It makes no difference if Jesus of Nazareth existed as an individual, a conglomeration of several different people, or was a fictional creation. Paul, f/k/a Saul of Tarsus, started the Christian religion as we know it. The supernatural is still the supernatural -- an unproven imaginary unknown realm.


There is a point to be made about intent. People developed religion as a means to explain Man's relation to the Universe and his place in it -- just like children asking their parents to explain the world to them or asking where did they come from (many religions have a father figure or mother figure at the head of them). Over time, the stories that people told each other to try and explain their existence became the basis for religious belief. As societies change and civilisations rise and fall, religions change as well.


Mormonism didn't begin this way. It was deliberately created as a fraudulent scheme to enrich the conspirators who started it. They took advantage of the Great Awakening and Restorationist religious movements to make a profit. The "Book of Mormon" was originally supposed to be just that -- a book -- and was not intended to be the basis of a new religion.

Imagine if someone today claimed to have found a twelve thousand year old box containing a story written on metal sheets of some hitherto unknown alloy along with a telepathic translation device that turned the undecipherable text into mental impulses sent directly into the brain. They then write this story down and self publish it as book.

The story is revealed to be ancient record containing the written history of the lost city of Atlantis from the founding of the city to its destruction in 10,014 B.C. None of the places, people or events in the text can be located as Atlantis sunk into the sea long, long ago. When the author is asked to show the book he refuses and claims the strange metal upon it was written mysteriously dissolved soon after he finished reading it along with the translation device. Instead, our imaginary author produces a handwritten list of symbols taken from Rongo-Rongo, Linear A, Sumerian Cuneiform, and ancient proto-Chinese as an example of the text. The book doesn't sell very well so the author tries a new tactic. He claims that the "Spirits Of Atlantis" have contacted him and starts a religious movement. You know the rest of the story.

Would you believe any this? Most people would not. Some people might. When Sidney Rigdon, Joseph Smith, et al. tried this almost two hundred years ago they were fortunate enough to live on the American Frontier which was sparsely populated, poorly educated, and in the midst of a religious revival. This is how Mormonism began. It wasn't true in the 1830s and isn't true now.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It makes no difference if Jesus of Nazareth
> existed as an individual, a conglomeration of
> several different people, or was a fictional
> creation. Paul, f/k/a Saul of Tarsus, started the
> Christian religion as we know it. The
> supernatural is still the supernatural -- an
> unproven imaginary unknown realm.


It matters to the extent that Christianity is a complete hoax if Jesus never existed in any form whatsoever. Then again, even if there WAS a Jesus who was simply a regular guy (or two or more guys) that still makes Christianity bogus.

If you had to pick a time in the past where people lived in a way similar to modern life in the industrialised Western world that would be ancient Rome under the Pax Romana. There was trade, commerce, and travel all over the Empire. People exposed to new ideas. Romans participated in all sorts of religious cults. People living in Judea wanted a new form of their religion. Lower classes in the Roman world wanted something that gave them hope and promised a better future. That's how Christianity arose. It isn't any more or less valid than any other religion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/29/2015 05:52AM by anybody.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you had to pick a time in the past where people
> lived in a way similar to modern life in the
> industrialised Western world that would be ancient
> Rome under the Pax Romana. There was trade,
> commerce, and travel all over the Empire. People
> exposed to new ideas. Romans participated in all
> sorts of religious cults. People living in Judea
> wanted a new form of their religion. Lower classes
> in the Roman world wanted something that gave them
> hope and promised a better future. That's how
> Christianity arose. It isn't any more or less
> valid than any other religion.

Christianity took hold because it offered a false hope of a rewarding afterlife for the downtrodden -- and terrifying eternal damnation for rejecting it.

It's no coincidence that the only two religions that offer this paradigm (Christianism and Islamanity) are the world's most successful enterprises.

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_views_on_he
> ll#Hell_in_the_New_Testament

That article makes the typical mistake of claiming Hades to be a place when instead it was the Greek God of the Underworld. He's even portrayed as one of the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse, along with Thanatos, the Greek God of death.

Christians hate to admit that the NT contains honest to god Greek deities in it.

Dark Lord Wrote:
> It matters to the extent that Christianity is a
> complete hoax if Jesus never existed in any form
> whatsoever. Then again, even if there WAS a Jesus
> who was simply a regular guy (or two or more guys)
> that still makes Christianity bogus.

Well, there was no "son of god" magically born of a virgin, who died and then was resurrected.

So it's a complete hoax whether the "teachings" are based on an actual person (or persons) or not.

Still, from the point of view of simple curiosity, it would be nice to know if there was an actual person or persons behind the "jesus teachings." We don't know if there was or not.

