I found an “internet meme†courtesy of Richard Carrier (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79UAYyMYk7I) that provided what might be described as a “clothes-off†definition of Christianity. My paraphrase of that definition is the following:
Christianity - the belief that some cosmic Jewish Guy-in-the-Sky who got a virgin pregnant with himself without a penis can make you live forever if you pretend to eat his flesh and drink his blood and also tell him telepathically that you accept him as your master to be obeyed at all cost even to the point of death the purpose of doing so being to have him remove an independent, self-sufficient attitude from your mind that all people are born with and need to survive because a woman born as a rib was convinced by a talking snake to eat some fruit growing on a tree that magically gave her the ability to understand what is good and what is evil.
(Note that the vast majority of scholars are completely convinced that the Jewish Guy urging symbolic cannibalism and vampirism existed although many of them do not insist that his being in the sky and getting a virgin pregnant with himself is necessarily historical.)
Can anybody here point out any inaccuracies in this definition?Yes, it's an absurd idea, but it is what Christians believe!
Nope, looks about right to me! :-D
I didn't have time to watch the video, though, so I'll check it out tomorrow.
Love Carrier!! Your definition sounds about right.
That seems about the right amount of "stupid" for all theisms...
The infancy gospel was only in one telling (in the canon). There was another version outside of the canon. But it wasn't essential to the story, in that the Gospel of Mark starts with the baptism of Jesus, and Paul starts with the crucifixion.
There wasn't just one story, or just one group. The Last Temptation of Christ comes close as a story about the story. Jesus was a failed messiah, and Paul was a con artist.
The reality of ancient religion isn't something we are familiar with today, blood animal sacrifice for instance.
Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 05:52:21 AM
The infancy gospel was only in one telling (in the canon). There was another version outside of the canon. But it wasn't essential to the story, in that the Gospel of Mark starts with the baptism of Jesus, and Paul starts with the crucifixion.
There wasn't just one story, or just one group. The Last Temptation of Christ comes close as a story about the story. Jesus was a failed messiah, and Paul was a con artist.
The reality of ancient religion isn't something we are familiar with today, blood animal sacrifice for instance.
I sure won't disagree with you that "Jesus was a failed messiah, and Paul was a con artist", But assuming that there really was a "jesus" is also an assumption. There certainly may have been one of many wandering preachers, but to me, by definition, they were all false given no actual deity they claimed to represent.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 04, 2019, 06:02:18 AM
I sure won't disagree with you that "Jesus was a failed messiah, and Paul was a con artist", But assuming that there really was a "jesus" is also an assumption. There certainly may have been one of many wandering preachers, but to me, by definition, they were all false given no actual deity they claimed to represent.
There were false messiahs. Doesn't really matter if one was named Jesus or not. The idea that the messiah is false, pretty much cuts the Christians off at the knees regardless.
False Messiah = the Romans weren't magically destroyed.
Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 06:07:07 AM
There were false messiahs. Doesn't really matter if one was named Jesus or not. The idea that the messiah is false, pretty much cuts the Christians off at the knees regardless.
False Messiah = the Romans weren't magically destroyed.
All messiahs are false by logic. If one was real, we wouldn't be sitting around discussing it, would we?
The Jesus story could very easily be the rehashing of typical Cynic: a member of a school of ancient Greek philosophers founded by Antisthenes, marked by an ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure. The movement flourished in the 3rd century BC and revived in the 1st century AD.
The Gospel of Thomas most likely came from such a source.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2019, 08:56:35 AM
The Jesus story could very easily be the rehashing of typical Cynic: a member of a school of ancient Greek philosophers founded by Antisthenes, marked by an ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure. The movement flourished in the 3rd century BC and revived in the 1st century AD.
The Gospel of Thomas most likely came from such a source.
Or Mithras...
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 03, 2019, 08:50:26 PM
Nope, looks about right to me! :-D
Over at Debating Christianity a Christian objected to my saying that Christians
pretend to eat the flesh of Christ and drink Christ's blood--so he thinks it's the real deal!
