We have no reliable evidence there was a "Christ himself", we only have heavily edited (and oft-times deliberately distorted) copies of copies of accounts of Christ, and none of those texts match to history. Only The Book of Luke attempts any semblance of historicism, but even that is patently false historicism - most of the dates for events given in The Book of Luke don't even exist in real history. And, of course, archeological evidence shows Bethlehem in Judea didn't exist during the time of Christ (however, Bethlehem in Galilee did, so if we distort the stories of the Synoptic Gospels a lot, then we could say Christ was born there). There weren't ever censuses requiring everyone to return to their towns birth, either, the issues with the stories versus history are just endless - to the point where the gospels read most easily as flat-out-fictional retellings of the same myth.

We have no access to a historical "Christ himself" if he existed at all. None. We only have interpretations of the Christ character in mythology. I doubt we can find even a kernel of a historical person in what we have in our hands today.

Mind you, I'm not saying a historical "Christ himself" didn't exist, I'm just saying there's no reliable record of him ever existing, nor does there appear to be much truth to the Christ myths in the forms that they exist in today.

Amen!




An artist painted this. Wonderful, don't you think it's a little pathetic to post this, though?
If someone were to ask me, "Could you please paint a picture of your Dad?", It wouldn't look anything like him. It would look like some random stick figure with no facial structure or depth. Everyone visions something different.

I went to the zoo and had a lady paint me this year, it looks nothing like me.... I understand what you are saying. Of course you'd only need a belly button if you had an umbilical cord... But, this is a painting... And nothing more.

It's a little off topic in my perspective.

oh im sure eventually theyll excavate a pterodactyl with a saddle on its back from some ridiculously old piece of ice/stone, someday.

(sorry, i just had to.)

For those who are interested in more detailed debates about this, a group of Bible scholars/historians have had an interesting blog dispute following an insane rant by an otherwise highly respected scholar in the Huffington Post.

In his article Did Jesus Exist?, Bart D Ehrman claims that (a) there is no room in academia for the view that Jesus is mythological (b) "With respect to Jesus, we have numerous, independent accounts of his life in the sources lying behind the Gospels (and the writings of Paul) -- sources that originated in Jesus' native tongue Aramaic and that can be dated to within just a year or two of his life (before the religion moved to convert pagans in droves)."

That second part is a flat out lie. Ehrman opted to imply to an uninformed audience that a group of hypothetical sources - sources theoretically reconstructed by academics - actually exist. But of course they don't, they are hypotheticals.

This prompted historian Richard Carrier to weigh in with his post Ehrman Trashtalks Mythicism. It's a thorough fisking of Ehrman's appalling scholarship in this case. It also raises alarm about the lack of academic freedom within the halls of Biblical scholarship, as Ehrman claims nobody in his field would be allowed to hold the mythicist stance. I strongly recommend reading both Ehrman and Carrier's article if you are interested in this topic.

Less essential is the ensuing back and forth between Carrier and James McGrath
McGrath: Responding to Richard Carrier's Response to Bart Ehrman
Carrier: McGrath on the Amazing Infallible Ehrman

I hope we're allowed to post links (usually whenever I post this, I get flagged for spam) because I have found a man who explains The Bible, Bible Prophecy - and it's exact lining up with actual recorded history, and issues like Evolution and Health. Walter Veith was a highly regarded Evolution Professor in his younger days and through personal experiences which he had to figure out, he learned about God, Jesus and the Bible... so for anyone interested in knowing about these things, the site is amazingdiscoveries.org and the videos are found in the ADTV section.


Speaking as someone who grew up in a Pentecostal denomination of church and who never really found any meaning or truth there, and as someone who spent life looking for truth, this stuff really helped me understand. I spent the past 12 years or so contemplating agnosticism because I, like a lot of people who reject Christianity, found no plausible arguments for the truth and reality of Christianity. But Walter Veith is very good at explaining things with LOGIC, SCIENTIFIC support and philosophy to help understand the entire world history.

