I still don't understand why anyone would make up a person like the Biblical Christ..

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Like there was a lot of money and power to be gained from the poor of those days.

Oh please.

The poor remain the power base of organised religions everywhere as they always have.It's no coincidence that religion's membership is growing in the poorest countries. In the richest countries, religion is in decline,and atheism is growing..

Who else do you think makes those areshole televangelists and happy clappy neanderthals so rich?

The only [mainly] bourgeois churches of which I'm aware are Mormons,Church Of England (Episcopalian) and in the US ,Unitarians.

The last time I looked, the poor also vote,in their millions,guided by the subtlty and intellectual depth of Fox News and Sarah Pallin. The blue collar and petite bougeoisie have Oprah to tell them what to think.

Never underestimate the power of the great unwashed when manipulated by clever and cynical people. It is the poor who win revolutions and who do most of the actual dying in all wars. It has always been thus. No gullible poor,no war.

[coffeeveritas]

Everything we believe about the early church tells us.....

(editing mine and bolded)

Yes that is a good point to bring up, history itself is a biased science. Also the our historical data is very incomplete, which means that researchers have to fill in a lot of holes. Which is why you have such wide variances in historical discussions. The best we can offer is the general consensus of historical scholars both Christian and secular, which for some issues is actually the same. So, unless you take the very postmodern perspective that we can know nothing of history, you are left with the facts of history as we know them to the best of our knowledge.

So, secular and Christian sources would say that Greco-Roman culture was heavily shaped by the honor/shame dynamics and being a Christian would have been dishonorable in both Jewish and Roman society. This resulted in the disciples being ostracized from their own people and society at large. Also the only records we have of the original twelve indicate that they were itinerant teachers who were ultimately executed (except for John, and I am keeping in mind that the accounts of some disciples' deaths are somewhat dubious). Basically the disciples were put in a socially undesirable situation by what they taught, and there is no evidence that it benefited them.

As for the scamming televangelists and million pastors, I apologize. That is the complete opposite of the message of the Gospel. Christians should be helping others and enjoying the simple things in life, not scamming people for money. There are much more beautiful and grand things in our universe than just trying to run people over to get cash. These people are just using Christian words while they do whatever they want.

Keep in mind though, there was nothing advantageous about being a Christian until Constantine.

[FoxBlade]

Well I'm new to this thread and I haven't read through it all yet (I will later when I'm not about to go to sleep), so I'll just address the first post of the OP and start from there.

First of all, what about all the fulfilled prophecies from the Old Testament? If we, as skeptics contend, do not really know who wrote the books of the Bible, then how do we know that they "fit in" the prophecies from the Old Testament that were about Christ, to the New Testament?

What prophecies have been fulfilled from the old testament are you specifically talking about?

Secondly, why not make up a messianic figure who would be a politlcal/military deliverer from Rome-which, AFIK, is what the Jews of the time expected the messiah to be. Then we would know that the NT (and the rest of the Bible) to be nonsense. But that is not what we find-we find someone who spoke to a Samaritan woman-when Samaritan's were considered racial half-breeds by the Jews, and a woman's testimony was not considered valid in court at the time.

I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here exactly. Could you be more clear?

With all due respect to everyone on this site, why would any of this be made up???

Jesus isn't actually too different from many other mythological beings in history. For example Horus, Osiris, Krishna, Dionysus, and Jesus Christ all share the same birthday of December 25th.

Horus, Krishna, Buddha, Dionysus, Osiris, and Jesus all performed miracles.

Horus even walked on water, just like Jesus and just like Jesus raised a man from the dead in front of many witnesses.

Buddah, who like Jesus was said to cure lepers and caused the blind to regain their sight.

Dionysus, like Jesus, was also able t o turn water to wine.

Jesus like these other mythological characters has no evidence to suggest he even existed, except of course with regards to the bible - where as far as we know, the story of Jesus supposedly originated.

The bible then isn't really any evidence at all. Why should you or I take anything the bible has to say seriously? Why is Jesus more deserving of special treatment than these other mythological characters?

[Emanuel]

Jesus isn't actually too different from many other mythological beings in history. For example Horus, Osiris, Krishna, Dionysus, and Jesus Christ all share the same birthday of December 25th.

Horus, Krishna, Buddha, Dionysus, Osiris, and Jesus all performed miracles.

Horus even walked on water, just like Jesus and just like Jesus raised a man from the dead in front of many witnesses.

Buddah, who like Jesus was said to cure lepers and caused the blind to regain their sight.

Dionysus, like Jesus, was also able t o turn water to wine.

Jesus like these other mythological characters has no evidence to suggest he even existed, except of course with regards to the bible - where as far as we know, the story of Jesus supposedly originated.

I've did a little search, and got a little list of links regarding the Zeitgeist claims (I suppose this is where you got those claims from, right?). They refute it pretty well.

http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zeit...tone.shtml
http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html
http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/yeshu...opycat.htm
http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html
http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html

The bible then isn't really any evidence at all.

There is a difference between "no evidence" and "no evidence according to my own satisfaction". So the question is rather concerning the quality of the evidence and not whether there is evidence or not.

[The Grand Nudger]

An empty post? (dripping with irony)

[DeistPaladin]

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.

[FoxBlade]

Strange bug in the forum... I see that Emanuel replied but I can't read anything until I quote him... Anyway....

I've did a little search, and got a little list of links regarding the Zeitgeist claims (I suppose this is where you got those claims from, right?). They refute it pretty well.

http://www.preventingtruthdecay.org/zeit...tone.shtml
http://www.tektonics.org/copycathub.html
http://www.messianicart.com/chazak/yeshu...opycat.htm
http://thedevineevidence.com/jesus_similarities.html
http://www.kingdavid8.com/Copycat/Home.html

No actually, I learned about this a few years ago when I was still in college in my Humanity and the Arts classes.

Still, I will check those links later, when I have more free time (right now however, I'll be going to work soon).

There is a difference between "no evidence" and "no evidence according to my own satisfaction". So the question is rather concerning the quality of the evidence and not whether there is evidence or not.

The bible is the source of the story of Jesus, but it is not evidence that Jesus actually existed. It isn't according to my satisfaction that it doesn't count - you can't sight a book as proof something exists when the book has no evidence to back up the claims it makes.

For example, Lord of the Rings - isn't proof that Gandalf exists.

[The Grand Nudger]

http://biblicalprophesyandmythology.runb...1,offset=0

You missed this one Emanuel.

Zeitgeist was a terrible little "documentary", conspiracy nut shit.

On the other hand, it is impossible to argue against the impressive amount of pagan influence in christianity. Until someone gives us reason to believe that Jesus existed as described, then we assume something simpler.

[Minimalist]

Also the only records we have of the original twelve indicate that they were itinerant teachers who were ultimately executed (except for John,

Um, excuse me Coffee but what "records" are those? What we have are stories with as much historical basis as the jesus myth in the first place.

http://www.humanreligions.info/twelve.html

Although many ancient religions such as the Gnostics understood things like the twelve disciples of Mithras to be symbolic of the stages of the waning and waxing sun throughout the year, later religions took it literally and believed in an actual 12 disciples - and some still do.

[Emanuel]

http://biblicalprophesyandmythology.runb...1,offset=0

You missed this one Emanuel.

Zeitgeist was a terrible little "documentary", conspiracy nut shit.

On the other hand, it is impossible to argue against the impressive amount of pagan influence in christianity. Until someone gives us reason to believe that Jesus existed as described, then we assume something simpler.

Thank you for the link.