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 03, 2019, 11:10:01 PM
Love Carrier!! Your definition sounds about right.
There's nothing like telling people the "emperor is naked."
(https://nicspaull.files.wordpress.com/2018/09/emperor-768x506.jpg)
Quote from: Cavebear on June 04, 2019, 06:24:26 AM
All messiahs are false by logic. If one was real, we wouldn't be sitting around discussing it, would we?
All politicians are false, by brazen lying.
Quote from: Jagella on June 04, 2019, 10:28:05 AM
Over at Debating Christianity a Christian objected to my saying that Christians pretend to eat the flesh of Christ and drink Christ's blood--so he thinks it's the real deal!
Yes, that is one theology. But for Zwingli ... it wasn't the "real presence" or some variation, but "in remembrance".
I find it humorous that most christians think their particular Jesus was named Jesus Christ. Most don't realize that 'Christ' is a title, not a name. Jesus was a popular name in that time, since it means savior, same as the name Joshua--and he is the one who conquered Jericho in the Promised Land. Moses never got to the promised land--Joshua conquered it. So Jews were looking for another savior from the Romans. Christ means anointed one, and that is what the Jews did, they anointed leaders and kings with sacred oil as a christ. Usually that was a king and meant that God appointed that particular king (or leader). From this flows the concept of the divine right of kings. Yet, most christians think Jesus Christ is one particular man.
Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 06:07:07 AM
There were false messiahs. Doesn't really matter if one was named Jesus or not. The idea that the messiah is false, pretty much cuts the Christians off at the knees regardless.
False Messiah = the Romans weren't magically destroyed.
Instead they were just subsumed into a religious hierarchy, and became the Roman Catholic Church.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 04, 2019, 06:24:26 AM
All messiahs are false by logic. If one was real, we wouldn't be sitting around discussing it, would we?
Jesus was a false messiah, or his character in the story was, because he didn't meet the qualifications to even be considered "The Messiah" to the Jews of the time:
Why Jews Don't Believe in Jesus (http://www.aish.com/jw/s/48892792.html)
QuoteJews do not accept Jesus as the messiah because:
1.Jesus did not fulfill the messianic prophecies.
2.Jesus did not embody the personal qualifications of the Messiah.
3.Biblical verses "referring" to Jesus are mistranslations.
4.Jewish belief is based on national revelation.
I don't know of any other messiahs that any other religious groups were expecting to come.
Quote from: Jagella on June 04, 2019, 10:28:05 AM
Over at Debating Christianity a Christian objected to my saying that Christians pretend to eat the flesh of Christ and drink Christ's blood--so he thinks it's the real deal!
You could accuse them of cannibalism, but they'd probably be offended by that, as well! :-P
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 04, 2019, 01:19:36 PM
Instead they were just subsumed into a religious hierarchy, and became the Roman Catholic Church.
Anarchists don't like that. That is why the hermits and monks/nuns had to be subsumed into the hierarchy. Controlled opposition.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2019, 11:54:18 AM
And many, many others.
Mithras etc ... all of which are ideas/memes held by some people at some time. Not something to be ignored, because your memes are superior.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 04, 2019, 08:56:35 AM
The Jesus story could very easily be the rehashing of typical Cynic: a member of a school of ancient Greek philosophers founded by Antisthenes, marked by an ostentatious contempt for ease and pleasure. The movement flourished in the 3rd century BC and revived in the 1st century AD.
The Gospel of Thomas most likely came from such a source.
Per John Dominic Crossan. But that discounts Kabbalah. The Cynic view would say that Christianity was always Gentile and pagan.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 04, 2019, 01:28:17 PM
You could accuse them of cannibalism, but they'd probably be offended by that, as well! :-P
They were accused of cannibalism, by the ignorant. And Jews still are (we kidnap Gentile children to use their blood to make Passover matzah).