I agree that it doesn't matter whether Jesus actually existed or not, though I personally think that the argument for his non-existence is stronger. However, I think that the fact that Christianity could have plausibly begun without Jesus is one of the deathblows to Christianity. In my opinion, the religion is useless without a real figure and physical atonement, so the idea that it could have started without a physical crucifixion just makes it even less likely to be true.
The whole reason the argument is important and needs to take place is because of the belief in a real Jesus. If it were to become the consensus that he didn't exist, it will cause many people to rethink their religious beliefs, which can only be a good thing, regardless of whether they maintain their beliefs or not.

bakagayjin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I agree that it doesn't matter whether Jesus
> actually existed or not, though I personally think
> that the argument for his non-existence is
> stronger. However, I think that the fact that
> Christianity could have plausibly begun without
> Jesus is one of the deathblows to Christianity.
> In my opinion, the religion is useless without a
> real figure and physical atonement, so the idea
> that it could have started without a physical
> crucifixion just makes it even less likely to be
> true.
> The whole reason the argument is important and
> needs to take place is because of the belief in a
> real Jesus. If it were to become the consensus
> that he didn't exist, it will cause many people to
> rethink their religious beliefs, which can only be
> a good thing, regardless of whether they maintain
> their beliefs or not.

Very true. I notice on this board that there are many who vehemently defend the idea of a historical Jesus, even resorting to lies in doing so.

But the core belief of Christianity -- that God fathered himself as a human to have himself killed in order to save us from the Hell he himself created -- is so absurd in the first place that even if there WAS a Jesus the faith would be too ridiculous to be valid.

"that God fathered himself as a human to have himself killed in order to save us from the Hell he himself created"

This too is also a later concept

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "that God fathered himself as a human to have
> himself killed in order to save us from the Hell
> he himself created"
>
> This too is also a later concept


It is? What was the original concept?

Arguably, the original concept was that an angel from the seventh heaven secretly descended through the seven layers of the sky. Satan was tricked into killing this angel, so that the angel would get access to the underworld where, as an angel of the seventh heaven, he had the power to free the prisoners from death.

To me that makes much more sense than a god that had to kill his "only begotten son" to appease himself.

The Invisible Green Potato Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Arguably, the original concept was that an angel
> from the seventh heaven secretly descended through
> the seven layers of the sky. Satan was tricked
> into killing this angel, so that the angel would
> get access to the underworld where, as an angel of
> the seventh heaven, he had the power to free the
> prisoners from death.
>
> To me that makes much more sense than a god that
> had to kill his "only begotten son" to appease
> himself.

It does, but it's still pretty damn crazy. I wonder how it is that people can't distinguish this hokum from Aesop's Fables and Grimm's Fairy Tales.... I mean, how do they decide one load of hooey is real while another is not?

"This Was Your Life!" by Jack Chick
https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.asp

anybody Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> "This Was Your Life!" by Jack Chick
> https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0001/0001_01.
> asp

Oh, those things! I've been wanting to get a set of those as PDF. I find them perversely entertaining.

and I love those goofy things as well. I recall the National Lampoon made a spoof pamphlet called "Head Shop or Dead Shop?" in which boys were tricked by a Satanic head shop owner with a beard. He baited them to damnation with Black Sabbath and Blue Oyster Cult albums.

JS was clearly a conmen. He knew his stories were fabricated. Paul may well have been a conman himself. If so, it wasn't as obvious as Joseph's con. Maybe he wasn't as creative, or maybe there is not enough of a historical record to show it was a scheme.

I don't think religions arose primarily as a way to answer life's questions. Most of the great religions of Eurasia all arose within a few hundred years of each other, if you consider Islam and Christianity as offshoots of Judahism. Writing spread around the world in roughly 1,000 BCE, and most of the Eurasian religions we have today either came into existence, or had their books of scripture created in about 600 BCE, give or take.

Even Greek secular humanism, the belief that mathematical laws controlled the universe, not supernatural gods, started at that time. The Egyptian religion was the one major exception, starting some centuries earlier, but a large complex society started earlier there too.
Six hundred BCE was about the beginning of The Iron Age. Iron is difficult to make, and requires a large, complex society. Religions developed as the social glue that held societies together, and the ones that survived until today are the ones that came to power at the start of the Iron Age. Buddhism, Hinduism, religions of the Old Testament, Confucianism, Taoism.

The big religions rose with iron. They started to collapse with the invention of printing. The Holy Roman Empire fell apart almost immediately after Gutenburg, and Christianity has been on a downhill slide ever since. The Industrial Revolution and The Enlightenment sped the process up, and the Information Age will do it in, as well as all other religions.

I think the violence that Islam is experiencing is a realization by part of the culture that collapse is imminent. They are right, and they won't be able to stop it. The glue that held societies together for over 2,000 years is either not necessary or not effective in the Information Age. The times they are a changing.

I find it a bit odd that posters here can decidedly declare the reasons for the growth of Christianity with little proof aside from their own reasoning. And then in the same post deride the posters who are equally decided that Jesus existed, because the only proof they have is their own reasoning.

The development of religion and it's offshoots isn't all that mysterious. Nor might I add is it all that malicious. Throw in a heavy helping of cultural influences, a dash of the ebb and flow of political powers, a heaping spoon of your neighbor's traditions, and a couple of smart people and you have a new religion.

Christianity was simply the next logical step in the evolution of god. Greek, Roman, Egyptian, Jewish, Persian, and Harappan religions were already highly integrated first by Alexander and then by Augustus. The integration was pretty damn rocky and given religious adherents proclivity to believe themselves right, there was a political need to create a state religion. Sadly, Christian god is the most logical of all of the illogical gods and so he won. I imagine that if Jupiter and the Roman pantheon made a lick of sense that the Roman religion would have won out.

