Malachi151

The mian point here should really be that "Jesus" DIDN'T have a lot of followers.

First of all, there are no first hand accounts of Jesus AT ALL.

Even the Biblical accounts are second hand at best, and just based on general myths and rumors at worst.

So, even if were were to assume that there was a Jesus fellow, he was not popular or well known.

What was popular and well known was the Christian religion, which didn't develop until over 100 years after the supposed death of Jesus.

Jesus didn't make Christianity popular, his followers who never met him did.

Christianity became a mass movement with large numbers of followers around 300 AD, like 350 years AFTER Jesus supposedly lived.

America has only been a nation for 230 years.

So, the real "followers of Jesus" that made this a mass movement would have been like the followers of John Winthrop at best, the founder of Massatchusettes (sp?).

It would be like a present day cult springing up about John Winthrop and people flocking to it. Obviously John Winthrop would really have nothing to do with the development of this cult.

Jesus really has nothing to do with the rise of Chrisitianity, he wasn't even around when it happened, if he was ever around at all.

Christianity rose to power based on stories about Jesus, not under the influence of Jesus.

His Noodly Appendage

Half-life: Scientology.

Scientology is fucking stupid, as I'm pretty sure you'll agree. Yet it has millions of followers worldwide.

If ideas had to be true in order to be widely adopted, scientology would never have got off the ground.

Either scientology is true, or you're wrong about the way ideas spread.

Which is it?

ChandraRama

you forgot the mormon. Everyone knew that is just plain fiction. But it is really funny to see the "mainstream" christians rage against the "mormon" fiction.

And there are lot of mormon intellectuals who justify their religion, is it not so?

FatherMithras

NO. We say you can't trust the Bible because it makes extraordinary claims completely against everything we know about history and nature with exactly no proof any of it is true.

ChandraRama

Same is true of Jesus 1970 years after his supposed death.

ChandraRama

I think the problem for christians is not whether Jesus is a myth or not. The problem is mainly the other factors that go with Christianity. Like the local church, local church priest, some past information from the priests that without the christianity to hold the people together the civilization would fall, the morality stems from the belief from the god and fear of after-death-punishment etc.

All the time, the religion has a strong social dimension and the feeling of community. Atheism does not normally provide that. Most of these people who need attention, social position, who need the pillar to lean on, they would defend their religion despite all the logic against it.

Historical or mythical does not matter here. Hindus know that their gods are mythological. Yet they dont quit their religion as others wish from them.

Doug Shaver

You're right. And I don't assume any such thing.

David B

To believe things in history books, one needs the book, for preference to have as many of these attributes as possible.

It should quote contemporary sources, if any.

It should be compatable with other historical sources of the age - e.g. If contemporary sources of a great English victory over the French fits should fit in with an account of the same battle. Each might put a better gloss on things, it's true - but if the French sources say that their armies were in, say, Bavaria at the time, then something is wrong.

It should be compatable with archaeology - a historical account of a battle should fit in with finds of graves, artifacts, weapons, fortifications.....

and more.

History books do try to fit in with independent corroboration.

But there is no independent corroboration of any supernatural claim in the bible - and there is also evidence that many of the non supernatural accounts in the bible, and alleged prophesies, don't fit other evidence well either.

The bible is a useful tool in studying the history of the Middle East - it can be used to confirm other sources, other sources can sonetimes confirm the bible.

But it ain't history - and especially not as regards supernatural claims.

David B

Doug Shaver

Yes, it seems logical. But I don't believe that is what happened.

Most people, yes, but not everyone. Some people will believe no matter what.

So say a few stories.

Most people are quite unmoved by the laughter of skeptics.

I don't believe he faked anything.

Donnmathan

Another part of what the people here, not ALL of whom are atheists, are saying in regards to that is that using the Bible to prove the Bible is a logical fallacy - circular reasoning. As others have mentioned, one of the best markers for a good history book is outside confirmation of events - such as if all histories from a given period mention a given event, or if archeological evidence can be found. THIS is where the Bible is weak; the argument that the Bible is infallible because the Bible says it is doesn't fly in the minds of most historians and other scientists.

Very little of the events contained in the Bible can be supported by other sources or archeology; it gets some place names correct, and the general outline of a few major events, but tends to add fantastic details and make other claims that have absolutely no backing from outside sources. The best comparison I've ever heard was to a Tom Clancy novel: the place names are right, events that happened before the book was written may be reported factually, but the details and/or the focus events of the book? Not hardly! Instead, the Bible and the Jesus story bear a striking resemblance to Arthurian legend - one part truth, one part pre-existing myth, exaggerate well, add a LOT of political diatribe, bake half way and serve.