Who is Aslan, besides not a tame lion?
An author
The Book of Mormon was publised in 1830 and Joseph Smith died in 1844, and yet over this short period, as well as in the half dozen years prior to the publication, Mormonism radically changes a number of times to be completely unrecognizable from its beginnings to the various factions which split off after Smith’s death (as well as from before).
One non-Mormon scholar I listened to said she got interested in Mormon studies because she believes that early Christianity and other movements would likely have seen similar processes.
One example of a change in doctrine is the evolution of the priesthood as really a nonfactor to became the raison d’etre of the LDS church. Revelations which were written in 1830 and published within a few years of that were rewritten and republished a few years after that to include the priesthood. Several foundational myths of angels restoring ancient priesthoods to Joseph Smith were created and backdated to prior to the publishing of the Book of Mormon.
Given how radically Mormonism changed even within lifetime of the founder, and then watching the two main branches split over the question of polygamy, with both sides hiding evidence and creating other evidence, it’s safe to bet that similar examples happened in the Jesus movements as well.
It’s been a while since I read The Origin of Satan: How Christians Demonized Jews, Pagans, and Heretics by Elaine Pagels, but she did an excellent job explaining the differences in the Gospels and goes through and shows how the doctrines changed between Mark, the first, and John, the last.
The time difference between the estimated dates of the historical Jesus and Mark is much less than the various periods of major changes of Mormonism.
It’s interesting to see what causes people to completely lose their faith. As a former Mormon, what caused me to lose my faith didn’t faze other people, but some people lost their belief over things which didn’t bother me.
This is called the criterion of embarrassment and it has a long history of being (mis)used by apologists of the New Testament. It’s s simplistic argument and doesn’t prove anything to anyone who isn’t already inclined to believe.
It’s kind of like saying that James Bond must be real instead of fictional, because he slips up and gets captured in the very same story where he eventually punches out the bad guy and saves the world and beds a succession of hot chicks along the way.
Don’t mock the Sacred Trinity; the Roger, the Sean, and the Holy Lazenby.
You would have to first prove that the disciples are real people who actually existed. They didn’t write those Bible stories. Your case for why Jesus is the Son of God is basically, “These fantasy people believe this fantasy character was the Son of God, so that means in reality all these people existed and Jesus was both a real-life person and really the Son of a God who herself has not been proven to exist”.
No evidence of an existence of God. No Evidence that the character Jesus existed. No evidence that the disciple characters existed. But you think you have an excellent case for why Jesus was the Son of God. I don’t think its a strong case.
You left out the part where after Bond escapes he runs back to HQ and never tells anyone the story of his capture . . . but somehow the author knows everything that happened.
Good one. The description of events that no one could have seen in the Bible, especially the Gospel writer, is a lot more indicative of a work of fiction than a work of history.
“Now when they were going, behold, some of the watch came into the city, and shewed unto the chief priests all the things that were done.
“And when they were assembled with the elders, and had taken counsel, they gave large money unto the soldiers,
“Saying, Say ye, His disciples came by night, and stole him away while we slept.
“And if this come to the governor’s ears, we will persuade him, and secure you.
“So they took the money, and did as they were taught: and this saying is commonly reported among the Jews until this day.”
So, first off: if, per the text, the relevant folks sid what they were told to do, then — what? Maybe this gets mentioned somewhere else in the Bible and I’ve just missed it, but: how, exactly, did this tidbit get out? Did someone at this conversation blab?
(And, second, leave aside for a moment whether it’s true; just note that the whole story hangs together if, and only if, everyone takes as the plausible starting point that, yup, these guys can be bribed to say what people ask them to say about what happened at the tomb of Jesus.)
The bottom line is that whether or not he “truly wuz the son of Gawd,” as John Wayne as the centurian said means Jack Shit to progressive Christians. It’s how he lived, not how he died. Whether or not he existed is not relevant.
Not to mention that really terrible things happened to Roman soldiers who did not do their duty. I don’t think getting bribed would help. So them giving this as an excuse is a bit implausible.
Fiction. I should have said bad fiction.
As Tom Paine said (The Age of Reason, p. 108) “This book, the Bible, is too ridiculous for criticism.”
Excuse me, but whether or not he existed in the first place is totally relevant to the question as to how he lived.
P-man’s point was about what is relevant to christains, who will not entertain the possibility that he did not have blonde hair and blue eyes or did not exist.
Not necessarily. Myths have power, and matter, whether or not they are true.
Real or not, they form the foundation of a society and fulfill a need people have.
Exactly. St. Patrick used the clover to describe the trinity (3 leaves, but one plant); I like to think of it as one being with three personalities (faces, facets, whatever)
- God the Creator - the Grand Omnipotant Stomper; creates worlds; creates beings (through evolution? why not!). Omniscient, omnipotent, the “jealous God” of the Old Testiment
- Christ the Human face - he brings the human emotion to the being
- The Holy Spirit - this is the communications face. God doesn’t come through a burning bush any more - he’s a bit more subtle.
These are three different aspects of the same being, kinda like one human can be a family man around the house, an office worker at the office, and an actor at the community theater. Three aspects of the same individual.
Can they will different things? Does one know stuff that another doesn’t?
I think it’s more a matter of, which is more believable: an account that’s basically a hagiography, or one that shows both strengths and flaws of the people being portrayed?
Does inclusion of less-than-flattering details prove the story’s true? No, but it’s one less reason to simply dismiss the Gospels out of hand.
I strongly concur with the overwhelming sentiment in this thread that martyrdom proves nothing.
And I agree also that there’s no historical ‘proof’ of Jesus’ divinity or Messiahship.
Why would I care anyway, even if the evidence for Jesus’ divinity was solid and ironclad? Like that old fellowshippy song goes:
I will celebrate Nativity, for it has a place in history
Sure, he came to set his people free, what is that to me?
OK, so he’s God, so what? Why does it matter, why should it matter, to anyone now? What does believing that Jesus is God, or part of God, or whatever, actually accomplish? How does it make anyone’s life better? And if it doesn’t, then what does it matter if one believes or not?
Each one could be shown to be more believable after the fact.
Goofus and Gallant are both fictional but kids can learn from their example.