Quote from: Jagella on June 04, 2019, 10:28:05 AM
Over at Debating Christianity a Christian objected to my saying that Christians pretend to eat the flesh of Christ and drink Christ's blood--so he thinks it's the real deal!
Cannibalism, in the sense of incorporating the power of your enemies, has a long history.
Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 02:26:16 PM
They were accused of cannibalism, by the ignorant. And Jews still are (we kidnap Gentile children to use their blood to make Passover matzah).
Well, obviously that isn't true. Matzah isnt red. Or were only white corpuscles used?
Quote from: Baruch on June 04, 2019, 02:24:07 PM
Per John Dominic Crossan. But that discounts Kabbalah. The Cynic view would say that Christianity was always Gentile and pagan.
"Pagan" is such an interesting term. The many-deity ancient Greeks would have called me that. The medieval Catholics and Protestants would have called me that (if polite enough not to say "heretic"). Even a "non-adherent" friend says I am technically. And each would have a separate and different definition
I suppose what it really means is "not one of us".
Quote from: Cavebear on June 06, 2019, 05:35:25 AM
Well, obviously that isn't true. Matzah isnt red. Or were only white corpuscles used?
It was called the "blood libel" ... thousands of Jews were murdered by Gentiles over this conspiracy theory.
Quote from: Cavebear on June 06, 2019, 05:43:46 AM
"Pagan" is such an interesting term. The many-deity ancient Greeks would have called me that. The medieval Catholics and Protestants would have called me that (if polite enough not to say "heretic"). Even a "non-adherent" friend says I am technically. And each would have a separate and different definition
I suppose what it really means is "not one of us".
"pagani" = country bumpkin. Christians originally were urban proletariat, not peasant.
Very good video. I'm keeping this one saved.
Quote from: Blackleaf on June 06, 2019, 12:27:55 PM
Very good video. I'm keeping this one saved.
And check out Carrier's latest book! It is the best of the Jesus was not an actual person books.
According to astrotheology, Jesus is just a retelling of the story of the sun:
https://www.astrodynamics.net/astrotheology-sun-god/
http://listverse.com/2017/08/16/10-reasons-the-story-of-jesus-might-be-an-allegory-for-the-sun/
There are actually 13 Zodiac constellations, so Mary Magdalene may have represented the 13th.
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 06, 2019, 02:27:45 PM
According to astrotheology, Jesus is just a retelling of the story of the sun:
https://www.astrodynamics.net/astrotheology-sun-god/
http://listverse.com/2017/08/16/10-reasons-the-story-of-jesus-might-be-an-allegory-for-the-sun/
There are actually 13 Zodiac constellations, so Mary Magdalene may have represented the 13th.
Per Vergil ... encomium on Augustus, the Emperor represented a new constellation. But Jesus is the Jewish Augustus. So yes, he is the new constellation aka new start aka comet heralded Jesus, not Julius Caesar. Jesus executed on the vernal equinox. All BS of course.
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 06, 2019, 12:49:15 PM
And check out Carrier's latest book! It is the best of the Jesus was not an actual person books.
Same one as reviewed last year?
Quote from: Mike Cl on June 06, 2019, 09:20:27 PM
Yep.
You may need to repost the original link for the newb.
Someone did.
A pretty solid deconstruction of religion in general from a historical perspective in OPs video all the way to logical, concurrent, ones to Christianity.
Quote from: Sal1981 on June 07, 2019, 02:16:16 AM
A pretty solid deconstruction of religion in general from a historical perspective in OPs video all the way to logical, concurrent, ones to Christianity.
Although I'm not really a mythicist, I think Carrier makes the best arguments that Jesus never lived. It's just amazing what Carrier can do. I think he may make a big mark in historical Jesus studies.
Quote from: Baruch on June 06, 2019, 11:07:27 AM
"pagani" = country bumpkin. Christians originally were urban proletariat, not peasant.
