Proof that Christianity is False

[Thing]

In case you forgot, you are the one I was quoting who actually used the words “seeming to fall from the sky”. I merely bolded the word “seeming” in my response.
You aren’t paranoid of your world view being contradicted, are you?

An altered state of consciousness is any condition which is significantly different from a normal waking beta wave state.
Why is this concept so threatening to you?
(While it certainly was common in the 60’s for people to use chemical means to achieve this, I was by no means implying the 80,000 people at Fatima were all smoking or drinking something).
Why do you assume this concept is contrary to miraculous phenomena?
Why do you assume I am prejudiced against the possibility of miraculous phenomena?

Not all 80,000 people saw the identical thing. That is factual.
Some of them saw nothing out of the ordinary at all. That is factual.
No one else on the planet - in the daylight area - saw anything unusual about the sun/sky. That is factual.

That naturally implies (some of) the 80,000 were perceiving something that others in the normal waking beta wave state were not seeing.
If their perception was enhanced in some way, how does that not fit the definition of an altered state of consciousness?
And then, why would that negate the miraculous nature of the experience?

Saints in a state of spiritual ecstasy are certainly not in the ordinary waking beta wave state of consciousness - it is altered in some way.

Regarding Fatima, there are a few aspects to think about:
The actual experience
The description of the experience
The interpretation of the meaning and implications of the experience.
The description of the experience is not necessarily accurate. People are going to use the closest approximation to describe it as their ordinary life experience enables.
Discussing the meaning and implications of the experience is where it gets into purely arbitrary theories, based on one’s religious beliefs perhaps, but arbitrary nonetheless.

The most amazing thing about Fatima was that the vision told the children that there would be a miracle there at that spot at a specific date in their near future. That was why 70,000 people gathered there on that date, to see the miracle. And there is no doubt that something happened at Fatima.

 

[Thing]

The Miracle of the Sun

An Eyewitness Account by
Dr. José Maria de Almeida Garrett, professor at the Faculty of Sciences of Coimbra, Portugal

 "It must have been 1:30 p.m when there arose, at the exact spot where the children were, a column of smoke, thin, fine and bluish, which extended up to perhaps two meters above their heads, and evaporated at that height. This phenomenon, perfectly visible to the naked eye, lasted for a few seconds. Not having noted how long it had lasted, I cannot say whether it was more or less than a minute. The smoke dissipated abruptly, and after some time, it came back to occur a second time, then a third time

"The sky, which had been overcast all day, suddenly cleared; the rain stopped and it looked as if the sun were about to fill with light the countryside that the wintery morning had made so gloomy. I was looking at the spot of the apparitions in a serene, if cold, expectation of something happening and with diminishing curiosity because a long time had passed without anything to excite my attention. The sun, a few moments before, had broken through the thick layer of clouds which hid it and now shone clearly and intensely.
"Suddenly I heard the uproar of thousands of voices, and I saw the whole multitude spread out in that vast space at my feet…turn their backs to that spot where, until then, all their expectations had been focused, and look at the sun on the other side. I turned around, too, toward the point commanding their gaze and I could see the sun, like a very clear disc, with its sharp edge, which gleamed without hurting the sight. It could not be confused with the sun seen through a fog (there was no fog at that moment), for it was neither veiled nor dim. At Fatima, it kept its light and heat, and stood out clearly in the sky, with a sharp edge, like a large gaming table. The most astonishing thing was to be able to stare at the solar disc for a long time, brilliant with light and heat, without hurting the eyes or damaging the retina. [During this time], the sun’s disc did not remain immobile, it had a giddy motion, [but] not like the twinkling of a star in all its brilliance for it spun round upon itself in a mad whirl.
"During the solar phenomenon, which I have just described, there were also changes of color in the atmosphere. Looking at the sun, I noticed that everything was becoming darkened. I looked first at the nearest objects and then extended my glance further afield as far as the horizon. I saw everything had assumed an amethyst color. Objects around me, the sky and the atmosphere, were of the same color. Everything both near and far had changed, taking on the color of old yellow damask. People looked as if they were suffering from jaundice and I recall a sensation of amusement at seeing them look so ugly and unattractive. My own hand was the same color.
"Then, suddenly, one heard a clamor, a cry of anguish breaking from all the people. The sun, whirling wildly, seemed all at once to loosen itself from the firmament and, blood red, advance threateningly upon the earth as if to crush us with its huge and fiery weight. The sensation during those moments was truly terrible.
**“All the phenomena which I have described were observed by me in a calm and serene state of mind without any emotional disturbance. It is for others to interpret and explain them. Finally, I must declare that never, before or after October 13 [1917], have I observed similar atmospheric or solar phenomena.”**Professor Almeida Garrett’s full account may be found in Novos Documentos de Fatima (Loyala editions, San Paulo, 1984)

 

[santodomingo]

Good point. It is impossible that the sun actually danced in the sky, therefore it was by definition a visual hallucination or optical illusion (i.e. you are visually seeing something that is not happening in the same way as you are seeing it).