I agree with you somewhat but that is a pretty vague window also. I believe being a "real" Christian is also in how you behave, treat other people, what's in your heart (ie what your intentions are for the things you say/think/do) and whether or not you follow God's commandments. Jesus said "If you love me, follow my commandments. I also believe, Christianity is a relationship between you and God/Jesus. If you have no interest in getting to know God, it can become boring or a question of doing things out of duty and treating others like crap. I know a lot of people who fall into the criteria of what you described but who don't give a rip about others and treat other people like objects or like trash, which is a huge part of why, I believe, Christianity is so disliked by a large part (if not most) of society.

I want to talk a little bit about being gay and Christian, and sorry for not really following the flow of conversation but this is a debate about Christianity, it's just something that has been bothering me lately since I saw a story about the salvation army not supporting gays because they believe it's a sin according to The Bible and, because of site rules you can't post religion topics in other thread but this one. I want to set some records straight about Jesus' view on homosexuality and his views on being judgmental. I'm a gay Christian, and before you get all hot and bothered about that let me explain. I am a CHRISTian. Christ never, ever said homosexuality was a sin. Christ DID say "Judge not lest you be judged, for with the manner you judge you will also be judged". Christ also said "Some men are born eunuchs, some men are made eunuchs by men, and some men are eunuchs for the kingdom's sake" in the Greek translated eunuch means "an effeminate man" which was the best way they had to describe it back then I guess kind of stereotypical I admit, but it was ancient times. so He basically condoned it. If you want to be a true Christian, which by definition is a follower of Christ (who I must add did also refute old testament beliefs). Then you don't judge someone based on homosexuality. And if you want to be a true Christian you really can't depend on the words of Paul, an imperfect human who said that women weren't allowed to wear makeup or jewelry, or speak in the church, and that men shouldn't have long hair. I know plenty of "so called" Christians who are females who speak in the church, wear makeup (can you say Tammy Faye or Jan Crouch), and men who have long hair (that dude in the Gaither's). So it's really just pointless to debate that kind of stuff. Why oh why now does Christian cancel out gay and gay cancel out Christian? When by all definitions Jesus supported homosexuality and being non-judgmental.

While I'm personally not religious, I identify myself as a cultural Christian. I agree wholeheartedly with the view that being gay and being Christian are not mutually exclusive. Here in Boston there are many churches that welcome openly gay, lesbian, trans, etc. worshipers. The church I went to growing up in Concord had a lesbian pastor for a while too.

I have a very hard time talking to people who try to use the Bible as justification for holding down the civil rights of gay people. First of all, in a First Amendment context, that's totally against the Constitution. And most importantly... the Bible says A LOT of things that are wholeheartedly ignored by the right-wing Christian crowd.

Exhibit A:



I wish more people would recognize that the whole point of Christianity is the miracle of resurrection, and the power of love. One of the reasons I get so frustrated with right wing Christian people is that they are so focused on hate and being divisive for a partisan political agenda that they're spitting on the very religion they claim to "love". They love saying things like "If Jesus were alive today..." as justification for their idiocy. And while I think it's pretty sacrilegious to presume that you know what the son of God would do and say, I think it's even more sacrilegious to even think for a second that Jesus wouldn't slap all of those people in the face and say "this is NOT what I taught".

The problem with many Christians today is that they spew off Bible verses without trying (or bothering) to understand the historical context of the very words they're saying. Passages in the Bible were written in a very different era from us, and was first written to a specific group of people with certain cultures and living in a certain condition. Thus, it is important to understand why the words are written in such manners before hollering it out at the top of your lungs and attaching outrageous claims to them or try to convey them to modern-day application.

In the Exhibit/picture from the above post, for instance, is a perfect example of such ignorant claims. While for many of us Christians agree that the Bible are the words of God, not all of them are meant to be absolute laws.

