All-Purpose Religion Thread

[Chindie]

7 minutes ago, villa4europe said:

As childrens bed time stories go why is it that the most boring book seemingly became the most popular? 

The logic behind the Greek and Roman gods also seems far more sound, can't explain something? there's a god for that mate 

Adoption by the Roman empire lead to it becoming the de-facto religion of Europe, who exported it round the world. 

There's loads of theories about why it grew in its early days, mostly boiling down to things like the religion being a hopeful one (things get better when you die and you'll be resurrected come 'the End', and it was born of allegedly poor people), alleged miracles happening to its adherents, because it was a missionary religion from its beginning seeking to convert, and because it insisted on 'one true god' beliefs meaning if you fancied being in on the Christian thing, you had to go in full bore and ditch other religious beliefs.

Over time is proved itself pretty flexible as a system of belief as well. The various sects of Christian belief will generally agree on the big details, and the little things are what splits it out into it's many guises. This is a faith that has supported everything from Catholicism, through all the various Protestant faiths, right through to the Anabaptist beliefs and even the fraudsters like the Mormons. They're all, fundamentally, Christian to one degree or another, but all quite different.

[Chindie]

1 minute ago, Stevo985 said:

Having done some googling the generally accepted “facts” are that he existed, he was a Galilean Jew, he was baptised by John the Baptist and he was crucified. And that’s basically it in terms of there being a consensus.

Then the other things that are accepted with varying degrees of certainty are that

he was born between 7 and 2 BC and died 30 - 36 AD

He had disciples

He caused some sort of controversy at a temple. Then a few other details about what language he spoke and where he lived etc

There's no proof of any of that, just that various people have referenced those dates and something made a particular faith grow from a sect of Jews at around that time.

A canonical Jesus didn't exist. 

[Stevo985]

Just now, Chindie said:

There's no proof of any of that, just that various people have referenced those dates and something made a particular faith grow from a sect of Jews at around that time.

A canonical Jesus didn't exist. 

There’s no proof, just a consensus amongst historians of those few things. 

[Xann]

[Chindie]

23 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

There’s no proof, just a consensus amongst historians of those few things. 

Yes. But that consensus is based on biblical gospels, which as evidence are like a copper taking a murderers account he's innocent as, for want of a better term, gospel, and Roman writings at least a generation after he was allegedly killed that are essentially relaying the stories they had heard of Christians.

The only evidence that really exists is basically circumstantial - a sect of Jews around that time grew into a divergent faith allegedly based on the teachings and stories of someone called Jesus. That doesn't mean that there was actually a guy called Jesus who made those teachings, or certainly not that the stories were the case. It's more likely that a hodge podge of myths, teachings and stories by various would-be messiahs and religious leaders in the region got piled together into one basic story that got traction.

And even if there was just one Jesus who inspired the movement, it's kinda neither here nor there because he's not what he was made out to be - you can't feed a thousand people with 2 fish and some bread, you can't walk on water, you can't come back from the dead... in which case who the **** cares if he's real? It's just a question that worries the church because you pick away at Jesus and the whole thing comes tumbling down... that it's all just stories.

[mjmooney]

31 minutes ago, Xann said:

"What's this shit about you lot being bigger than me?" 

[Stevo985]

13 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Yes. But that consensus is based on biblical gospels, which as evidence are like a copper taking a murderers account he's innocent as, for want of a better term, gospel, and Roman writings at least a generation after he was allegedly killed that are essentially relaying the stories they had heard of Christians.

Not just biblical gospels from what I've read. Other stuff about him might be, but his existence, baptism and crucifixion are referenced in enough non christian texts that they are generally accepted as "fact"

 

14 minutes ago, Chindie said:

 

And even if there was just one Jesus who inspired the movement, it's kinda neither here nor there because he's not what he was made out to be - you can't feed a thousand people with 2 fish and some bread, you can't walk on water, you can't come back from the dead... in which case who the **** cares if he's real? It's just a question that worries the church because you pick away at Jesus and the whole thing comes tumbling down... that it's all just stories.

You seem to think that I'm trying to argue that Jesus is how he's portrayed in the Bible. I'm not. I know he isn't. I'm just curious about what he actually was.

[Chindie]

3 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Not just biblical gospels from what I've read. Other stuff about him might be, but his existence, baptism and crucifixion are referenced in enough non christian texts that they are generally accepted as "fact"

It's the gospels and some Roman writings. The gospels have some sections that are alleged to have been written by some people that claim to have known him, years after the fact and referencing stuff that isn't possible. The Roman scholars, writing at best a generation after his alleged death, make reference to him as a result of the growth of this sect, which is proof of nothing beyond Christianity existing.

 

9 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

You seem to think that I'm trying to argue that Jesus is how he's portrayed in the Bible. I'm not. I know he isn't. I'm just curious about what he actually was.

No I'm not at all, I know you just want to discuss the historical Jesus. I'm basically advancing the argument a little - essentially, that the question is pointless, a red herring. The things that make him important and special, aren't true, and otherwise he's either not real, or just some guy, in which case *shrug*.

