Bible bombshell: Jesus Christ invented by Romans as ‘psychological warfare’

Diogenes always seemed the jeebuz type.

^ Oh and the "miracles" of Pythagoras

This isn't so sensational a claim. Gibbons hints at it. So do the responses to the apologetics.

That is ludicrous, since both Herod Agrippa 9the last King of Judea) and Emperor Caligula BOTH claimed to be the Messiah the Jews were waiting for. No need to invent anyone. If the Romans wanted a fulfilment of the prophecy to pacify the Jews, Herod Agrippa was right there to fulfil it.

OK but what does that mean for Santa?

r3, I've only read Gibbons casually, but I did read all the volumes and never once saw him hint that Jesus was 'invented' by the Romans.

Do you know the specific citation, please?

Judas and Brutus; Julius Caesar is also “JC” and he also advocated for redistribution of wealth to the poor

The Jesus cult which evolved into Christianity likely originated as a Messianic sect of Judaism during the Roman occupation. It wasn't a separate religion until much later especially more so after Rome adopted it as a state religion and the Trinity was established. Islam originated as a sect of non-trinitarian Christianity tied to Gnosticism (which survived in the Middle East, China and India) and Arab paganism. All Abrahamic religions were heavily influenced by Zoroastrianism (monotheism, heaven and hell, guardian angels, etc).

The New Testament was likely altered so much. We really do not know that much about very early Christian proactive but we do know they were Jewish and likely saw Jesus as divine but not God himself. The basis we have is Paul's letters and possibly the earliest Christian document could be the letter of James who was supposedly Jesus's brother. The gospel were written much later and there's inconsistency between the four, three seem to heavily lean to Jesus being just a divine prophet and the last Messiah before the apocalypse (which they felt was near). It's more likely Christianity was a sect of Judaism arose that syncretized with elements of Greco-Roman culture. Religions change all the time. Jews similarly took influence from Persian culture and Zoroastrianism which greatly influenced the shift from henotheism to monogram. Judaism in general was a split from Canaanite polytheism.

*monotheism

Joseph Atwill sucks. There are really good scholars looking into Jesus and the Jesus Myth theory and so much else. He's just a dingbat with an obsession.

Well, you don’t say…

No one knows wtf they're talking about when it comes to religion, tbh. Not skeptics, and certainly not any followers. No idea why people care about it so damn much.

They want to live forever in the afterlife, r13. Although honestly that doesn't work for all religions either. There are those that don't really have an afterlife, like traditional Judaism really didn't.

And for most ancient Greeks and Romans, the afterlife was just one very long bore.

"Word of god"... written by people who didn't know where the sun went at night.

Was he an early Christian proactive?

For me, I must admit, religion is catnip. And I don't think I'm alone in this, judging by the popularity of threads like this. We don't have answers, obviously, but we have so many damn fun questions.

Though again, I must reiterate, Atwill sucks and has no fun answers or questions. Whatever happened with Jesus, the "Romans invented him" theory is just crap.

Ooh, can we delve into Egyptian coptics and Rosicrucians?

We don't know much about early Christians nor early Muslims and we know that both the Gospels and Quran were heavily altered. Both religions relied more on apocrypha than their actual texts which are too vague and confusing without help. And once these religions became state religions and tied to imperialism, an official dogma was settled and all the other sects that deviated were oppressed and their texts destroyed. Not only just Jews but other Gnostic and non-trinitarian Christians were persecuted and other Abrahamic religions as well like Druze, Samaritans, Sabians, Manacheans and etc. History is written by the winners as they say...

Youse guys are smarter than I am but wasn't the Jesus thing the result of infighting amongst the Jews? Some said the messiah had come, the majority said no way, we're still waiting.

Anyhoo, no evidence that Jesus was a real guy. None. Zip. No real guy walked on water and raised the dead. Didn't happen, none of it.

Absolutely r20, delve.

r19 Ok then. Here's a fun and controversial answer: Black people (specifically those descended from slaves) are the original Jews, belonging to "the tribe of Judah" and those who call themselves Jews today (including those in Israel) are imposters who all belong to "a synagogue of Satan."

GO!

[quote]Anyhoo, no evidence that Jesus was a real guy. None. Zip. No real guy walked on water and raised the dead. Didn't happen, none of it.

I don't know if there was "no Jesus" but it does become this weird game, like the "real" King Arthur. Why, yes, there was some Welsh hill chieftan who did some shit that has nothing to do with the Arthurian legends and that's the "real" King Arthur. At some point the answer becomes just so silly that it isn't an answer at all.

Why would Black people be the original Jews? What does that even mean? Why would a bunch of West Africans stolen from their homeland have anything to do with a bunch of people wandering around Canaan (probably Canaanites themselves originally) in 1000 BC?

