Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Dionysius Exiguus who lived 450 to 544 C.E.

That's part of how the myth was constructed.

The birth of Christ was chosen as 70 years before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem because 70 is a magic (i.e., religious) number.

• The ancients mistakenly believed that a year was 360 days, ergo, 360 is a magic number.
• There are 12 full moons in a year, ergo, 12 is a magic number.
• Divide 360 by 12 and you get another magic number, 30.
• It takes 25200 years (known as a great year) for the equinox to precess through one cycle around the ecliptic, ergo 25200 is a magic number.
• Divide 25200 by 360 and you get 70, ergo, 70 is a magic number.
• There are 7 heavenly bodies visible to the naked eye: the sun, the moon and five planets, ergo, 7 is a magic number.

The gospel writers chose 30 C.E. as the date for Christ's death/resurrection because 30 is a magic number. That means his death must have been ordered by the Roman governor Pilate since no Jewish official had the power to impose the death penalty. But wait, there's more. We don't want to piss off the Romans who are still in charge. We need a Jewish villain. Caiaphas will do. The gospel writers constructed their story so as to make the Romans happy and condemn the Jews, which also made the Romans happy.

You might have missed your calling. You should have been a magician. You could have been a super juggler of a mass amount of numbers.

And to say that universal calendar is a result of a myth is circular reasoning. You need to prove that.

So, everyone played an active role in the "Jesus myth" save for the ancient Jews. They were powerless to stop the spread of fake news -- even though their complacency came back to bite them severely back then...and even to this day.,

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

... to say that universal calendar is a result of a myth is circular reasoning.

It's not a result of the myth. It's part of the myth. The myth makers tried to create a cohesive story. Or, as you put it, to create something that was "in harmony with itself."

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, everyone ...

Not everyone. I don't buy the Caesar's Messiah Theory.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... played an active role in the "Jesus myth" save for the ancient Jews. They were powerless to stop the spread of fake news -- even though their complacency came back to bite them severely back then...and even to this day.

Learn to read.

Effectively, your claims are (1)that Christianity grew fast enough for its tenets to be common knowledge by the time Mark was published circa 70 C.E., (2)that the Jews would see the new religion as a threat (not just as something abhorrent), (3)that the Jews would not see other new (or established) religions as a threat, (4)that there is nothing suspicious about the first Gospel (Mark) being published more or less concurrently with the destruction of the temple. These are your claims. The burden of proof is yours.

Of course Christianity's biggest claim is resurrection. This is outlandish. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a super-extraordinary claim requiring super-extraordinary evidence. You provide no evidence. The Goat Herder's Guide to the Universe is not super-extraordinary evidence.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Well...let's approach this from another perspective:

Why?

Originally Posted by boxcar

Was there a founder of Hinduism? If so, who? And was this person real or fictional?

Was there a founder of Judaism? If so, who? And was this person real or fictional?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

It's not a result of the myth. It's part of the myth. The myth makers tried to create a cohesive story. Or, as you put it, to create something that was "in harmony with itself."

Not everyone. I don't buy the Caesar's Messiah Theory.

Learn to read.

Effectively, your claims are (1)that Christianity grew fast enough for its tenets to be common knowledge by the time Mark was published circa 70 C.E., (2)that the Jews would see the new religion as a threat (not just as something abhorrent), (3)that the Jews would not see other new (or established) religions as a threat, (4)that there is nothing suspicious about the first Gospel (Mark) being published more or less concurrently with the destruction of the temple. These are your claims. The burden of proof is yours.

Of course Christianity's biggest claim is resurrection. This is outlandish. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. This is a super-extraordinary claim requiring super-extraordinary evidence. You provide no evidence. The Goat Herder's Guide to the Universe is not super-extraordinary evidence.

You're the one who needs to read. I provided my case in my multi-part series on Acts several months ago.

The Resurrection had plenty of eyewitnesses. Furthermore, the Resurrection provides the only logical and reasonable explanation for why the Jewish religious establishment could not shut down the persistent evangelistic preaching of the offensive Jesus sect, since there was no body in the tomb to show to the people.

And since the Jesus sect initially consisted primarily of Jews, these would have been perceived as a very real threat to Jewish religious authorities, since Jesus himself was quite the radical itinerant preacher. In fact, this is why the Jews murdered Stephen, the first recorded martyr in scripture, because they perceived hm as being a genuine threat to the establishment.