If there was one true Jesus, and for whatever reason you wanted to know who he was, it's generally assumed he was backwater Jewish preacher who had some radical beliefs that lead to him being considered a whacko by the Jewish community leaders in the region. I believe one of the early Jewish references to someone who might be 'Jesus' suggested he was an embarrassing fraud or something like that.

[sidcow]

2 hours ago, bickster said:

That was his dad you divvy

Ah yes, I was getting him confused with the guy who led The Israelites to the Land of Honey Boo Boo. 

[colhint]

3 hours ago, sidcow said:

He definitely parted the sea

No that was Moise who parted the red sea in the  Manchester defence yesterday sometime between 3 and 4

[Only2McInallys]

The Roman historiansTacitus and Pliny the younger do actually mention Jesus of Nazareth in about 100AD.They reveal little about him but talk about his arrest and execution.So there are small fragments that a man called Jesus existed and was executed.

[chrisp65]

It is quite annoying that whilst most Jews two thousand years ago had extensive written records, images and two point verification, this one has relied on oral history traditions for the first 50, 80, 100 years.

I’m not saying its defo a conspiracy, but if he’d been born in the UK, we’d have had decent contemporary records.

 

 

 

[Chindie]

36 minutes ago, Only2McInallys said:

The Roman historiansTacitus and Pliny the younger do actually mention Jesus of Nazareth in about 100AD.They reveal little about him but talk about his arrest and execution.So there are small fragments that a man called Jesus existed and was executed.

There are small fragments that people told stories about a man called Jesus existed and was executed

[bickster]

40 minutes ago, Only2McInallys said:

The Roman historiansTacitus and Pliny the younger do actually mention Jesus of Nazareth in about 100AD.They reveal little about him but talk about his arrest and execution.So there are small fragments that a man called Jesus existed and was executed.

Yes that was over a lifetime after the event for the vast majority of people at the time. Thats the whole point, there's absolutely nothing from remotely close to when he was supposedly alive

[TheAuthority]

7 hours ago, Only2McInallys said:

The Roman historiansTacitus and Pliny the younger do actually mention Jesus of Nazareth in about 100AD.They reveal little about him but talk about his arrest and execution.So there are small fragments that a man called Jesus existed and was executed.

Pliny the Elder is FAR superior

[The Fun Factory]

13 hours ago, mjmooney said:

There were loads of millennial cults and would be messiahs at that time. 

I say you are, Lord, and I should know, I've followed a few.

[Stevo985]

11 hours ago, Chindie said:

It's the gospels and some Roman writings. The gospels have some sections that are alleged to have been written by some people that claim to have known him, years after the fact and referencing stuff that isn't possible. The Roman scholars, writing at best a generation after his alleged death, make reference to him as a result of the growth of this sect, which is proof of nothing beyond Christianity existing.

 

No I'm not at all, I know you just want to discuss the historical Jesus. I'm basically advancing the argument a little - essentially, that the question is pointless, a red herring. The things that make him important and special, aren't true, and otherwise he's either not real, or just some guy, in which case *shrug*.

If there was one true Jesus, and for whatever reason you wanted to know who he was, it's generally assumed he was backwater Jewish preacher who had some radical beliefs that lead to him being considered a whacko by the Jewish community leaders in the region. I believe one of the early Jewish references to someone who might be 'Jesus' suggested he was an embarrassing fraud or something like that.

Yeah I agree with your last two paragraphs. he's not what made him special.

But on your first paragraph from what I can see, whilst it isn't proof, it does seem that historians essentially accept it as fact that he existed, was baptised and was crucified. But that's literally it. None of the cool superpowers

[Chindie]

4 minutes ago, Stevo985 said:

Yeah I agree with your last two paragraphs. he's not what made him special.

But on your first paragraph from what I can see, whilst it isn't proof, it does seem that historians essentially accept it as fact that he existed, was baptised and was crucified. But that's literally it. None of the cool superpowers

Yes the mainstream opinion of those invested in the field is that there was a historical Jesus, but as said the evidence is basically them giving greater weight to the gospels and Roman references because Christianity exists. They then argue that this is no different to the standard of evidence held against other antiquity figures that we don't have hard evidence for the existence of but don't question the existence of. But that ignores that most of these figures we have harder facts for - take someone like Boudicca. We can't prove (to my knowledge) that she actually existed, but we do know that there were actions that tie up with Roman accounts of an actual rebellion by Britons at the time she is supposed to have lived, and the Romans involved make reference to her. That's subtly different to Jesus, where the evidence is more malleable - a religious sect grew telling stories of a guy, and the sect's stories tell his story with some recollections of guys that claim to have known him, and these Roman guys wrote about it later. There's nothing in it to say there was 1 guy, and his name was Jesus. It could be a collection of stories of different people. It could all be total bollocks (as opposed to mostly bollocks).

In respect of the super powers, iirc there's evidence that there were stories of Jesus were he had loads of powers that got edited out over time. I like to think there's a Superman Bible where he has laser vision.

[Chindie]

For another debatable historical, cross reference Jesus with King Arthur.

[Mark Albrighton]

In all reality, we’d probably remember John the Baptist better than Jesus if he’d just kept his head in the game.