Would Jesus Cringe seeing what Christmas has turned into?

[luka82]

Manichaeism and Gnosticism and other Crypto-Christian sects of the first half century after Christ died because the early Church mobilised itself against them, it denied their uses of Gospels as heretical, it attacked and destroyed their places of worship, it literally fought with them for the souls of Egyptians and Palestinians and Syrians and Anatolians and Greeks in some cases, there were riots between these competing sects in Alexandria and Antioch and Pergamum and Athens. At least a part of why some of the persecutions of Christians took place was because the Pagan Roman emperors regarded them as dangerous and violent, and that they thought Christians caused riots and disorders with other sects, they were partly right.

Well exactly, as I said Manichaeism was never a threat to Christianity, church just blew them off:biggrin1:

 

[Qua]

Jesus didn't exist and his birthday is therefore equally fictional. The whole thing is a scam.

I hate to burst your bubble, but yes, he did. His story is widely embellished in the bible, but he is a pretty well documented historical figure for someone who wasn't anyone of extreme note during his lifetime.

Even if you completely discount the Gospels, which were written within 200 years of his death and by that standard are historically considered useful sources, the Pauline epistles are generally recognized to have been written during the mid 1st century, about 10-20 years after Jesus' death.

Nothing accounts for the evolution of christianity as based on a historical source better than his being a person, perhaps a philosopher and mystic to whom god like wisdom and abilities were attributed. Perhaps the individual Jesus has never been identified, but that doesn't mean he was not a real person

Historical scholars disagree with you. Please don't let your hatred of a religious group continue to blind you to historical fact. It's no better than what you accuse Christians of.

http://books.google.com/books?id=1CZbuFBdAMUC&pg=PA71&l#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=IJP4DRCVaUMC&pg=PA168&#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?id=lwzliMSRGGkC&pg=PA16#v=onepage&q=&f=false

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I hate to burst your bubble, but yes, he did. His story is widely embellished in the bible, but he is a pretty well documented historical figure for someone who wasn't anyone of extreme note during his lifetime.

There are a variety of persons who were confused with the person of Jesus, and in any event I'm simply making the point that the Jesus of the Gospels did not exist, that much most decent scholars agree on. It's not enough to say "Oh but there might have been some prototype upon whom the Gospel Jesus was based".

Even if you completely discount the Gospels, which were written within 200 years of his death and by that standard are historically considered useful sources, the Pauline epistles are generally recognized to have been written during the mid 1st century, about 10-20 years after Jesus' death.

The Pauline epistles do not paint any kind of full picture of a historical person. And there is still no consensus about the actual date of the compilation of the Gospels, new theories revise their dates all the time.

If that's not enough for you, there are plenty of Greek and Roman sources which tell of Jesus himself, as well as the numbers of people who worshipped him within years of his death, probably the best evidence that a human Jesus of Nazareth did actually exist

These Greek and Roman sources make confused and often wildly innaccurate references to a variety of persons many of whom are clearly not the same person. Once again I do not deny that a man called Jesus lived in Nazareth at some time in the first century, that would be preposterous, it was an extremely common name, and more there were holy men who ore that name at that time in that part of Palestine. However none of them fully fit the template of the Christian Jesus and none of them are the Jesus the Gospels described.

Historical scholars disagree with you. Please don't let your hatred of a religious group continue to blind you to historical fact. It's no better than what you accuse Christians of.

I don't hate Christians, and frankly I think you seem to be taking the whole thing rather personally and as a result seem to be angry with me. Historians radically disagree on this subject, there's no reason you and I should not do so also. However you should not interpret such a wide disagreement as being hostile.

P.S. What have I accused Christians of exactly ?

 

[798686]

Thanks for the info (again ) Hilaire.

It kinda sounds like the reasons for concluding that they were compiled much later, is the belief that they were written later (based on stuff like degradation of info that you mentioned - and the belief they may have been orally transmitted first). I guess it's hard to pin down exactly what happened, so you've got to draw your own conclusions from whatever evidence and opinions are available.

It sounds likely (from what I know so far) that Paul's letters were written and maybe gathered together (as a book in the NT attributed to Peter mentions) in the first century. Hard to say about the gospels - but Acts and possibly Revelation seem quite likely to be 1st C. too.