And the main reason Jews and Zoroastrians are still around today was that fortunately both Christianity and Islam had some protections for them. Though antisemitism was deadly and pervasive in Europe, Jews were tolerated far more than pagans because they were monotheists and worshipped God (though their rejection and "murder" of Jesus was considered repulsive). Quran specifically protected monotheists like Jews and Zoroastrians as "people of the book." Iran and Northern India still have a significant Zoroastrian population though many went underground due to not wanting to clash with Islamic authrority..

And hell, why does anyone want or need to be the "original Jews"? What a weird thing for people to latch onto? Do Black people need to prove that they are a people that can overcome horrible circumstances and survive? Cause, shit, I think they can do that without any weird "we're the real Jews" bullshit.

Sort of true, r27, but shit, there was an awful lot of killing and overall nastiness for both groups from Christians and Muslims.

r23 The copts. They've gone through many waves through the past few centuries but they've always maintained a sense of "mysticism" that had left other christian sects. . . it has more in common and blends to some of the African offshoots that blended tribal beliefs, though not as showy. In some ways, you can see a similar pattern develop later among early Irish Catholics that were never truly accepted as real catholics because of their tribal blending as well.

Rosicrucians and the focus on mysticism... primarily leading back to gnosticism and even Jewish and muslim mystical influences is interesting in how it combines. The traces towards ancient practices..

frankly, we could even attach the same to transcendalist movement and pagans, particularly gardnerian... there's this trail of connections but trying to keep this post small that you can see some circumstantial or incidental reflections into what was classic copt christianity. . . but is that reality of consquest and some practices going underground that they morph into something else or ties to the originating roots.

If you can escape the raven willow starfire whatever side of neopagan hogwash... we find more evidence there than we do within looking at the religious groups themselves.

But I'm kind of all over the place now... so, that's not helping anyone. Honestly, it's also a part of early math history.

Which is also why Pythagoras is a great discussion on religion.. though you'll find most remove the mystical side and the various miracles that were attributed to him removed from most academic information. In truth, he was probably closer represented in the acts associated with Moses than Jeebuz in those details. So, honestly, I'd rather hear/read from other people.

r24 Yukub! I'll get to it in a minute if I can find that episode of Black Dynamite but in the meantime settle for this:

r26

I went to a a Catholic high school and once had a science teacher claim that there was more historical evidence of Jesus existing than Abraham Lincoln. And nobody questioned him on it.

R29 Yes no doubt about that. But they still allowed Jews to exist even if they were a marginalized underclass and always a scapegoat for whatever problem society had. Tons of violence against Jews (the pograms come to mind) but there wasn't consistently a goal to exterminate them (until the Nazi party that is). Christians and Muslims killed off most of the pagan population and destroyed so many buildings, art, texts and traditions or reclaimed them for their own religion (like epicurean temples becoming monasteries or Kaaba becoming an Islamic structure rather than pagan). Jews were fortunate to be able to still worship and maintain their texts and culture in spite of horrific treatment.

r32 Do you use youtube, ever visit Henry Abramson channel, any thoughts to his perspective on Jewish history?

The Coptic Church (which really just means the Egyptian Church, Coptic being a corruption of Aegyptus) was hugely influential in the early Christian centuries. I don't know if they have "mystic" connections to African tribal religions. That would make sense. Certainly European Catholicism wound up "adapting" to put it mildly to local pagan beliefs. I would think the Egyptian church did the same locally. One thing about the early Egyptian church, they were very attached to Monophysitism, the idea that Jesus had one overwhelmingly divine nature, and they hated this attempt to make him too "human." It's a very confusing thing, but it was a hugely problematic point for centuries. Did Mary really give birth to God? Was God a little toddler at some point? People killed each over this question for centuries.

r34 the non-personification bit remained steady within Judiasm as well, despite a few burning bushes.

r34 and to African traditions, I meant more the connection to slave formed traditions of the African diaspora.,.. like Santeria.

That is true r32. Sadly, the idea of "let's kill all the Jews" did crop up a lot in the Middle Ages, especially under stress like plague and famine. But yes, there was at least this idea that they weren't quite as awful as pagans, who had no business existing at all after some point. But damn, there was an awful lot of killing, and it does seem like at points the whole continent wanted to wipe out all Jews. They just didn't have the technology or communication yet. But yes, it did tend to be localized, and there were definitely Popes and Bishops that did push back against it.

Not sure what that means r36. That African slaves felt some connection to the story of Exodus? Yes, that definitely happened. But did you mean something else?

r24

[quote]I went to a a Catholic high school and once had a science teacher claim that there was more historical evidence of Jesus existing than Abraham Lincoln.

Maybe not Lincoln, but there are still dingbats who pass that silly thing around, that there is more evidence for Jesus than Tiberias. Bullshit, but Christian bullshit, so it will probably exist forever.