Acts 6:14-15
14 for we have heard him say that this Nazarene, Jesus, will destroy this place and alter the customs which Moses handed down to us." 15 And fixing their gaze on him, all who were sitting in the Council saw his face like the face of an angel.
NASB

In Acts 7, they stoned Stephen.

And, of course, Paul as well was incessantly persecuted by his fellow-countrymen for the very same reason. And the Jews were justified in their fear; for the Covenant Law of Moses had been done away with in favor of the New Covenant.

So...instead of stoning Stephen, why didn't the Jews simply produce the body of Jesus; for that would have stopped all the disciples of Christ dead in their tracks since they always preached the Resurrection?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Why?

Was there a founder of Judaism? If so, who? And was this person real or fictional?

This issue isn't Judaism. The issue is Christianity, remember?

But since Christianity is nothing less than fulfilled Judaism, then of course, there was a "founder" to Judaism. The Law of Moses was given by God through Moses.

While Abraham's seed gave birth to a people, these people didn't become a nation until Moses gave them the Law -- a law which included very specific instructions for the worship of YHWH.

Judaism gave rise through Moses and all its types, shadows and figures contained in the Law found its eventual fulfillment in Jesus -- the second law-giver in a very real sense.

And "why" for my question on Hinduism? Well, you being such an honest truth-seeker, would of course want to naturally compare apples with apples, would you not? Thask mentioned Hinduism, but doesn't tell us who its founder was. If it had a known founder, was (s)he real or fictitious?

[VigorsTheGrey]

“Oppressed by the double yoke of spiritual and temporal power, it has been impossible for the people to know and pursue their happiness. As Religion, so Politics and Morality became sacred things, which the profane were not permitted to handle. Men have had no other Morality than what their legislators and priests brought down from the unknown regions of heaven.

The human mind, confused by its theological opinions, ceased to know its own powers, mistrusted experience, feared truth and disdained reason, in order to follow authority. Man has been a mere machine in the hands of tyrants and priests, who alone have had the right of directing his actions. Always treated as a slave, he has contracted the vices of a slave.

Such are the true causes of the corruption of morals, to which Religion opposes only ideal and ineffectual barriers. Ignorance and servitude are calculated to make men wicked and unhappy. Knowledge, Reason, and Liberty, can alone reform them, and make them happier. But everything conspires to blind them, and to confirm them in their errors.

Priests cheat them, tyrants corrupt, the better to enslave them. Tyranny ever was, and ever will be, the true cause of man’s depravity, and also of his habitual calamities. Almost always fascinated by religious fiction, poor mortals turn not their eyes to the natural and obvious causes of their misery; but attribute their vices to the imperfection of their natures, and their unhappiness to the anger of the gods.

They offer up to heaven vows, sacrifices, and presents, to obtain the end of their sufferings, which in reality, are attributable only to the negligence, ignorance, and perversity of their guides, to the folly of their customs, to the unreasonableness of their laws, and above all, to the general want of knowledge.

Let men’s minds be filled with true ideas; let their reason be cultivated; let justice govern them; and there will be no need of opposing to the passions such a feeble barrier as the fear of the gods. Men will be good, when they are well instructed, well governed, and when they are punished or despised for the evil, and justly rewarded for the good, which they do to their fellow citizens.”

Baron D’Holbach.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I provided my case in my multi-part series on Acts several months ago.

Acts is not a verifiable source.

Originally Posted by boxcar

The Resurrection had plenty of eyewitnesses.

Name one whose existence can be verified from a secular source.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Furthermore, the Resurrection provides the only logical and reasonable explanation for why the Jewish religious establishment could not shut down the persistent evangelistic preaching of the offensive Jesus sect, since there was no body in the tomb to show to the people.

Jesus never existed is a reasonable and logical explanation. If he never existed then of course there was no body.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And since the Jesus sect initially consisted primarily of Jews, ...

That's your claim. Since all but two of the epistles in the NT are to Greek churches, and with one possible exception were all written in Greek, it is possible that the sect was primarily Greek. Yours is the burden of proof.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... the Jews murdered Stephen, the first recorded martyr in scripture ...