This is quite different from the American Civil War since in that case, what people were seeing pretty much was corresponding to what was happening. Soldiers dying in Antietam were really dying there, for example.

So I would like Santo to compare the two

1. People in Fatima see the sun dancing in the sky, but the sun is not literally dancing in the sky.
2. People see soldiers dying in Antietam, and soldiers really are literally dying in Antietam.

And tell me what his reasoning is for saying that Fatima is in any way comparable to the American Civil War as far as veracity.

Sorry I took so long to reply to this. I was away for five days.

The miracle of the sun, witnessed by all those present at Fatima on 13 October, 1917, was not a natural phenomenon, but a supernatural one. As has been pointed out, if the sun had physically fallen from the sky life on Earth would have ended. A nearby astronomical observatory recorded nothing unusual in the sun´s movements that day, confirming the notion that it was not a natural ocurrence. When you say the sun was not “literally” dancing, if you mean it was not physically dancing, I have to agree with you. But that does not lead me to conclude that the witnesses were hallucinating.

The American Civil War analogy breaks down at this point because a war is a natural event. However, there can be witnesses of both type of phenomena; natural and supernatural. What you cannot do is dismiss the 80.000 or so witnesses who experienced a miracle because it doesn´t fit into your preconceived world-view.

 

[elzoog]

Sorry I took so long to reply to this. I was away for five days.

The miracle of the sun, witnessed by all those present at Fatima on 13 October, 1917, was not a natural phenomenon, but a supernatural one.

That is what you don’t understand. The phenomena was NOT witnessed by all those present. There were a few people who didn’t see anything at all out of the ordinary.

As has been pointed out, if the sun had physically fallen from the sky life on Earth would have ended. A nearby astronomical observatory recorded nothing unusual in the sun´s movements that day, confirming the notion that it was not a natural ocurrence.

Just because a nearby observatory recorded nothing unusual, that doesn’t prove the event was not natural. There are MANY things in nature that would cause the sun to appear different in the sky.

For one thing, the azimuth of what they witnessed was different from where the sun would be.

When you say the sun was not “literally” dancing, if you mean it was not physically dancing, I have to agree with you. But that does not lead me to conclude that the witnesses were hallucinating.

Maybe it has something to do with the definition of hallucination being that you see something that isn’t really there?

The American Civil War analogy breaks down at this point because a war is a natural event. However, there can be witnesses of both type of phenomena; natural and supernatural.

There is no verifiable evidence for the supernatural. If there was, you couldn’t be sure that anything is true (even Catholicism).

What you cannot do is dismiss the 80.000 or so witnesses who experienced a miracle because it doesn´t fit into your preconceived world-view.

Since there were NOT 80,000 witnesses of this miracle I guess you got me there.

 

[VitaminC]

Maybe. As soon as you give me an example of 80 thousand witnesses who agree on the specifics of what they saw let me know and I will look into it.

I’ll give you a hint, Fatima is NOT an example of that.

You typically cannot get a half dozen people to agree on the details of what happens during a crime or an auto accident let alone 80 thousand people. People mix up the color of clothes, the exact details of what happened, the description of the suspect, etc. So what exactly is your point …

 

[elzoog]

You typically cannot get a half dozen people to agree on the details of what happens during a crime or an auto accident let alone 80 thousand people. People mix up the color of clothes, the exact details of what happened, the description of the suspect, etc. So what exactly is your point …

What if you have the following three witnesses

Witness 1) There was a woman on the bench.
Witness 2) There was a man on the bench.
Witness 3) There was nobody on the bench.

Which witness would you believe and why?

 

[santodomingo]

Let´s get this thread back to the original question; proof about christianity.

In any court of law, the consistent testimony of multiple witnesses is taken seriously. If you take into account that the apostles, the primary witnesses to Christ, were prepared to die (and in fact all but St. John died martyrs) rather than alter their good news about the Divinity of Christ and His Resurrection, the case for christianity must also be taken very seriously.

There are several options for those who do not believe:

1. The apostles lied.
2. The apostles were mistaken, because a) Jesus fooled them all or b) Jesus was a lunatic who honestly believed he was God, but wasn´t.
3. The apostles never really believed Jesus was God; christianity “evolved” over the centuries.
4. We can never know anything for sure about Jesus or His apostles because the sources are unreliable.

None of these alternatives stand close examination from any point of view. Psychologically, religiously, socially, historically, politically and scientifically none of these theories are believeable. It would take a long time to prove this, which is exactly the content of the book I´m writing now.

Therefore we are left with the only alternative that makes sense, no matter how distasteful to atheists: Jesus is God, He rose from the dead and His apostles preached the Good News just as He commanded them to.