The Rosicrucians are an interesting offshoot. Probably a very political offshoot of early Protestantism, built around King James (that James, the guy with the bible) and his daughter, who married the Elector Palatine and got into all kinds of difficulties when her husband decided to take shit seriously and try to be the next Emperor. Failed utterly, but a movement grew up around them and survives (I think) to this day.

I love their nicknames, the Winter King and the Winter Queen, because they managed to conquer Bavaria (I think? maybe Bohemia?) but only for a winter, before the Spring campaigning season.

r38 Um, more like the construction of religion and it's connections to ancient christianity...

too many assume the greater influence of the Spanish, Portuguese, the Dutch, whatever. . but I do tend to wonder if not the earlier representations of Christians. Frankly, the ships might have been contracted by said nations but many of the crew and some of the passengers were Arab or other groups from the MENA. We get this weird cross pollination of a blend of multiple cultures and religions throughout the Caribbean and South America

I tend to believe the construction of some of these newer and older religions give us better insight into early Christianity than say looking at it's evolutions..

(and we get the transcendentalists of New England and we see their brand of Christian mystiicism start off a chain heavily influenced by India.. we don't really return to a greater MENA fetish until the late 1800s/early 1900s.

Frankly, we could even address Hitler's Aryans and reflect a little on Jewish Persian history, or the silk road.. even taking us to China's Jews.)

But I digress. As I said before kind of all over the map.

So, we have either how newer religions separate to the influence of large bodies form, or we look at areas with extreme religious minorities, where said groups flourish for a period in isolation, even after the orginating demographic died or through their isolated descendants.

To that extent we could rview Ethiopian Jews as well (and of course, Kerala, India sects. But perhaps the chinese are the most thrilling)

I forgot to mention that Jews and Muslims were forced to convert in Spain and Portugal, they had serious risk of being killed and exiled if they hadn't, R37. You're right that there were periods of time where Jews were the target of severe scorn and blamed for economic instability.

Romani likely practiced Hinduism originally but converted to Christianity early on. I wonder if they did so to assimilate or were pressured to.

Atwill is a crank, OP, as five minutes' googling would have shown you.

Delving into Islam is actually dangerous. There will be death threats, absolutely. But it is still so fascinating. There probably was no Mecca at the supposed time when Mecca really needs to be this big deal for Mohammed.

Of course, there may not be a Nazareth at the time that Jesus needs to be living there. So there is that as well.

Wasn't the Bible written by men in power to keep the people in line by fear making them fearful of a burning hell?

Honestly, depends on the book r47. A lot of it was written by people with no real power, just writing letters or prophecies or some other nonsense. The author of Revelation had pretty much no reason to think he would get any material benefit from it.

Doesn't make any of it true, of course.

R47- Soiry. Using fear to keep them compliant?

[...]

And of course, a lot of the Old Testamant, especially the Torah, was pulled together from various people, writing for various reasons, who may or may not have had real materialistic reasons for doing what they were doing, but mostly had weird, hyper religious, mystical and magical reasons for doing what they were doing.

R48- Thank you. R50- Yes and very contradictory in many ways.

[...]

I don't know Dark Mini Lord. It's one of many religious books, and pretty much every religious book is a little odd. I'm not sure the Rig Veda or the any Chinese religious text (there's a whole damn topic) is actually clear or consistent. When it comes to religion, everyone gets weird and kind of crazy.

I'd love to think there is some great religious text out there, that really brings us closer to God and to the afterlife and to the Everything, but honestly, there probably isn't. It's probably all just nonsense from start to finish.

[...]

Well, not sure about that R56. There definitely have been pro-gay religions. They aren't necessarily true either, but they are kind of attractive.

He was configured to appeal to the peasants, to keep them meek and passive and paying their taxes. Born in a barn, a Carpenter by trade etc.

But come on, r58, people "configuring" him had no idea where any of that would lead. Nobody in charge had anything to do with inventing Jesus. There were plenty of other reasons to keep peasants in line, like you know, a big old empire that had centuries of keeping people in line. Nobody needed to invent Jesus to keep peasants in line, they were pretty damn used to it.

Islam may have arose from non-trinitarian Christians in the Arab peninsula. Gnostic and non-trinitarian beliefs were heavily suppressed in Rome but still thrived in the East with Syria, China and India having gnostic Christian churches (which often syncretized with indigenous beliefs like Manaechism which took influence from Buddhism). Muhammad was likely a pagan (from the tribe that maintained the Kaaba) but had close ties with Christians and Jews that lived in proximity. The Quran and hadiths are clearly pooled from Gnostic sources (Jesus faking his death, mentioning the sect of Christians who see Mary as the Holy Spirit) and Zoroastrian sources too (101 names for God, flying horses taking a prophet to heaven and hell). It's possible Muhammad created Islam to form alliance between Jews, Christians and pagans. Muhammad is likely a composite of different religious leaders. The person likely existed but we don't know much about him. We do know Muslims took arms and conquered much of the region in a few centuries.