Scripture proves nothing.

Originally Posted by boxcar

... Paul as well was incessantly persecuted by his fellow-countrymen ...

Paul is another figure whose existence cannot be proven. He doesn't even have a Josephus, Pliny, et al, for you to claim as confirming his existence.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So...instead of stoning Stephen, why didn't the Jews simply produce the body of Jesus

Circular reasoning! How do you produce the body of someone who never existed?

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

“Oppressed by the double yoke of spiritual and temporal power, it has been impossible for the people to know and pursue their happiness. As Religion, so Politics and Morality became sacred things, which the profane were not permitted to handle. Men have had no other Morality than what their legislators and priests brought down from the unknown regions of heaven.

The human mind, confused by its theological opinions, ceased to know its own powers, mistrusted experience, feared truth and disdained reason, in order to follow authority. Man has been a mere machine in the hands of tyrants and priests, who alone have had the right of directing his actions. Always treated as a slave, he has contracted the vices of a slave.

Such are the true causes of the corruption of morals, to which Religion opposes only ideal and ineffectual barriers. Ignorance and servitude are calculated to make men wicked and unhappy. Knowledge, Reason, and Liberty, can alone reform them, and make them happier. But everything conspires to blind them, and to confirm them in their errors.

Priests cheat them, tyrants corrupt, the better to enslave them. Tyranny ever was, and ever will be, the true cause of man’s depravity, and also of his habitual calamities. Almost always fascinated by religious fiction, poor mortals turn not their eyes to the natural and obvious causes of their misery; but attribute their vices to the imperfection of their natures, and their unhappiness to the anger of the gods.

They offer up to heaven vows, sacrifices, and presents, to obtain the end of their sufferings, which in reality, are attributable only to the negligence, ignorance, and perversity of their guides, to the folly of their customs, to the unreasonableness of their laws, and above all, to the general want of knowledge.

Let men’s minds be filled with true ideas; let their reason be cultivated; let justice govern them; and there will be no need of opposing to the passions such a feeble barrier as the fear of the gods. Men will be good, when they are well instructed, well governed, and when they are punished or despised for the evil, and justly rewarded for the good, which they do to their fellow citizens.”

Baron D’Holbach.

Your latest anti-religious quotable is not even a compatibilist, but a hard determinism, free-will-is-an-illusion fanatic. So why is he complaining?

Almost as hysterical as Jerry Coyne holding seminars to convince people they don't have free will.

[ReplayRandall]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Almost as hysterical as Jerry Coyne holding seminars to convince people they don't have free will.

100% agree.....It had to happen eventually, a first for everything...

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

This issue isn't Judaism. The issue is Christianity, remember?

The title of the thread is Religion II.

Originally Posted by boxcar

But since Christianity is nothing less than fulfilled Judaism ...

That's another or your claims. Totally irrelevant.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Thask mentioned Hinduism, but doesn't tell us who its founder was.

Google "syncretism".

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Your latest anti-religious quotable is not even a compatibilist, but a hard determinism, free-will-is-an-illusion fanatic. So why is he complaining?

Almost as hysterical as Jerry Coyne holding seminars to convince people they don't have free will.

Determinism and free will are interesting topics...surely there are many things that are deterministic in nature...as an aside, I’m somewhat amused by people who deny determinism yet deeply believe in prophecy...I never really understood prophecy claims...

Some prophet long ago tells of a future time, of things that “shall come to pass”....How the hell does he know...? It is as though these things have ALREADY HAPPENED and now we just have to wait until they REALLY DO..which is of course INEVITABLE...this totally smacks of determinism...I know, NOTHING can prevent the coming of the Messiah...nothing is more sure in the minds of Christians, except maybe the resurrection...

[dnlgfnk]

Originally Posted by VigorsTheGrey

Determinism and free will are interesting topics...surely there are many things that are deterministic in nature...as an aside, I’m somewhat amused by people who deny determinism yet deeply believe in prophecy...I never really understood prophecy claims...

Some prophet long ago tells of a future time, of things that “shall come to pass”....How the hell does he know...? It is as though these things have ALREADY HAPPENED and now we just have to wait until they REALLY DO..which is of course INEVITABLE...this totally smacks of determinism...I know, NOTHING can prevent the coming of the Messiah...nothing is more sure in the minds of Christians, except maybe the resurrection...