I think I'm personally closer to Qua's viewpoint (at the moment) but that may or may not change if I find out more info. Cheers anyway dude - enjoyed reading the posts.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

Nothing accounts for the evolution of christianity as based on a historical source better than his being a person, perhaps a philosopher and mystic to whom god like wisdom and abilities were attributed. Perhaps the individual Jesus has never been identified, but that doesn't mean he was not a real person

As I said before, plenty of religions were "founded" by fictitious persons, a historical christ is not necessary to account for the rise of Christianity.

Historical scholars disagree with you.

I'm just basing my opinion on the wide variety of historical scholarship I have read on this topic, some scholars agree with eachother some do not, I'm just persuaded by some arguments over others.

 

[B_bi_mmf]

It's a good place to explore spiritual questions for the intensely rational, skeptical, and have weddings and funerals if you like pipe organs and want a space fancier than the VFW.

Sounds good to me, except...

Can we change "spiritual questions" to "moral issues and social responsibility"? Then I'd really like a community like that.

 

[2322]

Sounds good to me, except...

Can we change "spiritual questions" to "moral issues and social responsibility"? Then I'd really like a community like that.

Of course you can. I suggest giving it a shot. The most you can do is hate it and leave but don't leave before the coffee group afterward. That's when things get really interesting. You can find out more at the UU website. Some congregations are better than others. I also don't know where you are; sometimes UU congregations are difficult to find.

 

[Astrate]

Theists say that "God created man". But, of course, the truth is that man has created God and gods many times over.

I'm reading Chris Hitchens' "God is Not Great" and it is astonishing how much the Life of Jesus was made to conform (decades after his death) and align with ancient prophesies.

Example: Jesus arrives in Jerusalem riding astride a donkey. Matthew says in his chapter 21, verse 4: "All of this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet."

Zechariah 9:9 said that when the messiah comes he will he riding on an ass.

Jesus' parents were apparently from Nazereth and if they had a child he was most probably delivered in that town. But Old Testament prophesies indicate the Messiah will be born in the City of David, Bethlehem. On modern maps, Nazareth is in Israel, Bethlehem is in Palestine, so a huge amount of fabrication and story invention had to take place to get the life to conform with the old prophesies.

You start to wonder how much, exactly, of the real life of Jesus is left unmolested after the early christian biographers are through turning his life into a divine myth.


At any rate, God does not create man. It's the other way around. Man creates the God.

In reality, the lower animals, through evolution, created man.

A lot of the narrative in the NT was conceived by Mark, not in order to provide a history, but in order to sell the lifestyle to those around him. It was pretty conventional in those days to communicate through such a narrative. Old themes were commonly imported from other cultures and the OT.

Jesus would be astonished to find a religious institution based on his persona, let alone a "birthday", highjacked from a pagan celebration, re-highjacked by commerce. Father Christmas is based on St Nicholas, imported to America by the 17thC Dutch and given the red coat with white trim by the Coca cola company. However, the festivities are laced with intention around family union and goodwill towards fellow man. And if that comes from a forced link to Jesus' birthday, he probably wont complain.

That doesn't stop Hitchin's book from being an incoherent biased rant. Dawkins does it better, but they both missed the point.

Man may have created God, and God created modern man (in that order). The need for religion is an evolved, hardwired instinct in the human brain, without which the cooperative human societies that ensured the survical of our hunter-gatherer ancestors would not have developed. Religion supports and enhances instinctive human morals, the "glue" of a functioning society.

Culture can take religion off at a tangient and Jesus did a pretty good job at reclaiming the notion of God to underpin compassionate behaviour. If elements of that are retained as part of Christmas, amongst the merriment and commerce, he 'll be well pleased

 

[D_Ireonsyd_Colonrinse]

strate writes:

Man may have created God, and God created modern man (in that order). The need for religion is an evolved, hardwired instinct in the human brain, without which the cooperative human societies that ensured the survical of our hunter-gatherer ancestors would not have developed. Religion supports and enhances instinctive human morals, the "glue" of a functioning society.

--------------------

I can't tell you how deeply I disagree with and find offensive this pious assessment that man needs religion or he cannot live a moral life.


It is utter bullshit.

As if the rule of law were not enough. As if, here in America, the United States Constitution, a secular document, were not enough.

Take a look at the Ten Commandments, which are supposed to serve as principles of moral behaviour. Once you get past the meaningless ones that have nothing at all to do with morality (I am the Lord your God, thou shalt not have other gods, no making graven images, don't take my name in vain...), then you get to substantive ones: Don't kill. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal.

But these are rules, laws, that every civilization has had -- with or without the gods.

