Atheism and irreligion thread

[myownlittleusername]

True, but most biblical scholars are Christian.

Perhaps, have no idea myself. Do you have any data on that?

Still, I would assume it refers to serious scholars and not those buying into the fairy tales.
Most medical doctors are likely also nominally Christian, but we mostly assume they do proper medicine even so and do not resort to faith healing and the like.

But it is really all an argument of logic. There is no real evidence for him.

There's not much real evidence for most things going that far back apparently. Even for e.g. Hannibal there's no contemporary sources left, so can't expect much for a minor rabble raiser from a backwater on the edges of the empire like Jesus.

A key tool for historians is critical reading of the available sources, and in the case of Jesus that does include the bible texts as well.

[Kirby101]

Perhaps, have no idea myself. Do you have any data on that?

Still, I would assume it refers to serious scholars and not those buying into the fairy tales.
Most medical doctors are likely also nominally Christian, but we mostly assume they do proper medicine even so and do not resort to faith healing and the like.



There's not much real evidence for most things going that far back apparently. Even for e.g. Hannibal there's no contemporary sources left, so can't expect much for a minor rabble raiser from a backwater on the edges of the empire like Jesus.

A key tool for historians is critical reading of the available sources, and in the case of Jesus that does include the bible texts as well.

I agree. I know that the field leans toward an actual figure. But I was reading an article recently from a pro-mythical scholar and I can see the logic in their argument as well. I guess I am agnostic about it. I just am certain that what ever the origin, real man or co-opted myth, almost the entirety of the Gospels is myth. Which to me is the more important aspect of it.

[Moon Ronin]

I agree. I know that the field leads toward an actual figure. But I was reading an article recently from a pro-mythical scholar and I can see the logic in their argument as well. I guess I am agnostic about it. I just am certain that what ever the origin, real man or co-opted myth, almost the entirety of the Gospels is myth. Which to me is the more important aspect of it.

George Washington never chopped down his father's cherry tree and proclaimed the moral “I cannot tell a lie”. That story was put out in 1809 by Parson Weems 10 years after Washington's death and has been taught in schools as actual history. There are people to this day that believe it to be true. It is a good example of how myths can follow a person that actually lived. The Christian movement was set off by something so the likelihood of a "Jesus" like person or even a group of people is there. The idea of a radical rabbi that pushed against the Pharisees during the time of Roman occupation is really not that far fetched.

One of the points is that Christianity was not developed under Jesus, it came after. The political climate also needs to be looked at much like the change in the Israelites religion during and after the time of Babylonian exile and occupation as it would seem that many in the region believed that the Roman Empire was bringing about the end of the world especially with the Temple's destruction in Jerusalem. Group this with the Paulian ideas that "faith alone" in such a polarizing radical rabbi that was most like boosted up with myths not unlike George Washington with no other requirement boom, you have a bonified movement. Ironically it is the Romans that molded and shaped it 100s of years later to more of what we have today.

[Kirby101]

No, but the farther removed that person is from what is in the New Testament, the less we can call him the historical Jesus. There is this, perhaps there was a man named Yeshua that whoever started this religion based the stories on. But since the myths also borrow from other religions, we have no idea if any of the Gospel stories actually occurred. And it could have been more than one person as well. So we are left with a radical rabbi, who after his death, someone wrote something about him (the hypothesized Q documents) and then the game of telephone went on with Mark and all the others.

[seismic-2]

It should be remembered that most of the New Testament was written by Paul, who never met Jesus (except in a vision). Much of what we know as "Christianity" is in fact "Paulinism". So there was a historical figure who was instrumental in creating the Christian religion, but it wasn't the person that most people think.

[Kirby101]

It should be remembered that most of the New Testament was written by Paul, who never met Jesus (except in a vision). Much of what we know as "Christianity" is in fact "Paulinism". So there was a historical figure who was instrumental in creating the Christian religion, but it wasn't the person that most people think.

Paul might have started Christianity as we know it. But the authors of the Gospels were four unnamed writers. And a few more for the Gospels they threw out. Paul wrote some letters, maybe.

[Moon Ronin]

It should be remembered that most of the New Testament was written by Paul, who never met Jesus (except in a vision). Much of what we know as "Christianity" is in fact "Paulinism". So there was a historical figure who was instrumental in creating the Christian religion, but it wasn't the person that most people think.

Paul might have started Christianity as we know it. But the authors of the Gospels were four unnamed writers. And a few more for the Gospels they threw out. Paul wrote some letters, maybe.

I think that the that Romans sacking Jerusalem and burning the Temple in 70AD was most likely the biggest turning point in setting off Christianity but that is kind of a different subject.
The Paul had a huge part in it with his ideas brought to front with is letters. But Luke is actually it the largest contributor to the New Testament and not Paul. Though he was said to be a disciple of Paul so there is that. The book of Luke is the longest of the Gospels. Having never met the Jesus figure and a debate between scholars of weather Luke was a Gentile or a Hellenistic. He is also attributed in writing Acts and most scholars agree that the same person wrote both Acts and the book of Luke.
Of course all of the Gospels and Acts are anonymous works and most likely didn't get names added to them until around 185AD. And with things like the Q document and the Markan priority it can get some what confusing. The process of canonization of the New Testament was complex and lengthy and involved many people.

[Kirby101]

I was also reading that, given that the populace was mainly illiterate, the presentation of passion and mystery plays was a major factor in the spread of Christianity. The image of Christians in hiding from the Romans, reading the Gospels, is a more modern invention.

[Starter Set]

It should be remembered that most of the New Testament was written by Paul, who never met Jesus (except in a vision). Much of what we know as "Christianity" is in fact "Paulinism". So there was a historical figure who was instrumental in creating the Christian religion, but it wasn't the person that most people think.

True enough, Paul and Constantine are maybe the two most important persons in Christian history. Without Paul that little sect would have most likely dissolved itself in smaller splinters and in time just disappeared.

And Constantine turned one of the biggest political entity of the time (Rome) into a Christian state, assuring pretty much it survival.

[Moon Ronin]

I was also reading that, given that the populace was mainly illiterate, the presentation of passion and mystery plays was a major factor in the spread of Christianity. The image of Christians in hiding from the Romans, reading the Gospels, is a more modern invention.

The general idea of Roman persecution of Christians is greatly over stated, going by some historians the Romans most likely killed a few thousand over 300 years. By Roman killing standards that is pretty low with it being more isolated and localized. Not saying the Roman Empire didn't imprison, torture and execute Christians, historians have yet to find any evidence of a law specifically targeting them. That and Romans imprisoned, tortured and executed a lot of different peoples.
Early Christians romanticized martyrdom, a group of Christians once presented themselves to a Roman governor in Asia calling on him to do his duty and put them to death. He told them then should all go jump off a cliff or hang themselves.

[Kirby101]

True enough, Paul and Constantine are maybe the two most important persons in Christian history. Without Paul that little sect would have most likely dissolved itself in smaller splinters and in time just disappeared.

And Constantine turned one of the biggest political entity of the time (Rome) into a Christian state, assuring pretty much it survival.

And his mother Helena was the driving force.