Gospel of John, Paul's letters and Revelations were Gnostic documents too. What's even more interesting is that John the Baptist could have been a real person and actually lead a mystical sect of Judaism that arose suspicion. Jesus could have a composite of many fundamentalist leaders like John the Baptist who were claimed to be the Messiah and restore the Jewish kingdom.

Jesus was a transwoman of color!

Have you ever wondered why of all the religions that have come and gone, why the three Abrahamic ones are the ones that have had staying power worldwide?

It's all fiction.

East, South and Southeast Asia maintained it's religions. Abrahamic religions never had much success there outside of the outliers like Pakistan, Malaysia and the Philippines.

India is still predominant Hindu. China, South Korea and Japan are mainly nontheist and that's because the major religions like Confucianism, Buddhism and Taoism are nontheistic belief systems, there's no need for a God to be a motivator for good behavior. Japanese still practice Shinto rituals and Southeast Asians like Vietnamese, Thai, Burmese and Laotians practice their folk religions and Buddhism.

It's interesting fiction though r63. Why? Who thought some dead Galileean, or some invented Galileean shoult be some weird Son of God? What the fuck was that nonsense, and why?

Blasphemy! Jesus was an androgynous blue-eyed blond surfer dude.

R65 It was a cult among the millions of other man-god cults that were common in the Ancient Mediterranean world. These cults were syncretic and took from a variety of sources including Ancient Egypt, Babylonian, Indo-Aryan like Mithra and Zoroastrianism and even Buddhism. The difference is Christianity "won" and Rome saw monotheism and the emphasis on charity and poverty could help strengthen their power by equating the Emperor with the authority of God, wisdom of the Holy Spirit and loving-kindness of Jesus. Islam was a rehash of this.

Well, the real difference with all those other cults r67 is you didn't need to leave anything to worship Isis, or Mithra or any of the others. You could still be the good ole pagan you always were and just add this other thing to the repertoire. Christianity demanded you leave, you stop, you be something else. Even Buddhism doesn't actually tell you to stop being whatever. Just add a few philosophical ideals and you're all set. It is weird that Christianity was attractive to people, and it really wasn't except to a very few, but ultimately it did work. And that is interesting.

I suspect Constantine was actually raised Christian, but even assuming the whole story with the vision and the shields and IN THIS SIGN YOU WILL CONQUER and the rest of it is true, he was clearly tapping into an already very successful movement. It would be like if Scientology had succeeded beyond its wildest dreams and by the 1990s or whenever, it had totally gripped half the country, and some presidential candidate decided, yup, I'm a Scientologist so yeah, assholes, vote for me! Christianity did succeed on its own terms before Constantine, and maybe it was just better at reproducing, or whatever. I'm not sure about that because everyone had a big reproducing goal, Jews, Pagans, Christians. But something made a substantial number of Romans lean toward Christianity in the century before Constantine.

R68 True point. Maybe it was because Christianity had the concept of an afterlife reward to it's followers (something that was borrowed from Zoroastrianism) and punishment to it's deniers. Many other religions at the time didn't have that idea of eternal reward or punishment. The afterlife being a pit for souls which sounded boring.

And Christianity being so "exclusive" may have helped too. It was a sort of a club for the "saved" and we all know people love to feel superior to others. And the proselytizing to save others and get them into that club really helped. The other ancient gods didn't seem to care if others worshipped them. The Christian god did care and The New Testament was instruction to gain followers to fulfill God's commands.

As you said, polytheism allowed everyone to choose their own personal god to favor but just not to invalidate the other ones. Judaism originally was henotheistic and didn't necessarily say other gods weren't real, the Hebrew Bible straight up acknowledged Jews worshipped many gods but got punished over multiple lifetimes to eventually submit only to YHWH (though the Persian Zoroastrianism influence may have had a bigger role in that shift). This is why I suspect Hinduism never lost to Christianity or Islam because Hindus don't mind putting Jesus or Muhammad as part of their prophet collection or equating the Abrahamic God with the major Creator diety.

Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

If you read the first few books of the Bible. You'd also notice the God in the creation story of Genesis is not the same as the God of Noah, Abraham, Moses, Joseph and David. The creator god is Elohim and the God that shows himself is YHWH. The personalities are completely different too. The creator God is more calm and collected and notice he merely shows disappointment in Adam, Eve and Cain. While Yahweh is a temperamental storm god who flooded the Earth, constantly punished the Hebrews for every little thing, always commanded the Hebrews to enact a genocide against the pagans, played mind games on Job and Psalms even imply Yahweh killed the other gods at the Divine Council to make himself the only God in existence. Yahweh is simply the God of Israel and there were other gods who ruled over other tribes. The Bible mentioned Jews worshipped Baal, Asherah (a goddess), implied with Esther who is named after Ishtar (a love goddess) and others. I think a newly discovered document provides evidence Yahweh was married to Asherah.

