proof that jesus was a man, NOT a god

[homegrown terror]

before i start, this isn't the standard "how could a benevolent god allow suffering?" argument:

we've all come across those people who say "i believe in jesus, but i wish his followers weren't so prejudiced" well, by christian reasoning, for jesus to be godly would require that he be both all-knowing and all-good. if he was all-knowing AND benevolent, he could have seen what was to come, and steered his followers a little better. therefore, if you posit that he's all knowing, then he can't be all good, or vice versa.

[Skyhilist]

I don't think too many people are going to argue against that argument here.

[Althusser]

Too bad Christians are too programmed to understand or take into consideration any argument against Jesus.

[Anarcho-Brocialist]

Actually, you too could look at Horus, the Ancient Egyptian God. You'll understand Jesus and Abrahamic religions a tad bit better.

IAE5aC9G-9c

[Astarte]

To me that the same archetypes repeat themselves over the ages in slightly varied forms, rather adds to the viability of them, and compounds their collective truth, rather than rendering individual falsity.

[Zostrianos]

The whole Horus-Jesus connection actually has very little basis in fact. It's a theory that was started by Gerald Massey, a 19th century self-taught Egyptian scholar, who misinterpreted Egyptian texts, reliefs and iconography, and came to the conclusion that Horus was an earlier reflection of Jesus. Most of his theories have been refuted however, although they keep coming up again and again (e.g. in Religulous). The only connection between Jesus and Horus is iconographic: depictions of Isis holding baby Horus inspired later representations of Mary and Jesus. That's where it ends.

That being said, there were indeed myths that were added to Jesus' story to embellish it. There's a long line of dying-resurrecting Gods that influenced, directly or indirectly, Jesus' own resurrection: Osiris, Ba'al, Dionysus. The latter is by far the top candidate. According to Stephen Harris' The New Testament: A Student's Introduction (one of the main textbooks for Christianity university studies here in Canada), Jesus was indeed a historical figure, but the real Jesus and the one in the gospel are very different. After Jesus' death, the Christians who passed along his story and ultimately recorded it, added Pagan traits to their version of Jesus, based on their local cultures. Harris' book lists several commonalities between Jesus and the Greek God Dionysos which appear to be more than justcoincidence.

Like Jesus, Dionysus was born of a god (Zeus, the king of the Greek gods)
and a virgin (Semele, the princess of Thebes). Just as the infant Jesus narrowly escaped death at the hands of King Herod, Dionysus narrowly survived Hera’s attempt to murder him as an infant. Both Jesus and Dionysus performed miracles to illustrate their divinity. Both figures endured rejection by friends and family in their hometowns. Both suffered grotesque deaths – Dionysus died at the hands of the Titans, who cut up his body and ate it. And both Jesus and Dionysus ascended into heaven where they joined their Fathers.

Jesus was an actual person, but various mythological traits were painted onto him by his followers. The historical Jesus and his biblical (mythological) counterpart are distinct.

[roy]

Too bad Christians are too programmed to understand or take into consideration any argument against Jesus.

so you're denouncing christians as being stupid and brainwashed by making a sweeping generalisation? beautiful

anyway, idk how this tired old argument proves 'jesus was a man'. im not religious, but that's that. why any communist would be concerned with disproving god escapes me.

[Althusser]

so you're denouncing christians as being stupid and brainwashed by making a sweeping generalisation? beautiful

anyway, idk how this tired old argument proves 'jesus was a man'. im not religious, but that's that. why any communist would be concerned with disproving god escapes me.

Uh-huh. It escapes you? Well so does materialism I guess. Oh well.

Would it be a sweeping generalization to say fascists are bad?

It's fine to believe in a creator, but being a christian is on a whole other level. It repressed scientific advancement for a large portion of humanity. The pope sits on a golden throne. Christianity is extremely reactionary, and religious people are brainwashed.

[roy]

lol @ comparing christians to fascists

the fact that you think all christians believe the same thing is as laughable as the fact that you think disproving god is worthwhile or possible

[Revolution starts with U]

I'm not sure he compared Christians to fascists...

