The Cult of Christ

Pompey Magnus

Hivemind187 wrote: »

I'm also still waiting for physical evidence of the man. Or useful historical evidence of a single individual as described outside of the Bible.

But if you take that stance then it should mean that you apply it consistently to historical figures. For example it would mean you would have to also disbelieve the existence of Caesar's general Mark Anthony because of the poor evidence detailing his existence and the same for pretty much every accepted historcial figure.

rockbeer

Gareth37 wrote: »

Pray to Our Lady for the Holy Spirit and you will be granted the grace of God.

Don't get caught up in work, money, fornication, drinking, drugs and the brainwashing that goes with these.

Don't be fooled that by the virtue of science and discovery that its ok to forget about God. No matter how much you try to disown God, He will never leave you. Its never too late to repent and no matter how much you try to ignore God He will not be leave you.

Thanks for the lecture Gareth - I'll continue to do exactly what I consider best, just as I always have, but cheers anyway.

Why pick on me? I'm struggling to see how what you say is any kind of reply to that apparently random quote about sketchy evidence.

rockbeer

King Arthur is another interesing example of this kind of thing. Surrounded by legend and mythology, a hero in the collective memory, and yet not a shred of solid evidence for his existence.

The thing is, these stories start from somewhere, they don't just appear out of the blue. So it's actually more plausible to accept the likelihood of a historical figure than not, because without one you're still faced with the problem of where it all began.

The bizarre thing is how easily people are willing to suspend their critical faculties and accept fiction as fact. It's not just christians either. Go to Glastonbury and marvel at the Arthurian cult. It seems that people just need to believe in something.

MrDaithi

I don't have a problem being 100% certain that god does not exist and is the delusion of a guy called Jesus who did exist 2000 or so years go.

And there is a lot of evidence showing the Jesus wasn't Caucasian looking, that he had brothers and sisters and the church removed any mention of them in the texts. Also, the fact Mary was so young and Joseph was way older is creepy even in those days, I guess holy impregnation was more acceptable.

asdasd

I don't have a problem being 100% certain that god does not exist and is the delusion of a guy called Jesus who did exist 2000 or so years go.

Jesus hardly invented God, now did he?

And there is a lot of evidence showing the Jesus wasn't Caucasian looking,

Not really. He probably looked like a modern Jew.

that he had brothers and sisters and the church removed any mention of them in the texts.

until you came along ang found out the truth!
James is clearly mentioned as the brother of Jesus in Gallatians.

Also, the fact Mary was so young and Joseph was way older is creepy even in those days, I guess holy impregnation was more acceptable.

No it was standard enough. She was 14. People lived shorter lives. That was an acceptable age for bethroal.

asdasd

By the way I am not a Christian. However there are as amny myths amongst Atheists, badly learned nonsense about the Church manipulating texts etc. and so on which are clearly believed on faith

Dades

Gareth37 wrote: »

Pray to Our Lady for the Holy Spirit and you will be granted the grace of God....

Leave your placard at the door. Post something relevant to the thread, or not at all.

DapperGent wrote: »

That's not what he said. Also you're being a dickhead.

DapperGent taking a short break from A&A.

selephonic

I think the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus was, as has been pointed out, a collection of myths from a similar period. This created character was then consolidated by the Roman empire so as to extend their reach from the physical to the spiritual, something which continues to this day in the form of the pope.

There are of course all of the parallels between the supposed life of the Jeesus character and the lives of previous pagan demi-gods and sungods like Krisna, Dionysius and Osiris. It could be argued that Jesus was a reimagining of these myths to capture a new audience and consolidate the old one.

I certainly can't bring myself to believe that the biblical Jesus existed.

asdasd

I think the most reasonable explanation is that Jesus was, as has been pointed out, a collection of myths from a similar period.

who pointed that out? This thread is hopeless.

link8r

asdasd wrote: »

badly learned nonsense about the Church manipulating texts etc. and so on which are clearly believed on faith

Are you saying the church didn't manipulate texts ? How do you translate a document from Aramaic into Latin and then into English without manipulating it? Take "Holy Blood - Holy Grail" - the Aramaic (I think) for Grail is the same as it is for blood, yet in English there are two distinct words - the translator had to pick and therefore took the text into a distinct and separate path from the other literal translation (which he could have been right or wrong).

Secondly, it is document fact supported by both the Church and Atheists that the modern bible was assembled from different books and many items were intentionally discarded. IMHO: IF the bases for the bible is that it's the Word of God, it was the hand of man that cobbled it together - whether I believe in God or not, the bible certainly isnt a good place to start

Pompey Magnus

link8r wrote: »

Take "Holy Blood - Holy Grail" - the Aramaic (I think) for Grail is the same as it is for blood, yet in English there are two distinct words - the translator had to pick and therefore took the text into a distinct and separate path from the other literal translation (which he could have been right or wrong).

From what I remember that was French I think, something like San Graal meaning Holy Grail and Sang Raal meaning Royal Blood. These were translations of the medieval Grail stories and weren't Biblical translations (the Holy Grail is never mentioned in the Bible)

That said you are correct that the early Christians did change scripture to suit their own viewpoints, this is pretty much indisputed.

link8r

Yes sorry, I stand corrected it was the French wording in relation to Blood/Grail!