[quote]Abrahamic religions never had much success there outside of the outliers like Pakistan, Malaysia and the Philippines.

And Indonesia, the fourth largest country by population in the world, and Bangladesh, the eighth largest (Pakistan is fifth largest by population).

Let's not even consider that kill the gays fundie xtian nutbags are spread across much Africa, including Nigeria, sixth largest.

I'm starting my own religion.

It's called Cockinismus.

Guess what we worship??!!??

I think Ted Haggard would make a fine bishop in your church r74. And really, really should consider it and stop lying to himself and everyone else.

Jesus was an androgyne...

[quote]The creator god is Elohim and the God that shows himself is YHWH.

Do you think they fucked?

There were at least four authors of the Torah, r72, really five counting the guy that put it all together, and probably more. They had different names for God, and very different ideas of what that God was, probably even inconsistent ideas over their own lifetime and over their various writings. It's part of the reason the whole thing is so inconsistent and contradictory.

GOP Jesus

May I suggest you put your hand in the hand of the man who stilled the water. Put your hand in the hand of the man who calmed the sea. Take a look at yourself and you can look at others differently. Put your hand in the hand of the man from Galilee.

But I don't know how to love him, r80.

He's not the Messiah, he's a very naughty boy!

I mentioned this in a recent Scientology thread, but it reminds me of Julia Sweeney's excellent "Letting Go of God" one woman show, where she talks about going on a journey that's initially about her rediscovering her faith, but ends up with her losing it in the process.

After a visit from some Mormon missionaries, she decides to enroll in a Bible study class at her (proudly liberal) church. She makes a comment that that's not something Catholics typically do, and the Church's usual attitude towards the laity is "Just leave that book to the professionals." So, in encountering the scripture in context for the first time, she ended up horrified. Her reaction to reading the Binding of Isaac was that if any deity asks you to kill a child, even if it's not your own, that the right answer is "NO!" She consoles herself thinking that the New Testament will turn this around, but then reading through it, realizes that Jesus isn't all that either.

I really highly recommend the show. There's a version of it on Audible.

R77 is misstating the relationship. The same system of regional gods ran all across the diverse cultures of the Levant. Military wins placed gods under the gods of the victors, or assimilated them. El was not the invisible god and YHVH the demiurge, "visible" manifestation or any such crap. El was the God of Israel (IsraEL) and associated with other gods in the "El" tradition - "Baal" is another. YHVH was the god of the Judeans. Latter-day developments in emergent monotheism do not take precedence when looking at the CULTURAL evolution of gods.

For that matter, worship of El's (and YHVH's, later) female consort goddess Asherah was maintained, despite Deuteronomy's claims of her shrines being destroyed. This female deity was still a feature of the landscape into the last centuries BCE.

The shit about the Romans is not valid as described. Constantine sized things up and decided that Jesus was a better prospect than his competitors were. Some early writers were Roman apologists and the lingering anti-Jewish hate reflects the turns early on. But the Romans did not "make" Jesus. For fuck's sake. The figure of Jesus developed after a historicizing campaign (similar to that undertaken for Hercules and other mythic figures) among the many, many Christian sects, until the orthodoxy emerged and alternatives largely were destroyed and erased.

Don't make claims about things you don't know. That applies to Xtians and non-Xtians alike.

Another dumbass troll trying to make a buck.

[quote] She makes a comment that that's not something Catholics typically do, and the Church's usual attitude towards the laity is "Just leave that book to the professionals."

Maybe prior to the second Vatican Council was this the church’s attitude, but it has not been that way since the Council closed in 1965. Lay empowerment has been the watchword for almost sixty years now, but the laity seem largely uninterested.

It's all mythology

Jesus in Quahog

You can't disprove something that is not based in reason or fact. No matter what evidence you have or what arguments you make, it will either be ignored or folded into the expanding tautology, "mysterious ways", etc.

There's no evidence Jesus or Muhammad existed. Same deal with Moses. All of them were likely composites of real people with the Biblical or Quranic depictions being mythologized to justify their religions existing.