You went with your gut on that one, didn't you?
Here's some detail:
"pagan (n.)
mid-14c., "person of non-Christian or non-Jewish faith," from Late Latin paganus "pagan," in classical Latin "villager, rustic; civilian, non-combatant" noun use of adjective meaning "of the country, of a village," from pagus "country people; province, rural district," originally "district limited by markers," thus related to pangere "to fix, fasten," from PIE root *pag- "to fasten." As an adjective from early 15c.
The religious sense is often said to derive from conservative rural adherence to the old gods after the Christianization of Roman towns and cities; but the word in this sense predates that period in Church history, and it is more likely derived from the use of paganus in Roman military jargon for "civilian, incompetent soldier," which Christians (Tertullian, c. 202; Augustine) picked up with the military imagery of the early Church (such as milites "soldier of Christ," etc.). Applied to modern pantheists and nature-worshippers from 1908.
Pagan and heathen are primarily the same in meaning; but pagan is sometimes distinctively applied to those nations that, although worshiping false gods, are more cultivated, as the Greeks and Romans, and heathen to uncivilized idolaters, as the tribes of Africa. A Mohammedan is not counted a pagan much less a heathen. [Century Dictionary, 1897]"
And...
Wikipedia says "Paganism (from classical Latin pÄgÄnus "rural, rustic", later "civilian") is a term first used in the fourth century by early Christians for people in the Roman Empire who practiced polytheism. This was either because they were increasingly rural and provincial relative to the Christian population, or because they were not milites Christi (soldiers of Christ). Alternate terms in Christian texts for the same group were hellene, gentile, and heathen. Ritual sacrifice was an integral part of ancient Graeco-Roman religion[4] and was regarded as an indication of whether a person was pagan or Christian.
Paganism was originally a pejorative and derogatory term for polytheism, implying its inferiority.Paganism has broadly connoted the "religion of the peasantry". During and after the Middle Ages, the term paganism was applied to any unfamiliar religion, and the term presumed a belief in false god(s)."
Note: I deleted footnote references as it would have gotten altogether too long.
BTW, a friend and I once got into a long discussion about whether I was a pagan or a heathen. I denied being either, as I did not belief in any gods. She finally agreed I was not pagan (not believing in older pantheistic gods), but she was sure I was a heathen (not believing in current ones). While being otherwise "reasonably sensible", she couldn't grasp the idea of not believing in SOME god...
Alert .. Cavebear can read a dictionary. But can you define words for yourself?
Quote from: Baruch on June 09, 2019, 01:57:08 PM
Alert .. Cavebear can read a dictionary. But can you define words for yourself?
It's almost sort of genetic. My godmother worked for Merriam-Webster as an etymologist. Sadly, some idiot relatives "corrected" that in her obituary to read "entymologist". She and I knew the difference; apparently, no one else did.
And I can understand words by structure and roots. In high school, I presented a paper to the 12th grade English teacher (with the amazingly appropriate name of "Aubrey Wafford Thomas") about 'The Jabberwocky' with those awful line drawings on the blackboard for parts of speech. Do you remember those?
I got an A++ (because, as he said, he ran out of +s). After that, he just let me sit in the back row to read all the books he gave me.
I've always liked Jabberwocky, but I can only ever remember the "'Twas brillig..." part, I think up to "...frumious Bandersnatch."
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 09, 2019, 05:34:30 PM
I've always liked Jabberwocky, but I can only ever remember the "'Twas brillig..." part, I think up to "...frumious Bandersnatch."
https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/42916/jabberwocky
Thanks, Cavebear!
Here it is set to music, not too bad:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ-AGLyMVHM
Quote from: Unbeliever on June 09, 2019, 05:45:24 PM
Thanks, Cavebear!
Here it is set to music, not too bad:
Wow, I never heard it set to music before. And I loved that even they tangled some of the words... Its hard enough to just read aloud, never mind to music.
I liked that!