Saul Luizaga wrote:

Hmm. Ok, like I was saying to someone earlier today, most of the 
principles of Western civilization are Roman, not Biblical. Same more or 
less goes for Jesus. We have basically:

1. 3 Gospels, which actually contradict each other on a number of 
points, all of them written starting 50 years after the fact, then the 
others *after* that, and none of them, apparently, at the same time, or 
even by people we can verify ever met each other. Revelations is even 
written by someone that "admits" never meeting anyone else.

2. Strong parallels between some events in Titus Flavius' campaigns 
against the Jewish people, which happened... 50 years after Jesus. There 
is some implication that he intended to be declared the "second coming", 
but things didn't work out right. I find it plausible, given that 
members of his families close cousins declared themselves the first 
Christians, that they opted to use their new "invented" religion to hold 
onto some power, even though their line no longer held the empire.

3. The only secondary, and usually the "most important" source, for many 
believers, is... a short section at the start of the works of Josephus, 
which "chronicles" those wars against the Jewish people. Problem is.. 
they are almost certain, based on style, content, its disconnect from 
the rest of the contents, etc., that it was added, probably 100+ years 
*after* the NT itself was written.

Basically, the reality is, we don't even have as much evidence of Jesus 
actually existing as we have to Noah, and we are pretty sure Noah was 
borrowed from the much older story of Gilgamesh.

That said.. What you get is a conglomeration of ideas. Much like the 
constitution of the US isn't all 100% original ideas, but a combination 
of many bits of prior thinking. Everything Jesus said was, in one form 
or another, existent in other faiths, social systems, etc. But, 
fragmentary. The same group teaching you about the value of treating 
servants well would also tell you to kill foreigners. The same ones 
telling you to valid truth, would also tell you to value human 
sacrifices. The Greek and Roman gods where all over the map, but even 
their own followers, like Plato and Aristotle where looking at things 
and asking, "How much of this makes sense, and shouldn't be just keep 
the stuff that does, and get rid of what doesn't?"

So, then you have to ask, "Ok, so what did he teach, really?" Well... If 
a modern Christian believes he did, they are probably wrong. Not always, 
but often. He had *some* good ideas, mangled, like all others who have 
had them, by the nature of his time, and assumptions about how the world 
was "supposed" to work, like rule by kings, slavery as so common he used 
it in parable, without condemning it, etc. Even telling people that they 
can't be disciples, unless they hate everyone they know, including 
themselves. One may as well try, as some did, to follow the teachings of 
Karl Marx, as though nothing he said had flaws, or condemn it all, 
because it was naive and incomplete. Difference is, we don't presume 
that his ideas are a religion, or refuse to change them, the way 
religions pretty much demand people treat their ideas (while slowly 
changing anyway, just in a tooth and nail fight to try to prevent it).

-- 
void main () {

     if version = "Vista" {
       call slow_by_half();
       call DRM_everything();
     }
     call functional_code();
   }
   else
     call crash_windows();
}

<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models, 
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>

Post a reply to this message