If someone named Jesus existed and was executed by the Romans. There would have been records of that. The Romans were extremely bureaucratic and kept extensive records. Crucifixion was a punishment that was only reserved for high treason. The Romans wouldn't have cared about some fundamentalist Jewish preacher. So if Jesus did exist and was executed. Then he wouldn't have been peaceful and more than likely was plotting a rebellion which arose Roman suspicion and prompted the Jewish authorities to hand him over. If you read the New Testament carefully, Jesus did seem to have a temper and used some pretty extremist language against what he deemed sinful and blasphemous. Jesus carried a sword and claimed he was to fulfill the Old Testament law (which was violent). Most of Jewish prophets were warriors and the Messiah was meant to be a warrior king to restore the Jewish kingdom and rule over the Earth. Revelations depicting Jesus as a warrior certainly doesn't help.

Muhammad is even worse because the early Arab conquests of The Middle East, North Africa and Iberia have no mention of Islam or Muhammad for about a century and a half into it. The Quran didn't appear until the very end of the 600s and Muhammad is a title word, "blessed one" that was likely used initially to refer to Jesus. Only appearing four times in the Quran. Arab rulers later took that title for themselves. Coins with the inscription Muhammad were also decorated with crosses which adds evidence it could have a Jesus title. The Muhammad character didn't become distinctive until maybe the 800s and that was in the Hadith where they began describing his character. The word Islam began appearing around that time too. Which makes it likely Islam originated as a non-trinitarian gnostic sect of Messianic Christianity which ties to Ebionism which flourished in Arabia and Persia while Rome eradicated it. Some medieval European scholars referred to these Arab Christians as either Jews or pagans due to rejection of Christ as God.

Overall, the fact we're still having debates on the historical evidence of any of these people should be a wakeup call to the bullshit. It's no different than King Arthur or Chucculain. Maybe they existed and likely were more than one person but over time became mythological.

In fairness, most records of the Roman Empire have disappeared, probably 99.9 percent. There are real questions about the actual existence of Jesus, but one obscure guy in Palestine getting executed, that could certainly have disappeared from the record.

I was raised Christian and the more and more I actually read the Bible and looked up biblical research, the more and more nontheistic I became. The lack of science and inconsistencies already bothered me in Sunday school but actually taking time to read The Bible outside of lessons and sermons. It is completely illogical to me. The Trinity itself is so stupid and the idea that God is loving doesn't fit his description in the Bible and the concept of hell. I wouldn't say I'm an atheist but I can't reconcile Abrahamic religions with my value system or sense of logic. They're all too tribal, absolutist and violent for me. And liberal Christians and Muslims cherry pick just as much as radical extremists do. The poetry is beautiful and mythology is fascinating and I can appreciate the art and literature that arose from them. But I just don't think they can be compatible with modern society and have no place in law or education.

I have no issue with idea of a god, spirits, even magic or other things and I guess I'm the cliched "spiritual but not religious." Astrology is fine but the constant nonstop talking about zodiac signs irritates me just like evangelicals who never stop talking about their religion.

The Trinity is a very odd doctrine to come out of the Bible. Is there any Trinity at all? What the hell is that nonsense? There is some odd relationship between Jesus and God the Father, sort of, although they seem pretty separate in the New Testament. But the Holy Spirit? What the hell is that bullshit, and where does it come from? Anywhere at all?

I think there were two types of early Christians. Messianic Jews who saw Jesus as their prophet who had divine qualities given to him by God, this would be the Arians and Ebionites. And there were the binitarian Messianic Jews who saw Jesus as God but not the same as the Creator but born out of him (emanated), this is likely what Paul believed and what the Gospels aligned to.

The Trinity likely was a way to accommodate both groups and the broader Roman population and make the transition from polytheism to monotheism smoother. It still makes little sense to me.

The Arians come along much later, with Arius the monk, who was trying to deal with logic when nobody wanted to deal with logic. He had the very logical conclusion that if Jesus was the son of God, in whatever sense that meant, he couldn't exactly be the same as God. God can't give birth to Himself, really. But most Christians, or at least the ones in charge, decided not to give a shit and wanted to go with the crazy God is God and also these other two creatures who are related to God but also God, separate but equal.

Here's what Mythicist Robert M. Price has to say about Joseph Atwill:

I've thought for a long time that Jesus actually didn't exist. I read a lot about it years ago. It seems there were many "gods" around the same time or earlier who had many of the same attributes of Jesus - coming down to live as a man, etc. I think it just morphed into the Christian religion over time.

There probably was a rabbi named Jesus (or more likely, his name was Joshua or Yeshua) kicking around Judea. But he wasn't the only one. There was a guy named Appollonius of Tyana who was born in Anatolia around the name time who had a lot of similar claims about performing miracles. And there's actually more documentary evidence he existed, because there are biographies written closer to his probable lifetime than the canonical gospels were written about Jesus.

Then remember that it took past the Nicene Council (three hundred years after Jesus' life) to establish what the New Testament included.