 

[anon5216]

…There are several options for those who do not believe:
…
2. The apostles were mistaken, because a) Jesus fooled them all or b) Jesus was a lunatic who honestly believed he was God, but wasn´t.
…

Since you are writing a book on this, please don’t do the C.S. Lewis straw man thing again.

Your two choices above, straight out of “Mere Christianity” are an insult to peoples intelligence.
Lewis’ book was a set of radio talks to a general, basically Christian, audience - it by no means presents supportable, strong arguments to spiritually educated non-Christians.

The apostles were by no means advanced intellectual or spiritual giants when Jesus collected them.
The deep spiritual experiences He gave them were going to be - practically by definition - over their heads.
This doesn’t negate those experiences, doesn’t require anyone to “fool” anyone, doesn’t require anyone to be a “lunatic”.
It is in the interpretation of the meaning, significance and ramifications of these experiences that all the mythologizing problems come in.

I suppose there’s nothing wrong with rehashing and updating C.S. Lewis for a new generation of Christians (and from your perspective - a more specifically Catholic viewpoint), but Lewis’ writings assume a basic predisposed acceptance of Christian mythology.
They’re all straw man arguments to someone who doesn’t start there to begin with.

If the intended audience for you book includes serious non-Christian spiritual seekers, you are going to have to broaden your research, think ‘outside the box’ of the mythology most Christians just accept without questioning and for God’s sake, don’t use straw man arguments.

 

[elzoog]

Let´s get this thread back to the original question; proof about christianity.

In any court of law, the consistent testimony of multiple witnesses is taken seriously. If you take into account that the apostles, the primary witnesses to Christ, were prepared to die (and in fact all but St. John died martyrs) rather than alter their good news about the Divinity of Christ and His Resurrection, the case for christianity must also be taken very seriously.

There are several options for those who do not believe:

1. The apostles lied.
2. The apostles were mistaken, because a) Jesus fooled them all or b) Jesus was a lunatic who honestly believed he was God, but wasn´t.
3. The apostles never really believed Jesus was God; christianity “evolved” over the centuries.
4. We can never know anything for sure about Jesus or His apostles because the sources are unreliable.

None of these alternatives stand close examination from any point of view.

In that case, I assume you have 100% proof that Matthew wrote Matthew, that Mark wrote Mark, and that Luke wrote Luke. Since you think the stories are reliable I assume you have found out who the original authors were and determined their reliability.

I am sure you are also aware that many of the elements of Jesus’s life such as dying and rising from the dead, organizing a meal where the god offers his flesh and blood as food and drink, etc. were already known elements in other religions that existed at the time. I assume you have proof that the early Christians didn’t embellish their story by adding these elements to make their religion attractive to the other religious people of that time period.

Psychologically, religiously, socially, historically, politically and scientifically none of these theories are believeable.

I guess that’s why experts in the field of history or sociology believe that at least some of the stories about Jesus were made up.

Therefore we are left with the only alternative that makes sense, no matter how distasteful to atheists: Jesus is God, He rose from the dead and His apostles preached the Good News just as He commanded them to.

Why does that alternative make sense? Why would God have to die and rise from the dead?

What makes better sense? That God sees that mankind is sinful so he sends himself down to Earth and sacrifices himself to himself to forgive mankind for being so bad? Or that the story of God sacrificing himself to mankind was a common element in other myths of the same time period so Christians added that to make their story palatable to others?

 

[elzoog]

Hey Santo, based on the fact that you have researched Jesus I was wondering if you could comment on this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU

 

[anEvilAtheist]

Hey Santo, based on the fact that you have researched Jesus I was wondering if you could comment on this video:

youtube.com/watch?v=WSzQC1zKesU

I’ve already discussed this video in another thread so you might want to check out my posts in that thread. Although I am an atheist, I don’t agree with every argument made by other atheists.

 

[santodomingo]

Since you are writing a book on this, please don’t do the C.S. Lewis straw man thing again. Your two choices above, straight out of “Mere Christianity” are an insult to peoples intelligence.
Lewis’ book was a set of radio talks to a general, basically Christian, audience - it by no means presents supportable, strong arguments to spiritually educated non-Christians.

 

[anon5216]

Mythologize: convert into myth or mythology; make the subject of a myth
Myth: 1 a traditional story, esp. one concerning the early history of a people or explaining some natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
2 a widely held but false belief or idea
• a misrepresentation of the truth
• an exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing

I don´t think I´m insulting anybody´s intelligence. What I find an insult to my intelligence, something I have to hear almost everyday, is the modernist mantra that Jesus was a great guy, a wonderful preacher, a mystic, bla, bla, bla, but NOT GOD. How do you reconcile what Jesus said about Himself with the theory that He was simply a mortal man like us all? This is the fundamental error that all non-christians need to address. As I said in my earlier post, there are several ways round this dilema. My book simply aims to deconstruct these arguments, because I honestly don´t think they hold water.
Your earlier post just reiterated C.S. Lewis’ straw man set ups. Expecting people to continue to fall for straw men is insulting.
Reconciling Jesus’ alleged statements within the context of Judaism requires much mythologizing.
Reconciling them with Adwaita Vedanta and aspects of Buddhism, etc. is completely natural because the statements are consistent with those systems.
If your book is only aiming at deconstructing C.S. Lewis’ straw men, you’re wasting your time if the intended audience is non-Christians.