[roy]

well the implication was that if christians arent bad just for being christian, then neither are fascists

fact is, fascists categorically adhere to a doctrine of ultra-nationalism, arbitrary authoritarianism and extreme classism. often racism, too.

christians believe and dont believe all kinds of stuff

[Revolution starts with U]

fair enough

[Comrade Samuel]

@OP

I've often had similar thoughts, if hypotheticly Christianity is correct and there is an all knowing god why would he of created anything evil in the first place? Why Satin, why the snake? why all of this suffering? That is why I've come to the conclusion that either god isn't as good and perfect as he is cracked up to be or the far more logical and likely possibilty that we have no idea what lies beond and that all the lives wasted killing eachother over religion and what may or may not happen after death could of been spent progressing mankind toward a better existence right now.

[Pretty Flaco]

when i believed in god i remember thinking how if god was all loving and all forgiving that he couldnt forgive adam and eve for eating the apple from the tree of knowledge. or how he could allow anybody to die or have pain for no real reason. i remember a few things that made me think about that, like when my uncle went to prison. or when a girl from my block drowned in a public swimming pool. or when there was a driveby and a pregnant woman got killed (and as a consequence her baby). when youre a kid eventually you start to realize that there are things like rapes, murders, and accidents and the victims are just random people they might not a done anything wrong and sometimes if youre raised from a certain religious perspective this can conflict with your thinking.

[hatzel]

if hypotheticly Christianity is correct and there is an all knowing god why would he of created anything evil in the first place? Why Satin, why the snake? why all of this suffering?

C'mon now, I don't think there's any need for that. I mean sure, I much prefer linen, but I'm hardly repulsed enough by the other fabrics to use such damning language, 'evil,' 'suffering' etc...

:closedeyes:

[Zukunftsmusik]

C'mon now, I don't think there's any need for that. I mean sure, I much prefer linen, but I'm hardly repulsed enough by the other fabrics to use such damning language, 'evil,' 'suffering' etc...

:closedeyes:

:lol: yeah, go easy on the satin, Vladimir.

proving that god doesn't exist -- or that Jesus by no means was "godly" -- is quite impossible, as it's not a hypothesis that in any way is possible to either prove or denounce.

[Astarte]

@OP

I've often had similar thoughts, if hypotheticly Christianity is correct and there is an all knowing god why would he of created anything evil in the first place? Why Satin, why the snake? why all of this suffering? That is why I've come to the conclusion that either god isn't as good and perfect as he is cracked up to be or the far more logical and likely possibilty that we have no idea what lies beond and that all the lives wasted killing eachother over religion and what may or may not happen after death could of been spent progressing mankind toward a better existence right now.

If you want answers to theological problems like "where does evil come from", it probably makes more sense to examine the problem theologically. A comrade of mine always gives Gnosticism credit for at least answering the question where evil comes from, that is, in extremely condensed form, the material world is a corrupt counterfeit created in the distorted image of the absolute, immaterial reality that is pure/perfect. This counterfeit reality was created by a corrupt counterfeit "god" which was the product of a kind of divine miscarriage. The same comrade also notes that the terms "progress", "progressing", and "progressive" are rather void in that the flow of time is always "progressing" and all new ideologies that come to the forefront of human history always claim "progress"...

[hatzel]

:lol: yeah, go easy on the satin, Vladimir.

Looks to me like he doesn't much like snakeskin purses, either :bored:

Historical Jesus discussions are always verging on boring because it's mainly just wild conjecture. Like that Kosher Jesus book that time. I mean yeah it's probably a pretty accurate picture, but still it's all just guesswork really. Though of course such a text obviously serves a range of possible functions independent of its veracity, which is probably the best place to start with these kinds of questions...

[Book O'Dead]

before i start, this isn't the standard "how could a benevolent god allow suffering?" argument:

we've all come across those people who say "i believe in jesus, but i wish his followers weren't so prejudiced" well, by christian reasoning, for jesus to be godly would require that he be both all-knowing and all-good. if he was all-knowing AND benevolent, he could have seen what was to come, and steered his followers a little better. therefore, if you posit that he's all knowing, then he can't be all good, or vice versa.

Pretty lame 'argument' or 'proof'!

