Eudaimonist

Perhaps. Perhaps not. I find that the Greek philosophers had much more to say, even individually, and I think their ideas have influenced modern thought in a profound way that a few parables from Jesus simply have not. Of course, Christianity itself was influenced by Greek philosophy, especially Plato and (later) Aristotle, and Christianity has been very influential in passing on those (modified) Greek ideas.

There is no doubt that Jesus is thought very highly by Christians. So Socrates counts for nothing? Aristotle is just a drop in the bucket compared to Jesus? They have influenced you far more than you guess.

I could even more easily say that the Greeks (even Socrates alone) split western history into two parts.

History is full of equally preposterous claims. Consider the Egyptian god-pharoahs. Jesus has no monopoly on this.

Hardly a fact.

Not so. The body (if there was an historical Jesus, and I'm not convinced there was) could not be brought everywhere, many would think it a hoax-Jesus anyway, and some would continue to believe on faith in spite of any evidence to the contrary!

If someone had found a body that was supposedly the historical Jesus (because of an inscription, let's say), would you cease to believe he rose from the dead? Would this evidence sway your faith? Be honest.

A myth in whole or in part. Not necessarily for evil reasons. There were many "resurrected savior" religions back then. They were quite popular. I guess many people had a taste for them.

Ron Garrett

Excerpted from Koy's masterful response: Precisely this issue is the one most damning and damaging to Josh McDowell's trilemma argument. He makes much of the fact of the seriousness of guard duty at the tomb. Tht failure meant death, that the tomb would have been sealed with an imperail seal, etc. etc. But the fact that the women arrive to find an open, unguarded tomb with a stranger sitting in it pretty much gives the lie to the notion that the tomb was guarded at all or that anyone expected Yeshua to get up from the dead. If there ever was a Jesus and there ever was a body, it seems pretty clear that anyone who wandered along had access to the tomb.

gixxer750

Just making a quick post to let you know that I am not a "hit-and-runner". Its a shame that there are so many, but then this is the atheist website, and Christians do tend to get overwhelmingly teamed up on here. Anyway thank you all for your posts, especially Koyaanisqatsi - I will read your post again before even trying to respond.

Allow me to respectfully withdraw the statement "Jesus was the most influential man ever". It is clouding my real question. And I would like to add another question. Koyaan, you probably already answered this, but like I said I have to reread your post. Why is it that the New Testament gospels are treated as cult mythology, and not as historical documents? Is it because of their bias? If so, suppose that I tell you that I tell you that Canada beat the U.S. for the olympic gold in hockey. Does it matter if I am a Canadian?

I never intended to get into the "trilemma" argument - I am aware of the other possibilities. I am just curious what your thoughts are on the man, Jesus. So far it seems that the most common opinion is that he was deified by Paul, who, of course, was in it for the money. Forgive my light-heartedness.

Also, please don't knit-pick if I have used the wrong word or phrase. I haven't gone over it with a fine-toothed comb, it is just the general idea I wanted to ask - what is it that you think about Jesus?

One question I feel the need to respond to:
Honestly, I would need more evidence than that. Christ has impacted my life more than anything else (Yes, I said Christ, not my "pre-conceived, cultist, mythological notions about a misrepresented man"), and I would give him the benefit of the doubt if such a discovery were made. Ever seen the movie "The Body"? It's a good one about just that. Let me know if you want me to explain further. IF it could be conclusively proven that the body of Christ were found, and the discovery was verified over a period of time - it would absolutley shake up everything I believe and know. I cannot honestly say that I would remain a Christian, if such a discovery were made.

More l8r.

Kosh

I think you just made our point for us! A more
accurate statement is that the half of the NHL
players (several of whom were from the best
Hockey team there is, the Avalanche (5 bucks says
you can't guess where I live!)) which played
for Cananda beat the other half of the NHL players
(several of whom were from the best hockey team
there is, the Avalanche) who played for the USA.

The NHL players who played for Cananda will now
be used to further national pride.

Of course, since the first Gospel(Mark) was
written 40 years after the alleged incident, there's no way a body could ever
have been found. Please don't confuse the early
movement, inspired by Paul with very little
details of the passion narrative, with the
later tradition introduced by Mark.

ImGod

Please define your version of the historical New Testament. I have read multiple English versions of the NT that deliver different meanings depending on whether the Greek text was transliterated or translated for meaning. Several of the versions I own are actually translations of translations.