We know Pontius Pilate is real (though the biblical version is a composite of at least the two people with that name). John the Baptist was supposedly the leader of the Mandeans, a Jewish sect and the maybe the "The Teacher of Righteousness" mentioned in Dead Sea scrolls. Islam has John the Baptist as a prophet as well. It's also possible the Jesus myth took from John the Baptist who likely was a real person.

Interesting theory.

It makes sense since there is absolutely no historical evidence of Jesus existing. Believing he existed is pure faith

[quote] Islam has John the Baptist as a prophet as well.

Islam came after Christianity, so Islam likely just copied John the Baptist from it.

Christ has many characteristics of the Hindu god Krishna— came as a form of God the father to save humans, virgin birth, similar names, etc.

[Quote] Another dumbass troll trying to make a buck.

Like every Christina church?

R102 Hinduism and Buddhism were present in the Mediterranean and there's evidence they were practiced there. Buddha in fact is mentioned by Christian and Islamic scholars and some viewed him as a saint. We know Zoroastrianism (Magi) and Mithraism which were Indo-Aryan religions were practiced as well. People don't realize how close India is to the Middle East and the lost history of trade that went as far as Europe. There was a Gnostic religion called Manichaeism which combined Christianity with Buddhism.

[quote]Christ has many characteristics of the Hindu god Krishna— came as a form of God the father to save humans, virgin birth, similar names, etc.

A lot of religions can't handle their central figures being associated with sex. Gautama Buddha was supposedly conceived in a dream his mother had of being entered by an elephant with six tusks, and he was also supposedly born painlessly out of her side, instead of her vagina.

Mithras, who was the Mets to Jesus' Yankees during the early days, was born from a rock.

There's far more evidence of Buddha, Siddhartha Gautama's existence than Jesus and Muhammad. Because of the consistency of his life story, teachings and origin.

Much of what we know about Jesus and Muhammad were written decades after their deaths and after the religions were established. And their depictions vary so widely and heavily debated upon too. That's why I'm more convinced both were composites of various prophets and radical leaders that were merged into one mystical figure to justify their religions existing.

[quote] Much of what we know about Jesus and Muhammad were written decades after their deaths and after the religions were established.

Are there many people in history who walked around with a biographer in tow to document their lives as they happened? The story of a person’s life is not often written contemporaneously to his or her living it.

R107 Yes and that's why their historicity is deserving of question. There's been contemporaneous documentation of kings, warriors, inventors and chiefs way before Jesus and Muhammad. Plus archaeology can provide evidence as well. These people could have very well existed but we have no idea what they were like, what they said, how the looked or if any of later written biographies weren't just made up to suit whatever dogma was established. A lot of the ideas about them were orally passed down and that's always going to make things subject to change. There's more compelling arguments that Jesus and Muhammad are a composition of various religious leaders. Just like King Arthur was likely a composite of various English kings. Though may at this point not even matter because we have millions indoctrinated into these faiths who wouldn't care if there was little to no evidence anyway.

Actually, although there almost certainly was a Pontius Pilate, he is so mangled and twisted in the New Testament that he becomes a kind of fictional character. The dithering doofus who almost just can't bring himself to execute some goober stirring up trouble, cause REASONS, has pretty much nothing to do with any real Roman governor, and certainly not the oafish son of a bitch hated throughout Judea. In a way, he's more fictional than Jesus in the Gospels.

Religion has always been about politics. Not surprised.

Well, in a sense, sure r110, any attempt to bring people together into any kind of grouping for any kind of reason, is about politics. But one of the silliest explanations for Christianity is that they did it all for the power. At first, they had none. Very much the opposite. They made themselves obnoxious to the point that most people if they thought about them at all would want to kill them. There was no power to be had by wandering around the Roman Empire in the 1st century blathering about some dead Jew and how he was your real salvation.

@r111 Well yeah I'm sure the fat cats at the RCC weren't the ones traveling solo spreading their religion.

Wait, who were the fat cats at the RCC in 100 AD?

Color me shocked - -

@r113 not sure as it was before my time, but they're a centralized organization who grew off the backs of little people for grunt missionary work.

I'm hoping in 10 years, The US will become majority nonreligious. The GOP and Evangelical fundies are doing a great job turning young people away from Christianity. They're so delusional that they don't see their aspirations for a theocracy is completely incompatible with what most young Americans want. So more people are going to reject organized religion.

In favor for the religion of money and the algorithm. People are just as religious as always.

Oh and celebrity worship, no question here. DL is a church!

That's still better than outdated Abrahamic religions that place too much emphasis on archaic written texts, "chosen people" and enforces a strict and rather intolerant and anti-humanist outlook. Celebrity worship and materialism doesn't result in women and gays losing their rights.

Humans will always be sheep of course and religions don't have to be supernatural of course, Confucianism and Taoism have no deities for instance. But tribal religions that worship an angry God that were spread by sword and threatens people with hell should probably should become irrelevant.

