seriously.
Reply
#23
RE: Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
(June 17, 2021 at 7:10 pm)Ranjr Wrote:
(June 17, 2021 at 7:01 pm)Brian37 Wrote: There most certainly are real people and real places mentioned in the NT. But that is misleading. For example, the city of New York existed long before the creation of the comic book character Superman. So by theists logic, Superman is real because after the fact, a comic book writer mentioned/depicted a real city in it's comic book.

No theologian I have ever run into or debated, has ever been willing to consider, that real places and people were peppered into the story after the fact, in retrofitting to lend a false sense of credibility.

We can all prove that Abraham Lincoln was a real person, but nobody sane buys the B-movie crap "Abraham Lincoln. Vampire Slayer".

You could have gone with Spiderman.  Or the Fantastic Four.  Even though there was no Daily Bugle or Baxter Building.  There was a New York.

Superman fought the villains of Metropolis.  And that's why I can't take DC seriously.

You still understood my point. 

There were real cities and real kings mentioned in the NT. But there is absolutely no contemporary evidence that a character named Jesus ever existed. Knowing when the first book was written, which was way after the alleged time the bible claims, would indicate that someone who wrote that first book, simply slapped a popular name on a movement after the fact. Christianity would not exist if a person, or group of people didn't start it. But there is no evidence at all that all the fantastic claims the NT claims ever happened. 

Ancient hero worship was a regional competition, much like Coke and Pepsi or Star Wars vs Star Trek. What better way to draw consumers in to employ popular historical figures, mythologies and legends?

Even Star Wars isn't original. It had the Catholic trinity motif of Obi Wan, Yoda and Anakin, and the Asian/buddhism/zen/Taoism motifs of Yoda. 

Revisionist history always works in retrospect. Even today, try telling a Scientologist their religion was started by a si fi writer.
Reply
#24
RE: Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
(June 8, 2021 at 3:52 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I think that what the story tells Us, some 2,000 years later, is that all four Gospels were written post-70 AD, after the future emperor Titus had laid waste to the city of Jerusalem, and the fledgling Christian community wanted to frame its new religion as being friendly to the Romans, the victors, and hostile to the losers, the Jews.  

I suspect a lot of stuff in the Gospels were put there because of the challenges the Christians faced at the time the Gospels were written.  Which we all know is decades after the supposed death of Christ. Assuming Christ actually existed, it is likely that he had no issues with the scribes or Pharisees. It's more likely that Christians well after Christ's death were butting heads with these particular groups, and so added Christ's spats with these groups to their mythos.

The main trend was gentiles wanting to join, specifically Roman gentiles. So the message was adapted to best take advantage of this trend. Not many Romans wanted the penis surgery as a requirement to join the religion. So, lo and behold... it is revealed... circumcision is not necessary for salvation. The book of Acts is a huge work of revisionism meant to accommodate Roman converts.
Reply
#25
RE: Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
We actually know quite a bit about what christianity was up to in rome, from both sides of the aisle. Christianity spread in rome during a period of famine, plague, and turmoil, in which christians stepped up to offer cakes to the poor where the state had failed.

I'd be worried for secular government today if they hadn't become so fucking stingy in the interim.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
Reply
#26
RE: Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
(June 17, 2021 at 8:57 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(June 8, 2021 at 3:52 pm)Jehanne Wrote: I think that what the story tells Us, some 2,000 years later, is that all four Gospels were written post-70 AD, after the future emperor Titus had laid waste to the city of Jerusalem, and the fledgling Christian community wanted to frame its new religion as being friendly to the Romans, the victors, and hostile to the losers, the Jews.  

I suspect a lot of stuff in the Gospels were put there because of the challenges the Christians faced at the time the Gospels were written.  Which we all know is decades after the supposed death of Christ. Assuming Christ actually existed, it is likely that he had no issues with the scribes or Pharisees. It's more likely that Christians well after Christ's death were butting heads with these particular groups, and so added Christ's spats with these groups to their mythos.

The main trend was gentiles wanting to join, specifically Roman gentiles. So the message was adapted to best take advantage of this trend. Not many Romans wanted the penis surgery as a requirement to join the religion. So, lo and behold... it is revealed... circumcision is not necessary for salvation. The book of Acts is a huge work of revisionism meant to accommodate Roman converts.

