God, Jesus & Thor

[GrowlerG]

I think the same courtesy and context would apply to motorists too! That's a bit like Christians wading into the atheist forum and complaining that the posters in there don't believe in God!

The irony there is the atheist forum is obsessed about religion and the RC in particular. It's more the Anti-RC forum than an atheist forum.

There are other niche forums that are be the same. It's more to complain about the thing they don't like. Then about the subject they do like.

[Guburnor]

The irony there is the atheist forum is obsessed about religion and the RC in particular. It's more the Anti-RC forum than an atheist forum.

There are other niche forums that are be the same. It's more to complain about the thing they don't like. Then about the subject they do like.

In fairness that's sort of the point of being an atheist!

[GrowlerG]

In fairness that's sort of the point of being an atheist!

I don't think that true.

Talking about things you like doesn't mean always talking about things you hate. There will be bit of that. But not 99% of all threads should not that skewed. It's very negative.

[JohnBarnes]

I totally disagree. Being an atheist doesn't equate with being anti any religions or one in particular.

Totally agree, would consider myself an atheist, but increasingly understand the role religion plays in people lives.

And if they want that, that is their right

[Hodors Appletart]

I'm a lapsed catholic, and won't ever be "unlapsing" - we didn't get our son baptised etc, and he goes to an ET school so gets no formal religious instruction

He's of the opinion that Jesus is on a par with Thor; a god in the sense that Thor is, or Zeus - a quaint character that should be consigned to history or fantastical movies

[GrowlerG]

I'm a lapsed catholic, and won't ever be "unlapsing" - we didn't get our son baptised etc, and he goes to an ET school so gets no formal religious instruction

He's of the opinion that Jesus is on a par with Thor; a god in the sense that Thor is, or Zeus - a quaint character that should be consigned to history or fantastical movies

Well he wouldn't be welcome on the atheist forum on boards as none of that is about anti-RC-isims.

[Memento Mori]

I'm a lapsed catholic, and won't ever be "unlapsing" - we didn't get our son baptised etc, and he goes to an ET school so gets no formal religious instruction

He's of the opinion that Jesus is on a par with Thor; a god in the sense that Thor is, or Zeus - a quaint character that should be consigned to history or fantastical movies

You should probably be a bit worried about the level of education your child is receiving if he believes that is the case.

[Hodors Appletart]

You should probably be a bit worried about the level of education your child is receiving if he believes that is the case.

Perfectly happy, as it's true. The mythologised Jesus Christ figure worshipped by Xtians is very similar, even steals some aspects from more ancient mythologies like Greek, Roman and Egyptian cultures. You probably know this already.

It's not something he's learning in school by the way, as I've said, they receive little to no religious instruction, he's picked it up by osmosis. Knows that some people believe in some gods, and that Jesus is one of them, like Mars or a Sun God.

[GrowlerG]

... Knows that some people believe in some gods, and that Jesus is one of them, like Mars or a Sun God.

Like the US one Damn I think hes called.

[Memento Mori]

Perfectly happy, as it's true. The mythologised Jesus Christ figure worshipped by Xtians is very similar, even steals some aspects from more ancient mythologies like Greek, Roman and Egyptian cultures. You probably know this already.

It's not something he's learning in school by the way, as I've said, they receive little to no religious instruction, he's picked it up by osmosis. Knows that some people believe in some gods, and that Jesus is one of them, like Mars or a Sun God.

Em, Jesus was a historical figure (at a minimum) and the most significant and influential one at that in western, and probably world, civilisation. If your child thinks or was taught that Jesus was something akin to a mythical imaginary figure like Thor, rather than a historic figure who did exist (His divine nature is something other of course) this is, obviously, wrong. Further, if he (or you) thinks that in a theological sense the Christian understanding of God is similar to the pagan understanding of their gods, that is wrong also.

[Hodors Appletart]

OK

[Hodors Appletart]

never claimed that!

I don't dispute there was a man or men called Jesus (or a version or versions of that) who's life story (or stories) have been written down by people alive decades after his own time on earth. there are no contemporary written sources (even the disputed Josephus texts are from after the supposed lifetime of Jesus) of the man, and for someone so influential, for no contemporary written records to exist, from those fastidious note-keepers the Romans, is somewhat strange.

What I do know is that there are undoubted similarities between the mythology surrounding the historical figure, his supposed works and deeds and the mythological happenings and characters of other cultures

[PinkFreud]

In fairness that's sort of the point of being an atheist!

Completely disagree. I'm an atheist and I respect all religions. Most of my closest friends are religious and I can see the extremely positive role their beliefs play in their lives.

Atheism doesn't necessarily mean you dislike religion. Most of us just don't believe in it. But the loud, nasty, I hate everything brigade of atheists give us normal people a bad name

[peasant]

never claimed that!

I don't dispute there was a man or men called Jesus (or a version or versions of that) who's life story (or stories) have been written down by people alive decades after his own time on earth. there are no contemporary written sources (even the disputed Josephus texts are from after the supposed lifetime of Jesus) of the man, and for someone so influential, for no contemporary written records to exist, from those fastidious note-keepers the Romans, is somewhat strange.

What I do know is that there are undoubted similarities between the mythology surrounding the historical figure, his supposed works and deeds and the mythological happenings and characters of other cultures

Jesus and early Christians were proto-communists

This of course didn't go down well with the ruling classes, so a religion had to be invented around him that brought the great unwashed back in line and on their knees (for praying, of course)

[Memento Mori]

never claimed that!

I don't dispute there was a man or men called Jesus (or a version or versions of that) who's life story (or stories) have been written down by people alive decades after his own time on earth. there are no contemporary written sources (even the disputed Josephus texts are from after the supposed lifetime of Jesus) of the man, and for someone so influential, for no contemporary written records to exist, from those fastidious note-keepers the Romans, is somewhat strange.