Again, in what sense has the denier of any free will not surrendered the right to criticize if all is determined by physical laws in nature?

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by dnlgfnk

Again, in what sense has the denier of any free will not surrendered the right to criticize if all is determined by physical laws in nature?

That is an interesting academic question...I do not purport to say that ALL is determined...obviously, there are many things that demonstrate choices being made...we can choose to flip a coin or not....choose to get out of bed now or in ten minutes from now...Life is full of choices that demonstrate that we do indeed have some “free will” over certain things...BUT ALSO....

...many things are obviously deterministic...like “Can we choose NOT TO DIE....? Can we choose to not eat and not drink water for a year and still be healthy if not dead...? So it is a matter of specifics, categories of phenomenon, etc...

Your use of the word ANY and ALL is confusing here...It is not like I am maintaining that ALL IS DETERMINISTIC or conversely that ALL IS FREEWILL...

With regard to the Baron D’Holbach, he died in 1789, and it is clear that he was a genius of extraordinary talent and learning...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baron_d%27Holbach

I think he did fantastic with the topics he engaged in considering he was born over 300 years ago...I don’t know about you, but I if I possessed 1/10th of his intellectual acuity, I would considered myself a very fortunate person...

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

And "why" for my question on Hinduism? Well, you being such an honest truth-seeker, would of course want to naturally compare apples with apples, would you not? Thask mentioned Hinduism, but doesn't tell us who its founder was. If it had a known founder, was (s)he real or fictitious?

IMO...the word "founder" is misapplied when it is used in religious circles. While it cannot be disputed that Ray Kroc was the "founder" of McDonald's...it could be easily disputed that Jesus was the "founder" of Christianity, or that the Buddha was the "founder" of Buddhism. The vast majority of the Christian scholars agree that Jesus's intention wasn't to establish a new religion...nor was the Buddha likewise preoccupied. These great religious figures were only concerned with transmitting the "truth" -- as they saw it -- to a group of disciples...and their teachings were meant to promote a certain "way of life" that was mainly centered around DEEDS. They didn't want to be put upon a pedestal and be prayed to....they wanted to serve as examples for others to follow.

When you create a "religion" around the master's teaching...then the master becomes a "founder", or a "god". But when the teaching remains as a "path of truth"...then the master is just another -- albeit more enlightened -- traveler on the path.

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

IMO...the word "founder" is misapplied when it is used in religious circles. While it cannot be disputed that Ray Kroc was the "founder" of McDonald's...it could be easily disputed that Jesus was the "founder" of Christianity, or that the Buddha was the "founder" of Buddhism. The vast majority of the Christian scholars agree that Jesus's intention wasn't to establish a new religion...nor was the Buddha likewise preoccupied. These great religious figures were only concerned with transmitting the "truth" -- as they saw it -- to a group of disciples...and their teachings were meant to promote a certain "way of life" that was mainly centered around DEEDS. They didn't want to be put upon a pedestal and be prayed to....they wanted to serve as examples for others to follow.

When you create a "religion" around the master's teaching...then the master becomes a "founder", or a "god". But when the teaching remains as a "path of truth"...then the master is just another -- albeit more enlightened -- traveler on the path.

“We shall not here examine whether these gospels really belong to the authors to whom they are ascribed. The opinion which attributes them to to their putative writers, might have been founded at first on some tradition, true or false, which existed in the time of the council of Nice, or which the fathers of that council had an interest in sanctioning. It is difficult to persuade ourselves without faith, that the gospel of John, filled with Platonic notions could be composed by the son of Zebedee; by a poor fisherman, who, perhaps, incapable of writing, and even reading, could not be acquainted with the philosophy of Plato.

From the [Pg 194]commencement of christianity there have been many who have denied the authenticity of the gospels. Marcias accused them of being filled with falsehoods. The Alloges and Theodocians rejected the gospel of John, which they regarded as a tissue of lies. Augustin says, that he found in the Platonists the whole beginning of the gospel of John. Origen below informs us, that Celsus reproached Jesus with having taken from Plato his finest maxims, and among others the one which says, that "it is more easy for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to be saved."
Baron D’Holbach