Moses supposedly received these "Moral Foundations" from God himself on a mountaintop. Man DIDN'T NEED GOD TO GIVE HIM THESE, man knew them already. It is an absolute insult to the people of Moses, as Hitchens says, "to imagine they had come this far under the impression that murder, adultery, theft, and perjury were permissable."


You disrespect all the decent people living moral lives before Moses to suggest that they were not moral, because they didn't have a Good Book.

Ancient Egypt had an early example of the Golden Rule (translated in ancient egyptian as "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another") which dates back 2,000 years before the birth of Jesus --and was an ancient concept of truth, balance, order, law, morality, and justice.

The human animal does not need "divinely inspired texts" (which we both agree are NOT divinely inspired in any case) to ACT MORALLY, to do good.

 

[B_Hickboy]

strate writes:

Man may have created God, and God created modern man (in that order). The need for religion is an evolved, hardwired instinct in the human brain, without which the cooperative human societies that ensured the survical of our hunter-gatherer ancestors would not have developed. Religion supports and enhances instinctive human morals, the "glue" of a functioning society.

--------------------

I can't tell you how deeply I disagree with and find offensive this pious assessment that man needs religion or he cannot live a moral life.


It is utter bullshit.

As if the rule of law were not enough. As if, here in America, the United States Constitution, a secular document, were not enough.

Take a look at the Ten Commandments, which are supposed to serve as principles of moral behaviour. Once you get past the meaningless ones that have nothing at all to do with morality (I am the Lord your God, thou shalt not have other gods, no making graven images, don't take my name in vain...), then you get to substantive ones: Don't kill. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal.

But these are rules, laws, that every civilization has had -- with or without the gods.

Moses supposedly received these "Moral Foundations" from God himself on a mountaintop. Man DIDN'T NEED GOD TO GIVE HIM THESE, man knew them already. It is an absolute insult to the people of Moses, as Hitchens says, "to imagine they had come this far under the impression that murder, adultery, theft, and perjury were permissable."


You disrespect all the decent people living moral lives before Moses to suggest that they were not moral, because they didn't have a Good Book.

Ancient Egypt had an early example of the Golden Rule (translated in ancient egyptian as "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another") which dates back 2,000 years before the birth of Jesus --and was an ancient concept of truth, balance, order, law, morality, and justice.

The human animal does not need "divinely inspired texts" (which we both agree are NOT divinely inspired in any case) to ACT MORALLY, to do good.

Why do you hate America?

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

strate writes:

Man may have created God, and God created modern man (in that order). The need for religion is an evolved, hardwired instinct in the human brain, without which the cooperative human societies that ensured the survical of our hunter-gatherer ancestors would not have developed. Religion supports and enhances instinctive human morals, the "glue" of a functioning society.

--------------------

I can't tell you how deeply I disagree with and find offensive this pious assessment that man needs religion or he cannot live a moral life.


It is utter bullshit.

As if the rule of law were not enough. As if, here in America, the United States Constitution, a secular document, were not enough.

Take a look at the Ten Commandments, which are supposed to serve as principles of moral behaviour. Once you get past the meaningless ones that have nothing at all to do with morality (I am the Lord your God, thou shalt not have other gods, no making graven images, don't take my name in vain...), then you get to substantive ones: Don't kill. Don't commit adultery. Don't steal.

But these are rules, laws, that every civilization has had -- with or without the gods.

Moses supposedly received these "Moral Foundations" from God himself on a mountaintop. Man DIDN'T NEED GOD TO GIVE HIM THESE, man knew them already. It is an absolute insult to the people of Moses, as Hitchens says, "to imagine they had come this far under the impression that murder, adultery, theft, and perjury were permissable."


You disrespect all the decent people living moral lives before Moses to suggest that they were not moral, because they didn't have a Good Book.

Ancient Egypt had an early example of the Golden Rule (translated in ancient egyptian as "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another") which dates back 2,000 years before the birth of Jesus --and was an ancient concept of truth, balance, order, law, morality, and justice.

The human animal does not need "divinely inspired texts" (which we both agree are NOT divinely inspired in any case) to ACT MORALLY, to do good.

I am delighted you said this Willtom and not me, I've already been accused of hating Christians, so I think it was good it came from someone else. I found that post pretty offensive too. :redface:

 

[Calboner]

Why do you hate America?

And puppies. How could anyone hate puppies?

 

[B_Hickboy]

And puppies. How could anyone hate puppies?

I think maybe Hilaire is the one who hates puppies. I get them mixed up.