(For that matter, the fig incident in Mark was supposed to symbolize the dangers of self-righteousness, and not to be taken as a "proof that God hates figs". The leaves of a fig tree grow simultaneously with its fruits - therefore a leafy fig tree, by right, should be fertile and fruitful; but this was not the case in the tree Jesus cursed. This was meant to symbolize the self-righteous and hypocritical Jewish leaders and Pharisees - who from the outside seem Oh-so-Holy-and-Righteous, but are, in fact, spiritually barren)

I think the church you went to was a Trinity United church or somthing related to that. The church that i go to sees homosexualality as a Sin. And, sorry i say this, i see that too. But its not that god hats gays. He made them in his image.

Do you realize that you've just contradicted yourself? If your god made gays in his image, then why is homosexuality a sin? Maybe even God is gay. Who's to say he isn't, after all? There's absolutely no passage whatsoever in the Bible saying whether he's straight or not (or if he's a man or not, people have just interpreted him as being a man because it was more comfortable and more fitting with their mentalities). I think homosexuality has been considered a sin for so long is because it's different, and humans have always been afraid of change. So, what better way is there to be ignorant about different sexualities than to turn them into sins and say that this is 'God's will'?

I was going to make a joke about God "hatting" gays, but this is a serious issue, so....

Jesus said absolutely NOTHING about homosexuality. I know this because I have read the bible numerous times, and it makes it easy to see what he DID say because his words are printed in red ink. But he did say "ALL are welcome at my Father's table." Not "All except that group over there, or females, or gays, or only rich people." ALL means ALL. Homosexuality has been around for longer than the biblical account of Jesus, and not all cultures made it a big deal, or thought it was weird, or disgusting, or a sin. The same book of the bible that people always quote to condemn gay people also condemns tattoos, eating shellfish, and wearing mixed fabrics. But for some reason people ignore those.

I remember making this point to my Religion teacher in high school, and she responded that most of that book (most of the Old Testament, as a matter of fact) was annulled by what the priests (or bishops) decided in the 7th Ecumenical Synod from the New Testament, which, shamefully, I haven't read entirely, so I can't say whether it's true or not. However, if it is true, it means that Leviticus is no longer valid anyway, therefore homosexuality is no longer a sin.

It takes awhile for Western religions to acknowledge that sins of the Bible may not be relevent anymore, such as stoning those that committed adultery. Or having to except that the Earth was not the centre of the universe, I think it took 400-600 years to say 'sorry' to Galileo. And furthermore, to this day many people still think Mary Magadalene was a prostitute, even though it's been known for a few hundred years now that she was not. Was she Jesus' wife, I don't know. Was she actually a disciple that Jesus trusted more than the men who followed him, probably. But, the Bible is very anti women, and you know back then and in these times now, women cannot be seen as equals.

As for homosexuality, I see it as what would Jesus would of done. He according to the Bible, hung out with the outcasts of the day. I can say in today's age no one feels bad for the tax collector's anymore. But, homosexuals are deemed as outcasts, and I think Jesus would of hung out with them. He would not have judged them, but loved them for who they were, not by whom they slept with.

Jesus' main message was love. I think others decided who was the exception of his love.

In my experience debating Christians, the Old Testament does not apply unless you need to justify something that isn't covered in the NT. Ironically, Jesus himself said that the Old Testament still applies, and some Jews who exclusively follow the OT/Torah don't mind it, but anyway...

Some translations of the Leviticus verse in question show that the verse isn't referring to homosexuality, but ceremonial homosexuality; i.e. a man having sex with male temple prostitutes (like they had in Greece) or participating in a pagan ritual that includes male-on-male. Of course, there are people who strongly disagree with this. Although it is amusing that the KJV says that homosexuality is just as much an abomination as eating shellfish. (I nominate shrimp cocktails as the official food of homosexuality)

If you translate one particular story in the NT correctly, it does actually show that Jesus performed a miracle on a homosexual man (or at least, one who engaged in male-on-male). The story of the Roman soldier whose faith in Jesus was so great that he didn't need Jesus to actually come back to his house to heal his "slave": the actual word used doesn't refer to a slave, but to a male sexual partner. (Better than having him approve of slavery, no?)

Then there are claims that the OT is divided into two sets of rules and that one verse in the NT says you only need to follow the laws that homosexuality isn't a part of. I forget the exact quotes. So basically, pick your flavor.