We are witnesses today to the next step in the evolution of god. Christianity has already established that a corporeal god cannot be god, now religious adherents everywhere are coming to realize that an institutionalized god is just as stupid as Zeus. Not affiliated is the fastest growing religion for a good reason. Nor will religion ever really go away. I can imagine in the distant future that spiritualists will worship logic and control of emotions alla Spock, or they might circle back to worshiping/respecting their heritage and the earth. My belief is that if it doesn't make sense it will be replaced when it comes to religion.

As far as Jesus goes, I consider Jesus' life a seminal event in the history of the world which I know. Thus the development of the stories surrounding him and his existence are very important to me. I don't believe anything that is said about him, but I cannot rule out that a man named Jesus or something similar might have been the catalyst of the early Christian religion.


Sorry this is a bit jumbled and I am far from decided on any of my opinions but it is how I see it today.

jacob Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
I don't believe anything that is
> said about him, but I cannot rule out that a man
> named Jesus or something similar might have been
> the catalyst of the early Christian religion.
>

He was invented as a way of destabilzing the Messianic Jews of Judea. If they thought their Messiah had already come and gone 50 years earlier, they had far less motivation to fight the Romans.

dark lord Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> He was invented as a way of destabilzing the
> Messianic Jews of Judea. If they thought their
> Messiah had already come and gone 50 years
> earlier, they had far less motivation to fight the
> Romans.


Absent any specific evidence to support this, you're just expressing an opinion. And you criticize Christians for believing things without proof?

Pot meet kettle.

I believe he is referring to "Caesar's Messiah" which puts forth the ridiculous notion that the Flavian emperors and Josephus invented Jesus to pacify the Jews. If true,it was a monumental failure and one has to wonder why the Romans persecuted Christians if they invented the movement.

bona dea unregisteted Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I believe he is referring to "Caesar's Messiah"
> which puts forth the ridiculous notion that the
> Flavian emperors and Josephus invented Jesus to
> pacify the Jews. If true,it was a monumental
> failure and one has to wonder why the Romans
> persecuted Christians if they invented the
> movement.

And once again, a theory with absolutely zero evidence to support it. It seems that in these circles, the only theories that demand actual evidence are those that tend to support the actual historical record.

Lol. Someone could use some history classes along with basic logic.

You've been reported.

does not the "Romans really screwed up when they killed the Christians" thing fairly well reflect the "Romans really screwed up when they killed Christ" thing......... ? I mean, is not that how the story goes at that point? -the Romans were really screwing until they supposedly got it right. That's a way to build drama and generate hype for a story.

Ideological MONUMENTS to the idiocy of humanity: Who ever could / would have guessed that masses of people were gullible enough that the Fraud of Christianity would persist for over 2000 years ?

Who ever could/ would have guess that masses of people were retarded enough that the Fraud of MORmONISM would last for nearly 200 years?

Even as a relatively uneducated and ignorant person, it became glaringly OBVIOUS to me that the New Testament is a propagandist narrative, NOT an actual historical account of deity stuck in a mortal body. Then there is the huge glaring ownership gap between the New Test and the Old Test. The Jews view the New Testament in the same way that MORmONS view the Book Of MORmON musical. There is a reason for that !

smirkorama Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> does not the "Romans really screwed up when they
> killed the Christians" thing fairly well reflect
> the "Romans really screwed up when they killed
> Christ" thing......... ? I mean, is not that how
> the story goes at that point? -the Romans were
> really screwing until they supposedly got it
> right. That's a way to build drama and generate
> hype for a story.
>
> Ideological MONUMENTS to the idiocy of humanity:
> Who ever could / would have guessed that masses of
> people were gullible enough that the Fraud of
> Christianity would persist for over 2000 years ?
>
> Who ever could/ would have guess that masses of
> people were retarded enough that the Fraud of
> MORmONISM would last for nearly 200 years?
>
> Even as a relatively uneducated and ignorant
> person, it became glaringly OBVIOUS to me that the
> New Testament is a propagandist narrative, NOT an
> actual historical account of deity stuck in a
> mortal body. Then there is the huge glaring
> ownership gap between the New Test and the Old
> Test. The Jews view the New Testament in the same
> way that MORmONS view the Book Of MORmON musical.
> There is a reason for that !

Very refreshing to see an intelligent comment here at last. Thanks Christ!

Couldn't have put it any better!

Too bad there isn't an "Evolve" switch on humans.

This may be slightly off topic, but this and another topic about the poor quality of TV programs, which failed to mention religious fare, almost none of which discusses or debates the actual history of religion, makes me think -

TV is the latest, greatest machine of the gods. Not so funny now, that it's called "programming."

and controversial hot-button issues are avoided like the plague -- until they are "safe" enough for the network TV family audience.

If the Romans hadn't killed Jesus, he would have died a natural death.

If the Romans hadn't promoted Xianity, it would have died a natural death.

Stupid Romans.

The Romans are upon you!

...We are amongst them.