When you say "Christians" that is also misleading. If Christians want to claim "Jesus was a Jew", then one can only rightfully claim that there was a Jew who simply started a new splinter sect of Hebrews which eventually became Christianity.

The more I think about all the world's religions, regardless of labels, the more I study them, I always find overlap in claims and motifs to surrounding and prior religions. 

Why is it both Buddhism, and Hinduism share motifs of Dharma, and reincarnation? For the same reason Christians attach the NT to the OT.

Religion is no different than Coke vs Pepsi, Ford Vs Chevy. 

Even the Rasta religion can be traced back to African/Catholic/Jewish traditions.

And as far as the Polytheistic transformation in Rome to Christian monotheism, that was not a divine cause. It was merely political expediency. Any Christian today that wants to argue Jesus was the hero for Rome and Europe because Roman polytheism fell and was replaced by Roman Catholicism, fail to realize that Rome's polytheistic brutality to dissent, was simply replaced by Catholic brutality after polytheism fell. Even today, I find it ironic that the Vatican still uses the Obelisk Caligula stole from Egypt as its symbol of peace in St Peter's Square.
Reply
#27
RE: Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
(June 17, 2021 at 9:28 pm)Brian37 Wrote:



Religion is no different than Coke vs Pepsi, Ford Vs Chevy. 



I don't think religion is caffeinated or carbonated.
 “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” ~Albert Einstein                                                 
Reply
#28
RE: Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
(June 17, 2021 at 10:07 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: I don't think religion is caffeinated...

Well Mormonism certainly isn't.
Reply
#29
RE: Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
(June 17, 2021 at 10:16 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:
(June 17, 2021 at 10:07 pm)arewethereyet Wrote: I don't think religion is caffeinated...

Well Mormonism certainly isn't.

Well played sir.
 “Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I’m not sure about the universe.” ~Albert Einstein                                                 
Reply
#30
RE: Why I can't take the Gospels seriously.
(June 17, 2021 at 10:07 pm)arewethereyet Wrote:
(June 17, 2021 at 9:28 pm)Brian37 Wrote:



Religion is no different than Coke vs Pepsi, Ford Vs Chevy. 



I don't think religion is caffeinated or carbonated.

Yea because water is sooooo new and not older than caffeine or carbonation.

Way to miss my point. 

Religion is a racket, just like any other form of social grouping be it politics, religion or business.

Every religion in the world in human history, is a result of surrounding and prior influences. Just like Coke and Pepsi compete. 

Religion is simply our species excuse to justify social pecking orders. Just like Ford And Chevy don't like the competition of the other.

The "homo"/great ape line of our human species existed long before homo sapiens. Humans existed long before even the first sedentary cities or concepts of farming. Humans existed long before the first written languages, or first written religions.

But one thing that has not changed in evolution, even outside our species, is evolutionary competition. Religion is merely a bullshit human invented placebo to justify social pecking orders. Just like Coke and Pepsi want to dominate each other. But all parties involved failing to understand water existed long before soda or caffeine.
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  The Gospels and the war in Ukraine. Jehanne 15 313 April 7, 2022 at 7:25 am
Last Post: Thumpalumpacus
  Question to theists: When to take the bible literally? T.J. 22 442 November 26, 2021 at 6:14 pm
Last Post: onlinebiker
Question What would it take? Bow Before Zeus 65 7096 December 15, 2017 at 9:49 am
Last Post: Drich
  Is it possible for someone to take away the judgement from God? verbral 31 3178 November 12, 2016 at 10:49 pm
Last Post: Minimalist
  "You, atheists take Bible quotes out of context" mcolafson 61 8328 October 4, 2016 at 3:12 pm
Last Post: CapnAwesome
  Let's see how many apologetics take the bait Joods 127 15080 July 16, 2016 at 10:54 pm
Last Post: Foxaire
  What It Would Take: Or Bullocks To Christianity! Manalive 10 2196 August 21, 2015 at 4:07 am
Last Post: ignoramus
  By all means, please take Christianity seriously Cato 13 3294 June 6, 2015 at 1:55 am
Last Post: Spooky
  What does the (hypothetical) soul take with it? emjay 37 6477 April 14, 2015 at 11:23 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  How Could Anyone Believe the Gospels Are Eywitness Accounts? Jenny A 15 3743 March 1, 2015 at 3:19 pm
Last Post: abaris



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)