This is just a post to collect together some readings I thought might be of interest to members.
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/religiolinks.html
The above link was listed at the bottom of this link -
http://mama.indstate.edu/users/nizrael/jesusrefutation.html
I'm only just now beginning a focused journey to gather intel on the origins of christianity with an eye turned toward how it is popularly defended and peddled by modern christians and their missionary efforts. The 2nd link, above, is a worthy read although it is a bit laborious and requires several readings to plant the seeds of the missionary method of defense and how none of it is credible in the author's review.
Obviously, much pause must be given to the absolutes of personal convictions in both camps if a true measure of the evidence is to be revealed.
And, then we have Scott Bidstrup here http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
For all that the atheist might refute it becomes easy to see that their collective writings begin to take on the same proportion and intent as their antithesis and not unlike a 2-party system of point-counter-point. But, if we carefully cope with necessary work of contrasting the archeological records with the christian documents used to support their claim of there being a real jesus, we see that they conflict in all manner to their own dismissal for such a person's existence. None of this is news to most here.
Because it is such a laborious undertaking to obtain credible sources of knowledge necessary to the dismissal of a jesus as a person, and thus disenfranchisement of christianity's claim on religion, someone must take on the proportions of that work with an intent to simplify its dissemination. The easier it is for someone to obtain the knowledge, the greater the distribution of that knowledge over a much abbreviated time frame will occur. That is surely a desirable goal.
Remember, the belief systems at large are held dear by the ignorant masses who hold it as a truth that a god loves them and is waiting for them to live a good life before collecting them up for eternity. They were told this. According to George Carlin, these are the same people who can be told the paint on a wall is wet but they have to touch it for themselves to believe it true. These are the people who must be reached with the truth about christianity and, moreover, how the 12 Jewish tribes developed monotheism from their separate gods (Bidstrup's treatment of this is pretty cool). The latter would serve to trip up the claims of The Prophet Muhammad as well.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
"someone must take on the proportions of that work with an intent to simplify its dissemination."
After an intensive research, Joseph Atwil is the person that describes it in the simplest of terms in this video.
(very hard to find a working link for this)
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/174117/Caesars_Messiah__The_Roma...
1 hr vodeo
"The latter would serve to trip up the claims of The Prophet Muhammad as well."
If you understand how Jesus character was invented, it becomes quite easy to see how another empire created Mohammed with the same principles but a different purpose, using allegory and typology.
Christianity was to convince the slaves and peasants of the roman(not the Jews) empire to enjoy their place in society and not rebel.(during a period where the Jews were inciting revolts among the peasants and the slaves)
(the more you suffer in this world the more you will be rewarded in the next one)
Islam was to convince the people to be loyal and accepting to anything their leaders wanted since they had very similar characteristics to their prophet.
(to this day Islam is used to convince people to do anything including terrorism because the leaders are always right)
I wonder if Hayyim ben Yehoshua is prepared to also state there is no evidence for Moses either? He makes a valid argument not withstanding his bias.
Some of my own thoughts :
Rabbi Hillel : A well documented contemporary of Jesus - quote "Do not do to others what you would not have them do to you. That is the whole of the Law." I believe Hillels real life provided fodder for Saul of Tarsus to stoke the myth of Jesus.
Christopher Hitchens vacillated a bit on whether the historical Jesus existed. He once stated that the effort by the writers of the four gospels to reconcile conflicting data such as the birthplace of Christ and the Census near the time of his birth reveals an effort to reconcile prophetic scriptures with an actual human being.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JjcWkhqScBI - starts at 2:50
Great points by the Hitch but I disagree. I think the effort to reconcile the contradictions in the gospels reveal the lack of accurate historical knowledge by writers in the first century. I am sure that much arguing and compromise had to occur by the divergent assemblers of the Christian Bible . Ultimately they were not concerned with historical truth. By the time of the First Council of Nicaea the birth place of Christ was no longer a controversy.
I may be wrong and in that case guilty of pseudo-skepticism as I have nothing more than my opinion to offer.
The facticity of the person known as Jesus is simply unprovable in either direction. Any of the factual information regarding him was edited/destroyed by the ancient churches Heresiarchs and any information we currently have is completely suspect. Whether or not Jesus was a real person is, at this point, irrelevant. Don't get me wrong, it always was, but his existence as a man or a pure myth does little to effect the thoughts and actions of professed Christians. Even if empirical proof somehow materialized that the person dubbed Jesus of Nazareth never existed, I don't think it would change the minds of anyone who currently taints their morality with biblical cognitive bias.
I disagree, if it is shown that Jesus never existed, it would show that he never died for all humanity.
The concept of "god so love the world that he gave up his only son", would not only be immoral but a lie.
"I don't think it would change the minds of anyone who currently taints their morality with biblical cognitive bias."
It makes it much easier to kill this insanity for newer generations.
I agree that some people are just insane in their delusions at this point, but their evangelical ways would be severely hindered anyway.
It is not about changing minds, it is about being able to show the truth to people so the religion would die out.
Like what happened to the flat earth believers.
Did the knowledge of the earth being a sphere change the minds of hard core believers?
No, but that is not the point.
Most people today would not believe it because they know it is a lie since we discovered the truth.
"Religion will go just as it came, men and women claiming to have great knowledge. The difference, my friends, is this time these men and women will actually be telling the truth. Reason and logic will come on a silent wind. How do I know it will be a silent wind, or even a wind at all? I don't. I just wanted to sound mysterious." -Unknown
But Jeff, remember, Jesus never DID die according to them! (I agreed your post, this is good convo) According to them, the physical Jesus was just a meat-puppet he had for a blink of his eternal existence before immediately going back 'home'. They obviously don't state it with that much snark, but I will still hold to my idea that knowing he never physically existed wouldn't matter.
If they accepted that he never existed then they cannot claim that he died though right?
No human sacrifice = no salvation
It would be much easier then it is now.
I agree with Jeff. Imagine solid evidence was found of the non-existence of a divine Jesus .Perhaps a series of scrolls revealing the collective creation of this person in the 1st century. Many rational Christians would be forced to reconsider their belief system from it's core. Former believers might then say that the teachings of Christ are like the teachings of Socrates. If the man did not actually exist then we have still the ideas and words. Subtract the Divine Jesus and they would have Jefferson's Bible to believe in. Cut down on the tax free donations from a large group of moderates.That would be a good start. Many Christians would still hang on to the old beliefs though. Evidence would not shake that tree.