The problem with the historical accuracy of these texts is that they were written hundreds of years after the alleged occurrence, and then edited by thousands of biblical instead of historical scholars. These groups used numerous councils to define the "facts", and failed to add or reference the texts or passages from era that they felt did not apply to their cannon of the bible.

The most important step I made when leaving the church was realizing the truth I was using as a life basis was actually a truth defined by man and not god. The historical references you refer to are at best a selective history. Selective history is not history it's propaganda.

Godless Dave

Unlike some others, I agree with most of this. The concepts of respect for individual life and strength through weakness and/or forgiveness come to Western culture through the teachings of Jesus, as reported in the gospels. However, this is not in any way proof of his divinity. I think it likely, but not definite, that the historical Jesus existed and taught many of these things. Later followers deified him, either because they were traumatized by his death or because they felt that was a more effective way of spreading his message. The same thing happened to Buddha, who personally had no use for gods and did not wish to be worshipped, but who ended up having statues made of him after his death.

First of all, we don't know that he made that claim. As many others have noted, the gospels were written decades after his death. It was common practice through much of history to put words in the mouths of the person being written about. Livy's "The War With Carthage" has several long speeches attributed to Hannibal, even though there was no way Livy could have gotten verbatim accounts of those speeches. Also see above where I discuss Jesus's deification by his followers.

And he certainly wouldn't be the first or last to make that claim or have it made for him. It was common to deify important historical figures.

I disagree. Mormonism has spread despite the fact that no one has produced the bronze tablet Joseph Smith claimed to have dug out of a hill. Keep in mind that the people of the ancient world had no newspapers or TV. Say some guy comes into your village in Greece with a story of a guy who was crucified and resurrected 20 years ago, hundreds of miles away. You have no way to verify it. Again, the early Christians, the ones who witnessed Jesus's execution, may have just been spreading his message, and the resurrection stories added later by people who hadn't been there.

Mohammed claimed to speak for God. Millions of people believe him. So I assume you believe everything in the Koran?

Given its similarity to other myths of that time and place, it's reasonable to conclude that much of the story is mythical. It may have been made up by early Christians (remember there was no unified church when the gospels were written, despite what some Catholics will tell you) to spread Jesus's message, not necessarily to control people.

Again, we don't know who he said he was. He could have been both charasmatic and delusional, or charasmatic and a liar, like many influential holy men. Or he could have been a mortal man with a message, which was later distorted by his followers, as some Christians believe.

Because they contain stories of raising the dead, walking on water, and turning water to wine. If I see stories like that in Greek, Persian, or Scandanavian writings, I assume they are mythical. Why should I treat the New Testament differently?

I've used this example before, but I like it. Homer's "The Iliad" offers an account of the Trojan War. Some details in the story match up with what we know from archeaology of the historical events. Other parts of the story discuss the involvement of the gods in the conflict. Would you accept "The Iliad" as a completely historical account?

And some of the gospels contradict each other. How can it be historically accurate if it isn't internally consistent?

There's a big difference. I can verify your story about Canada beating the US hockey team. I have seen other Olympic hockey games, so the idea of one team beating another does not strain credibility. The same cannot be said about the accounts in the New Testament.

And please allow me to rephrase this question:
Suppose someone found incontrovertible evidence that Jesus was not resurrected. Would that decrease the value of his teachings? Why? I don't believe in the divinity of Jesus, but I'm happy to follow his teachings on how to treat other people. Why do you need to believe in the divinity and resurrection to follow his teachings? And isn't there a danger that you will ignore the teachings of other great people (Buddha, Gandhi, Martin Luther King) because you think Jesus was divine and they were not? And won't believing in his divinity impair your ability to question and critically analyze some of his teachings?

I suggest you learn more about other religions. This will help you gain perspective on Christianity. Many of the things you seem to think are unique to Christianity are common to other religions.

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Godless Dave ]</p>

Eudaimonist

So would many of the early Christians, having been shown the alleged body of Jesus by the Romans in their effort to quell belief in a bodily resurrection. Do you get my point?

I thank you for your honesty.

Jamie_L

The article that best sums up my current beliefs about Jesus is this one:

<a href="http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html" target="_blank">http://www.atheists.org/church/didjesusexist.html</a>

The point of the article, and my position is that Jesus is a fictional character. Or more acurately, a mythical character.