R72 I’ve ready that originally, three Gods came to Abraham and that eventually turned into one God.

And yes, the Gods of the Old Testament are all different and have morphed into one God.

R90 That’s a very interesting take and James the Just was also executed by the Romans as well. Is there actual evidence James was executed?

There was a bit of a battle between Paul and James the Just?

No one is getting into Heaven. Maybe some stillborn babies.

Stillborn babies go to the edge of heaven, aka Limbo.

2000 years isn't a helluva lot. There must be plenty of documentation.

All religion is man made to control.

All gods are manmade too.

Yes R125.

Jesus probably existed but we don't know much about him. I understand historically many famous figures were written about decades later. But the historical Jesus was likely very different than the biblical Jesus. We do know there were many Messianic apocalyptic movements around that time. That the Jews hated the Roman colonization of Judea and were always rebelling. And that the Messiah was to be a warrior king to fight off Rome and restore the Kingdom of God. We definitely know Jesus would not have been a peaceful hippie nor would be killed by the Romans if he was just a cult leader. And Pontus Pilate was not some meek, wishy-washy figure that would need to be prodded by the Jews (second class citizens) to enact an execution. Pilate was feared greatly for his cruelty. Crucifixion is a public humiliation form of execution only reserved for high treason and runaway slaves to instill fear. Jews were tolerated in Rome even though the Romans found them annoying for their monotheism and constant rebelling. If Jesus did declare himself king and was enacting a rebellion then the Roman government would get involved. If Jesus was simply a heretic then the Jewish authorities would have taken care of him and Rome would not have intervened because they didn't care about religion like that.

The early Christian movement likely was a form of resistance to Roman colonization. Jesus was made into a martyr but later info a form of God and eventually a man-god in line with Greco-Roman traditions. The New Testament was written decades after the death of Jesus and was made to distinguish the Christian movement from mainline Judaism. Painting the Jews who rejected Jesus in a negative light and even showing an ignorance and utter rejection of core Judaic beliefs. Paul was likely doing this to make Christianity appealing to the gentile masses in hopes of converts. But it was still a Jewish sect with a diversity of theological ideas until Ancient Rome founded the Catholic Church which became the dominant form of Christianity and killed off most of the "heresies."

Christianity and Islam were basically created as sects of Judaism and eventually became political ideologies used to conquer regions. That's why both are very intolerant and wage wars over theological beliefs. They're universal evangelical religions that place emphasis on being the "right religion" and having the "one true God." Historically most people didn't care about what gods people worshipped because polytheism was ubiquitous. Even Jews didn't care that much because their god was only for them and they didn't reject other gods existing. People who were conquered simply took the pantheon of the ruling class and syncretized it with their own. Christianity and Islam aimed to rid the world of paganism which is why they were more dangerous.

As far as the bureaucratic records of the time of Pilate, these were likely burned when the First Jewish Revolt took control of Jerusalem from the colonial government. And if not then during the following Roman reconquest and retaliation. Vespasian and his army left the city devastated.

There is only one JC who died for our sins and is worthy of worship.

There’s such desperation to prove that Jesus existed that people come up with so many theories about why there’s no contemporaneous documentation of any sort: we shouldn’t expect to have a written history of a sexy leader; all the documents were burned; so many great leaders were only written about 100 years later; and blah blah blah.

They always ignore the most obvious answer and the standard we hold for everyone else: maybe he either didn’t exist or wasn’t anything like we think of him today.

Somebody told me recently that the proof that Jesus existed is in the fact that our current calendar is based on his birth.

I was so mystified by this at the time that I didn't even have a good come back.

[quote]R99: We know Pontius Pilate is real (though the biblical version is a composite of at least the two people with that name). John the Baptist was supposedly the leader of the Mandeans, a Jewish sect and the maybe the "The Teacher of Righteousness" mentioned in Dead Sea scrolls.

For Pontius Pilate, the gospel authors used both Philo and Josephus as a source; for John the Baptist, just Josephus. About Pilate, R109 is correct.

[quote]R120: There was a bit of a battle between Paul and James the Just?

That's Robert Eisenman's theory, yeah, for whatever that's worth. He makes interesting reading, particularly how he speculates that the Pseudo-Clementine Homilies and Recognitions preserve remnants of an earlier savior narrative centered around James the Just, later supplanted by the Petrine tradition promoted by Rome.

[quote]R111: There was no power to be had by wandering around the Roman Empire in the 1st century blathering about some dead Jew and how he was your real salvation.

It's a good thing, then, that nobody did that.

The narratives about how Christianity was spread are themselves just another part of the fictional story, having begun to be written in the middle to late 2nd century, by lettered, wealthy persons who already held a modicum of power.

I don't know a historical Jesus existed - and neither does anyone else.