What I do know is that there are undoubted similarities between the mythology surrounding the historical figure, his supposed works and deeds and the mythological happenings and characters of other cultures

You don't dispute His existence... but then you go on to do just that, or at least muddy the waters as best you can?

Why don't you explain how both references to Christ are "disputed" (hint, they are not). Why would you not accept references to Jesus within a couple of decades of His death as "contemporary"?

Regarding the historicity of Christ, it is clear that a historic figure of Christ did exist, and that He was likely crucified and put to death. Beyond this there is a world of debate. Anyway, the idea that a historic figure is the "same" as one which was totally imaginary is nonsense, good to see you have backed away from this initial claim.

[Jimmy Bottlehead]

You don't dispute His existence... but then you go on to do just that, or at least muddy the waters as best you can?

Why don't you explain how both references to Christ are "disputed" (hint, they are not). Why would you not accept references to Jesus within a couple of decades of His death as "contemporary"?

Regarding the historicity of Christ, it is clear that a historic figure of Christ did exist, and that He was likely crucified and put to death. Beyond this there is a world of debate. Anyway, the idea that a historic figure is the "same" as one which was totally imaginary is nonsense, good to see you have backed away from this initial claim.

Goodness gracious, that's some serious offence taken at the notion of a child being told Jesus wasn't real. I completely see where Hodor's Appletart is coming from - considering the historical jesus is almost never spoken of, and only the mythological Jesus is, it makes sense why one would describe Jesus as not real.

I'll be telling my own kids in the future that he was a normal chap that people at the time made up funny stories about, like a less deranged L. Ron Hubbard.

[Memento Mori]

There's no historical evidence that Thor ever existed. The man named Jesus did exist. If he was a God is another debate. Similarly a named Mohammed existed but whether he was the chosen prophet of a God is also debatable.

Precisely.

[Memento Mori]

Completely disagree. I'm an atheist and I respect all religions. Most of my closest friends are religious and I can see the extremely positive role their beliefs play in their lives.

Atheism doesn't necessarily mean you dislike religion. Most of us just don't believe in it. But the loud, nasty, I hate everything brigade of atheists give us normal people a bad name

You rarely meet that loud or nasty kind outside of the internet, thankfully.

[Hodors Appletart]

Show me the contemporary evidence for the existence of Jesus, son of Mary (and Joseph)

Contemporary has a pretty specific meaning by the way, and it doesn't mean "decades later"

There's none

[Hodors Appletart]

Meanwhile there is more compelling evidence for people like Pontius Pilate, and no evidence that he was responsible for the execution of anyone named Jesus.

There is compelling evidence for the Herod dynasty, but none that they murdered Jewish firstborns.

There was no actual census recorded at the time claimed by the Bible myths.

[Memento Mori]

This is most odd. You have already said you don't dispute that Jesus existed?

Lots of interesting discussions to be had about the divinity of Jesus, less so about whether Jesus was a historical figure, as the existence of such a historical figure is almost universally accepted.

[Hodors Appletart]

If you say something enough times it must be true?

[Peregrinus]

There are no contemporary accounts of Alexander the Great, who in his own time was much more notable than Jesus. Given that Jesus is presented in the Gospels as an itinerant apocalyptic preacher whose public career played out in a fairly minor province and lasted only a couple of years, the absence of contemporary accounts is hardly surprising; do we have contemporary accounts of any itinerant Palestinian preacher of that era? And yet we believe they were ten a penny. So I'm not included to read much into the absence of a contemporary written account; if Jesus was who he is said to have been, we wouldn't really expect any contemporary written accounts.

Pontius Pilate has been mentioned. (Apart from coins and one monumental inscription, neither of which we would expect for Jesus, we have no contemporary evidence for the existence of Pontius Pilate, incidentally.) It is claimed that we have no evidence that he executed anyone named Jesus. This is untrue; we have no contemporary evidence that he executed Jesus, but we have the synoptic gospels, John and Tacitus all asserting that he executed Jesus. More to the point, there is a general historical consensus that he presided over numerous executions but, so far as I know, have no evidence that he executed any named person (apart from Jesus).

There's a thread here; people point to the absence of things that would, if they existed, be pretty powerful evidence. But they ignore the fact that evidence of that kind for events or persons of that era very rarely exists. We wouldn't really expect to find it, so we can't draw much in the way of conclusions from not finding it.

Sometimes people try to mask this problem by hinting that the evidence would be expected; for example, by describing the Romans as "fastidious note-keepers". But this is pure invention; the Romans were not fastidious note-keepers. In particular no records, reports, accounts or dispatches by Pilate as governor of Judaea - indeed, by Pilate in any capacity - survive. The very few surviving records we have from roman provincial governors of this period deal mostly with taxes, and virtually the only people named in them are the governor, senior staff members and occasionally senior Roman military commanders. Even if Pilate's reports did survive, they would not have named a criminal executed in the way that Jesus is said to have been.

[Hodors Appletart]

and the non-existent census?

[Peregrinus]

What about it? You'll have no difficulty persuading me that the census described by Luke never took place. You just need to fill in the glaring logical gaps between that premise and the conclusion that Jesus never existed.

If it helps at all, I'll cheerfully concede that the nativity narratives offered by Luke and Mark are probably largely or entirely imaginative constructs, and not accounts of events that actually occurred.

As regards the origins and backgrounds of Jesus, from a historical point of view the only things we can be reasonably confident of are (a) that he came from Nazareth; (b) that he had a mother called Mary and a father who was probably a carpenter and probably called Joseph and (c) that he had siblings (or half-siblings?), one of whom was called James. The names of the rest of them are less certain, or are unknown.