Also, I think it's perfectly plausible that the Abrahamic god is omnisexual. In the bible, the word "know" means both what it means today and was a term for sex. Quite a few people I've talked to think that their god has known every single person that has ever lived. And he is an "all-loving" god.

Wait a second...

Mark 11:12-14
The next day as they were leaving Bethany, Jesus was hungry. Seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to find out if it had any fruit. When he reached it, he found nothing but leaves, because it was not the season for figs. Then he said to the tree, "May no one ever eat fruit from you again." And his disciples heard him say it.

If fig tree leaves grow simultaneously with figs, then why did an out-of-season tree have leaves?

Really? I thought that Jesus was an actual person recorded as part of history, that peer-approved historians agree existed. At least recorded and recognized by the ancient Romans. But then again, the people who fed me this information were my church and my teacher at the time. Time to do some digging...

The fact that Jesus existed or not doesn't prove anything, anyway. He could've very well been a very persuasive man who was lucky enough to influence others and therefore gain many followers, as did so many people over the course of history, or popular bloggers.

I lol'd. I see what you're saying.

What people don't realize is that his teachings and the teachings of the Bible still hold true today.

Christianity teaches us certain things that could make everyone's lives much more easier. For example:

1.Teenagers are raising children - enough said.

2. STDs are rampant, and is killing millions of people each year.

3. 90% of marriages end in divorce on the grounds of adultery.

These are just a few of the many reasons as to why fornication and adultery are sins. Thus, the deadly sin of "Lust." Would Jesus sleep with a lot of chicks? Hell no! Because to do such would desecrate your mind, body, and soul. That is why true Christians must obey God.

"Teenagers are raising children."

Interestingly enough, more teenagers are parents in the more religious states of the US. Of the first-world countries, the most religious have the most teen parents and the least religious have the fewest. Of the third-world countries, the rates are extremely high. Third-world countries generally have a population that is 99% religious in either Christianity or Islam.

"STDs are rampant, and is killing millions of people each year."

Hyperbole. Two million people die from STDs each year. Most of them in the third-world countries mentioned above that are 99% religious. How exactly is Jesus helping there?

Also, abstinence is not an effective means of preventing STDs. HIV can be transmitted through breastmilk. Herpes can be transmitted during birth if the woman has a breakout, or by kissing someone. So someone who's a virgin until marriage can still have HIV. And then their partner, who also waited until marriage, will also get HIV.

"90% of marriages end in divorce on the grounds of adultery"

False. 50% of marriages end in divorce. The rest end in death. Of those 50%, most end due to other reasons. While adultery does tend to happen while a marriage is breathing a death rattle, it is usually not the sole cause of divorce. Disillusionment is the most common reason; people don't stop to consider what happens after the "I do". Or two people will grow apart during their marriage, especially if they married young.

"Would Jesus sleep with a lot of chicks? Hell no!"

I should hope not. What did those chickens ever do to him?!

Although it's not like the bible doesn't say a man can't sleep with a lot of women. How many wives and concubines did Solomon have again?

"That is why true Christians must obey God."

And why the rest of us don't have to! :D

^Don't quote me on it, but I think Jetas was being sarcastic.

You see, these are the type of remarks that make me have little to no respect towards certain Christians. You have your religion, I have mine. So, please don't be flinging apeshit like that around, trenching into the territory of "Be one of us or go to hell!", because I'm not taking that type of mentality into conideration for a nanosecond.

Let me give you an example of a few christian ethics I would hold much higher and respect greater.

-People are rewarded (whether it being in the afterlife, karma, whatever you believe in) for being loving, considerate, kind people. Not for being ignorant jackasses dumb enough to be brainwashed.

-Respect others as equal human beings to yourself. Period. Not everyone except gays, or everyone except colored people. No, none of that stuff.

-Try. Just try. Nobody expects you to be perfect, nobody expects you to be superman. Geez, you don't even have to remember to pray everyday, just go out into the world, and TRY to be the best person you can be, nothing more.