Whatever influence this myth has had on the world does not really add any weight to whether or not it is true.

Jamie

sidewinder

He is considered by all the Christians who came after him to be the most influential man to ever walk the earth. Christianity is a religion about Jesus, not the religion of Jesus. He is only influential because many people claim he is influential. There's nothing profound about his teachings. Most of them are very specific to his time and location, and largely deal with beliefs of an ancient religion. Most Christians don't seem to follow his teachings because if they did they would live pretty lowly lives, which is how Jesus called his followers to live. Christians follow Paul's teachings, which are teachings about Jesus and not the teachings of Jesus.

Jesus preached a simple message of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. The gospels and the rest of the NT all contain the idea that the Kingdom of God (aka the return of Jesus) was going to come very soon.

The kingdom didn't come, the gentiles took over Christianity after 70AD, and the rest is history. I don't understand why it's so hard for people to plainly see that Jesus was wrong in his prediction of the imminent coming of the Kingdom of God. It's right in the "divine scriptures."

Jesus didn't split history at all. The Christians who came after him invented the whole religious system around his name.

The canonical gospels do contain some history but they are primarily religious writings. The writers of these documents wrote for their 1st century church communities.

Jesus was not a liar, lunatic, or a god. He was simply mistaken. He sincerely believed he was a prophet of Yahweh. He believed that Yahweh was going to bring the Kingdom of God to Earth, probably during his ministry, or after he realized that he was going to die, shortly after he died.

Koyaanisqatsi

Well, for several reasons. First and foremost, they are written decades after any alleged events yet in a style as if the authors are actually eyewitnesses; eyewitnesses to events that they could not possibly have been present for, such as Jesus' temptation in the wilderness.

The apologetic "spin" to this has always been that the authors were "inspired by God," which is just childish. The authors of the passion narratives are all following a certain literary style very popular among Hellenistic authors, so just by the style alone can we conclude mythology.

The other obvious evidence for mythology instead of historical documentation is the fact that the authors tell us about a trial that never would have happened and the freeing of a convicted criminal at Passover that was never a Roman tradition and the depiction of Pilate as a concerned, pro-Jesus figure who pronounces Jesus innocent and then murders him under Roman law, that the dead were risen from their graves and walked into town (an event that surely would have been recorded by someone other than a synoptic author), etc., etc.

In other words, they cannot be considered historical documents based solely on the fact that not a one of them accurately depicts rather basic, banal historical events, setting aside entirely the preposterous stories of a "son of god" dying and then resurrecting.

Partly, but more because of what they wrote. Have you ever read an historical account of the dead rising from their graves outside of mythology/fiction (by a reputable historian/journalist, of course)?

Not at all. If, however, you told us that Canada beat the U.S. for the Olympic gold in skeeball (an event that is not an Olympic event), then your claim would come under serious scrutiny. If you further claimed that Canada had beat the U.S. for the Olympic gold in skeeball as a direct result of the Yeti’s supernatural influence out of its love for Canada, well, I think you see where I'm going with this.

See how easy it was to determine what was possible fact and what was obvious fiction in just this little snippet above? Apply the same process to the NT and you'll get the same result we do.

Hard to say, considering there is little to no information on the man, which is why one would need to go as far back into the chronology as possible and start from there, which would mean an analysis of the Sayings Gospel Q (which yields no deity) and/or the earliest alleged Jesus cults, like the Gnostics. You'd also have to review the Essenes, since they are the ones who most likely influenced the authors of the synoptics and spoke about a "righteous one" that is the Messiah who gets killed as a sacrifice for man's sins long before 70 AD.

Personally, I believe Jesus was an extraordinary and controversial Rabbi that taught the overthrow of oppression in whatever form (Roman, primarily, Sanhedrin secondarily) and was arrested for military insurrection against the Roman occupation by the Romans. I seriously doubt there was any consideration or collusion whatsoever between the Sanhedrin and the Romans and that Jesus was nothing more than local Gandhi who tried to teach his followers that man is not subject to the oppression of other men. For his seditious and probably militaristic action against the Roman occupation (and not the temple or anything to do with Judaism, which the Romans wouldn't give a flying "f" about) they killed him.