According to scripture, Jesus did know what was coming because it had been prophesied in various Jewish texts such as Ezekiel and Isaiah, etc. and that Jesus came to understand that his sacrifice was a necessary act in establishing a new covenant between humanity and its creator.

So, according to Christian doctrine, Jesus understood what was going to happen and willingly submitted because it meant that his death would help save humanity and establish a new level of spiritual awareness in people who acknowledged his sacrifice as a supersession of the previous form of expiation.

I think it's absurd to engage in a debate about Jesus's divinity on the basis of your 'proof'.

Moreover, I think that Jesus, like all other prophets and sages who helped change the world for the better, was a manifestation of God's desire for humans to be free. That's why I feel I can argue that Karl Marx was a true prophet of righteousness, sent by God to show Humanity that their liberation and happiness rests entirely in their own hands, that God is powerless to free them, and that they themselves must, in the course of their own struggle to survive create the necessary conditions for their own emancipation.

[Book O'Dead]

Looks to me like he doesn't much like snakeskin purses, either :bored:

Historical Jesus discussions are always verging on boring because it's mainly just wild conjecture. Like that Kosher Jesus book that time. I mean yeah it's probably a pretty accurate picture, but still it's all just guesswork really. Though of course such a text obviously serves a range of possible functions independent of its veracity, which is probably the best place to start with these kinds of questions...

I like this comment!

[Comrade Samuel]

C'mon now, I don't think there's any need for that. I mean sure, I much prefer linen, but I'm hardly repulsed enough by the other fabrics to use such damning language, 'evil,' 'suffering' etc...

:closedeyes:

No, the every last bit of the demonic fabric must burn for being so nice to touch!

[Zostrianos]

Concerning the problem of evil, I think Pagans had the upper hand on this particular notion:

The Gods being good and making all things, how do evils exist in the world? Or perhaps it is better first to state the fact that, the Gods being good and making all things, there is no positive evil, it only comes by absence of good; just as darkness itself does not exist, but only comes about by absence of light...It is in the activities of men that the evils appear, and that not of all men nor always. And as to these, if men sinned for the sake of evil, nature itself would be evil. But if the adulterer thinks his adultery bad but his pleasure good, and the murderer thinks the murder bad but the money he gets by it good, and the man who does evil to an enemy thinks that to do evil is bad but to punish his enemy good, and if the soul commits all its sins in that way, then the evils are done for the sake of goodness. (In the same way, because in a given place light does not exist, there comes darkness, which has no positive existence.) The soul sins therefore because, while aiming at good, it makes mistakes about the good, because it is not primary essence. And we see many things done by the Gods to prevent it from making mistakes and to heal it when it has made them. Arts and sciences, curses and prayers, sacrifices and initiations, laws and constitutions, judgments and punishments, all came into existence for the sake of preventing souls from sinning; and when they are gone forth from the body, Gods and spirits of purification cleanse them of their sins. (Sallustius, On the Gods and the World)

[Pretty Flaco]

i also remember asking my mom once why they would make a blanket with satin as a kid.
"but why would they work to make it with satan?"

[homegrown terror]

C'mon now, I don't think there's any need for that. I mean sure, I much prefer linen, but I'm hardly repulsed enough by the other fabrics to use such damning language, 'evil,' 'suffering' etc...

:closedeyes:

given this new evidence, i can think of ONE kinda fabric to denounce:

http://www.anorak.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/obama-half-breed-muslin.jpg

[Halleluhwah]

I've never really heard a satisfactory response to the problem of evil. Usually, Christians attempt to work around it by arguing that it's caused by free will or something similar. I find that if you're going to debate over it, it's usually best to start by setting down the person's conception of God. For example, I find that most lay Christians hold a voluntarist view of God. Maybe start by addressing the Euthyphro Dilemma: is the pious loved by God because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by God?

In any sort of debate, it's also important how you formulate the problem. I can't post links, but I would recommend looking through the wikipedia article for the Logical Problem of Evil.

Really though, I've given up on debating over God. It never goes anywhere, and it typically isn't a prerequisite for arguing for Marx's economic theories. By starting with God, you're only going to turn people away from anything else you have to offer. Religion is, after all, the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions, besides being an opium of the people.

[homegrown terror]

"Religion is not the opiate of the masses; religion is the placebo of the masses." -House