I think I've made my point.



Oooops...

"Oops" is correct because you took that entire sentence out of context. Christians have an obligation to God. One cannot call themselves a Christian if they hold little to no regard for God and Christ.

Just keepin' it real.

Had you not have jumped the gun, you would know that I feel the same you do. I could care less for others' feelings about me. I live, fight, and will gladly die for God because "blessed are the peacemakers" as Jesus said.

I sensed a lack of understanding when you mentioned homosexuals. It is common knowledge amongst Christians that God is merciful to those who didn't choose to be homosexual. Though, The Bible says that homosexual behaviour is forbidden. This teaching is geared towards people who exhibit and indulge in homosexual behaviour for "laughs."

But do you know the real reason why there is much tension towards Christians? Even from you? It's because the Deceiver is using one of the oldest tricks in the book. Those in power place people under Christian oppression. It is only a matter of time before people become rebellious towards the Christian faith or any faith at all. That is when being a "Atheist" or "Agnostic" seems cool.

There is nothing cool about being detached from your spiritual self.

You were saying?

Can't tell if troll... or angry atheist.

I'll bite anyway.

1. Living in a religious country doesn't mean anything. The United States is "religious" yet children are being bombarded by societies and industries that glamourize sex. Besides, general statistics do not give insight into how every teenager is raised and if their parents are teaching them the word of God.

Your point is moot.

2. STD = SEXUALLY transmitted disease. If people would abstain or simply practice safe sex, then it wouldn't be such a serious problem. Only someone who doesn't take care of themselves or simply doesn't use the sense God gave them would allow their diseases to be transmitted to their children.

Again - this is why fornication and adultery is a sin.

3. Death or disillusionment, it doesn't matter because who is to say that no acts of adultery occurred during the marriage? Unless the couple is okay with their business being in the streets. Also, it is a known fact that couples sometimes divorce under more... peaceful grounds to avoid scandals and drama.

4. Solomon is a non-factor within the Christian faith. Protip: the Old Testament is Jewish. That is why it is vastly different from the New Testament. Christians only read the chapters/verses in the Old Testament if it is relevant to Christianity and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

5. That is why you pray and consult with God before making such a significant choice.

No, adultery and fornication are "sins" because before a strong legal system through government was conceived religious laws were taking their place, and in a preliterate culture relying heavily on agriculture you've got very strong concerns about estate issues. "Who owns my land after I die?" is important if you don't have a central authority, so then you've got people going "I want my kids to be taken care of," but other people are dicks and "I'm a bastard! You and me are siblings bro! I want my half of the farm!" can become an issue if you don't nip it in the bud by establishing strong biases against bastards and adultery and muddying up your daughters' baby-daddy issues with Tom, Dick, and Harry all being equal perpetrators. If disease was the issue they'd have said something like "Don't shit in the water upstream," or "Wash your hands after you wipe your butt, every time" because that's really a lot more useful for more of history than worrying about the vanishingly small percentage of diseases that are actually spread solely by sexual contact of some sort. Better yet, if it was truly a benevolent and omnipotent deity there wouldn't be diseases at all.

But anyway - pretending the Bible is anything other than a two thousand year old set of scrolls gathered by a series of committees with an agenda and little oversight, to promote a political power struggle they were advancing, is disingenuous in the extreme. The Bible isn't the word of anyone but a bunch of old priests who were looking to establish themselves and form legitimacy for their political power. That's why it's so fragmented and contradictory, because the people putting it together had different goals and they apparently argued like no one's business (including killing each other over their favorite and least liked passages.) Constantine had converted, so there was an immense and sudden amount of power over the most powerful man on the planet to be had by shaping what Christianity was. That doesn't mean there's no value in the Bible. I'm an atheist and some of the stories are fun, the poetry is lovely, and even some of the ethical pushes are okay if you require fiat warnings of punishment else you run off and kick your mom in the head, kill the babysitter, or take stuff that's not yours. But whatever Christianity is today was decided on by savvy political actors jumping on the bishop bandwagon, not "revealed by God."