 

[D_Tim McGnaw]

I think maybe Hilaire is the one who hates puppies. I get them mixed up.

yeah to be absolutely honest the list of things I hate is truly fucking gigantic, puppies, freedom, Bambi, walks in the rain and the ickle baby Jeebus are just the start.

 

[B_Hickboy]

yeah to be absolutely honest the list of things I hate is truly fucking gigantic, puppies, freedom, Bambi, walks in the rain and the ickle baby Jeebus are just the start.

I hereby sentence you to six months serving as Wavy Gravy's amanuensis. Yes, that's five, count em, five syllables!

 

[Calboner]

I hereby sentence you to six months serving as Wavy Gravy's amanuensis. Yes, that's five, count em, five syllables!

Wa-vy Gra-vy . . . How come I get only four?

 

[prepstudinsc]

I had an interesting talk today with a Rabbi about what Jesus would think of Christianity as it exists today. We both agreed that what "Christianity" is (especially in the US) is far from what Jesus would want and that most Christians fail to know the context in which Jesus lived and ministered--Christians don't read ancient texts, they don't usually know the historical context in which those texts were written, etc. Those things make many of the parables make sense, but also, the translation upon translation of Biblical books, and knowing why some books made the canon and some didn't are things that should be known, but it's too easy to be told what to believe than to research it for yourself--and actually USE the brain God gave us!

 

[2322]

If you want to see what a dumb-ass perversion Americans are making of Christianity, read about the prosperity gospel (article in The Atlantic).

I just finished this article and it's eye-opening! I highly suggest reading it because it gives great insight into one of the most popular religious movements in the US. I didn't know Joel Osteen was a prosperity preacher or what made his stadium church so popular. Imagine a church that reserves front parking for luxury cars! We now have Christian justification ("Jesus loves money!," says one minister) for the New American ethos of, "fuck you, I've got mine." It's boggling and frightening and horribly sad.

I urge you to read it. Very worth the effort and thank you Calboner, for bringing it to our attention.

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

I had an interesting talk today with a Rabbi about what Jesus would think of Christianity as it exists today. We both agreed that what "Christianity" is (especially in the US) is far from what Jesus would want and that most Christians fail to know the context in which Jesus lived and ministered--Christians don't read ancient texts, they don't usually know the historical context in which those texts were written, etc. Those things make many of the parables make sense, but also, the translation upon translation of Biblical books, and knowing why some books made the canon and some didn't are things that should be known, but it's too easy to be told what to believe than to research it for yourself--and actually USE the brain God gave us!

Great post, Prep... you troublemaker. I applaud those Christians who are continuing the spirit of their religion and helping those around them--even if they don't know the origins of their religion or their knowledge of the Bible is just a few "pieces." Christians have far more responsibility to their faith than merely going to Church on Sunday.

I just finished this article and it's eye-opening! I highly suggest reading it because it gives great insight into one of the most popular religious movements in the US. I didn't know Joel Osteen was a prosperity preacher or what made his stadium church so popular. Imagine a church that reserves front parking for luxury cars! We now have Christian justification ("Jesus loves money!," says one minister) for the New American ethos of, "fuck you, I've got mine." It's boggling and frightening and horribly sad.

I urge you to read it. Very worth the effort and thank you Calboner, for bringing it to our attention.

QFT.

As I've written for years on this site, I see a different Holy Trinity. I see Ignorance, Poverty and Religion. Any two of these brings about the third.

I think that's why this article doesn't shock me much. There are $8 million+ "stadium" non-denomination churches all over the U.S. South. Just think of what that money could do to help the poor.

 

[2322]

You're not alone rec.

Scrooge started back, appalled. Having them shown to him in this way, he tried to say they were fine children, but the words choked themselves, rather than be parties to a lie of such enormous magnitude.
“Spirit! are they yours?” Scrooge could say no more.
“They are Man’s,” said the Spirit, looking down upon them. “And they cling to me, appealing from their fathers. This boy is Ignorance. This girl is Want. Beware them both, and all of their degree, but most of all beware this boy, for on his brow I see that written which is Doom, unless the writing be erased. Deny it!” cried the Spirit, stretching out its hand towards the city. “Slander those who tell it ye! Admit it for your factious purposes, and make it worse. And bide the end!”
“Have they no refuge or resource?” cried Scrooge.
“Are there no prisons?” said the Spirit, turning on him for the last time with his own words. “Are there no workhouses?”
The bell struck twelve. -A Christmas Carol In Prose