Decades later, his followers created a mythology around him in order to challenge the ruling cult leaders as all cults do and they used Jesus as their rallying cry, progressively concocting a grander and grander mythology of a warrior-deity that came to Earth to spread a message of love and salvation and was betrayed and murdered by his own people, i.e., the leaders this faction is trying to split from.

It's called demonizing the enemy and it's as old as the hills; certainly by no means unique or surprising to the region.

The difference was, of course, that this mythology was pro Roman; it cuddled up to the oppressor (in direct opposition to what Jesus did, but then he's not important, just the mythology is to a cult) and presented itself as the anti-Jewish Judaism; the new Jew! Friendlier, more open to outsiders, openly and brazenly pro-Roman, with the direct promise of salvation by simply believing!

No more lifelong studying of the Torah and waiting for Emmanuel; he came, he conquered and he resurrected! Now, join up with us since we just made a deal with Constantine and our stock is going to go threw the roof!

It's not rocket science and it has absolutely nothing to do with anything spiritual at all. It is, in fact, business as usual.

And Jesus wept.

Nothing to forgive. Sounds just about right to me. Perhaps not "in it for the money," but in it for the power.

He wouldn't be the first or last and his fingerprints are literally all over the creation and promulgation of this pro-Roman/anti-Jewish faction. Talk about collusion!

Remember that the New Testament was supposed to be the fulfillment of Jewish prophecy; the fulfillment of Jewish myth, setting the chosen people free. That's the whole basis for the claim that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah and the alleged authority that backs up the story.

If you can tell me what was pro-Jewish about the NT and how the coming of Elijah/Emmanuel freed the Jews from oppression, which is what was supposed to happen the minute the Messiah came, then by all means, go right ahead.

There are no conditions to that, by the way. Elijah appears and all Jews are saved, not, Elijah appears and only those who believe he is Elijah are saved. And there sure as shit wouldn't have been any kind of collusion with the Romans (either directly or indirectly) involved!

So, you tell me. On the one hand, you've got thousands of years of Jewish mythology and Roman occupation wherein the Jews were murdered almost for sport by Pilate; on the other you've got anti-Jewish/pro-Roman authors writing stories that make no historical sense about a Jewish Messiah all but publicly deified by Pilate, whose arrival does the exact opposite of what it is supposed to do for the chosen people at the exact same time that the Romans mass murder the Jews in the region.

Historical document or pro-Roman/anti-Jewish propaganda?

I think you should know that by now.

Well, I know you've tried to qualify that, but honestly, how could you so qualify that? You don't even know who wrote the stories about this "Christ" let alone which version you are reading. Is it revision number one hundred and thirty three thousand nine hundred and forty four? There have been, supposedly, over 200,000 variations of the NT books over the centuries. Today we have, what, seven different Bibles?

Honestly, you simply can't make such a declaration and that is not nit picking.

The best you could possibly say is that the stories you personally have read and/or heard read to you in Church, depict a person you think is worthy of your worship simply because you want someone or something to worship.

Otherwise, a body that is found with such an inscription that could be reasonably verified by all of the usual processes would have to be compelling proof that no bodily resurrection ever took place (at the very least).

I know you're trying to be as honest as you can be, but perhaps now you'll see how powerful cult indoctrination can be, even when you are trying to be forthright and self-critical.

Why? Because that's what you were told are the conditions, which, in turn, is further proof of your cult indoctrination instead of your own personal beliefs. Why not believe that Jesus was an extraordinary teacher who was killed for his attempts to overthrow a repressive regime? A spiritual man who tried to teach desperate, superstitious people that the questions they sought could be found within themselves?

That is a man worthy of honoring. Worshipping? No. Honoring and wanting to be like and live your life accordingly, yes. But the key is to remember the humanity and discard the deity as so much childish and/or deliberate cult nonsense.

If you can see Jesus as a man who spoke out against oppression in all its forms and the subjugation of man by man in all its forms and the understanding that the "eternal good and the eternal evil" are within us all and we are all therefore responsible for what we do to one another, then you've got a worthy man to emulate and even tell your children about.

Turn him into a fairy tale who trifurcates into flesh in order to die as a sacrifice to himself in order to save us all from himself, blah, blah, blah and you're a cult member indoctrinating your children into the cult.

(edited for lysdexia - Koy)

[ March 18, 2002: Message edited by: Koyaanisqatsi ]</p>