The mythological theory is seriously flawed. It takes far more blind faith, in my opinion, to believe that christianity evolved from myths, rather than as a result of real historical events. This is something I address in some detail, and I won´t go into it now. It´s all very well to throw around the mythology theory, but the facts don´t fit: the principal objection is that the time span between the events described in the Gospels and the writing of these Gospels is so short that there is no room for the growth of myths. The second objection is that everything that has been discovered about the historical context of the Gospels has been proved to be correct. The theory of a posterior confection of the New Testament has to be discarded. The mythological theory, has taken one blow after another from arqueological research in the Holy Land. According to what we know about first century Israel and the writing of the New Testament, there is less and less scope for the invention of myths.
You appear to have responded from ‘inside your box’. I did not refer to any theory that Christianity evolved from myths rather than historical events.

I said that due to the indisputable fact that Jesus gave his followers experiences that went way over their heads, these followers could do nothing but mythologize these experiences.
They created “traditional stories concerning the early history of Christianity” - based on real events - yes.

The issue is in their complete lack of qualification to interpret the meaning, significance and ramifications of these experiences clearly and without inserting their own ignorance.
The only background they had to try and make sense of things was the ancient Hebrew scriptures.
Those writings were politically motivated propaganda intended as myths from the start, that used these myths to rewrite (and sometimes write “from whole cloth”) the Hebrew’s actual history with a highly distorted religious veneer.

As you say, the apostles were hardly intellectual giants. Precisely! It would have taken intellectual giants to think up something as profound as christianity, to have invented the parables, the eschatology and the moral teaching. Your explanation is self-defeating. It´s far more rational to believe that a group of fishers and peasants, preached what they heard, without additions. They didn´t necessarily understand it all (it took several centuries to define the precise nature of Christ) but they faithfully recorded what they had received. The most “inventive” christians tend to be the heretics. I have no doubt Luther was very intelligent, or that Arius was a genius.
To think that in any time period, including today, that ordinary simple people can repeat something they were taught that went way over their heads accurately, without distortions of any kind is disingenuous or naive at best.

You admit that it took several centuries for later followers to “define the precise nature of Christ”.
Arriving at precise definitions decades and centuries after the fact based on simplistic original stories is stretching credibility beyond reason.

As I said, the mythological theory of christianity does not fit into the historical and religious reality of the first century of Israel. Perhaps it´s you who are in a box!

As I said, my post made no claims about Jesus stories being a made up myth.
The issue is taking grains of truth and building up huge mythologies based on those grains of truth.

 

[santodomingo]

Hello anon,
So, you find it credible that a devout jew, who lived in first-century Palestine, adopted a budist-pantheist-atheist worldview, transmitted it to a bunch of ignorant peasants (who for some reason he chose as his disciples) and they somehow altered the course of history, based on their misunderstanding of Jesus´ myths.

RIGHT. What else do you want me to believe? That Jesus invented the ipod?

 

[anon5216]

Hello anon,
So, you find it credible that a devout jew, who lived in first-century Palestine, adopted a budist-pantheist-atheist worldview, transmitted it to a bunch of ignorant peasants (who for some reason he chose as his disciples) and they somehow altered the course of history, based on their misunderstanding of Jesus´ myths.

RIGHT. What else do you want me to believe? That Jesus invented the ipod?

Man, do you like using straw men.
If this is how you plan on addressing all non-Christian objections to currently held beliefs regarding Jesus, then obviously further discussion is a complete waste of time.

Whatever. Write your book. I’m sure you’ll get a reasonably sized Christian audience to accept your conclusions.

 

[santodomingo]

Man, do you like using straw men.
If this is how you plan on addressing all non-Christian objections to currently held beliefs regarding Jesus, then obviously further discussion is a complete waste of time.

If you are referring to the sarcasm in my post, I couldn´t help it. Your sugestion that Jesus was a buddhist just blew me away! I´ll try to be more constructive, as long as you stick to the realm of reality!

There are, as I see it, two possible “ways out” for people like you who choose to bring everything into doubt:

1. A man was made into a God (critical approach)
2. A God was made into a man (mythological approach)

There are multiple objections to both options, and that is basically what my book is about. BTW, it´s in spanish, so you probably wouldn´t be interested anyway.

The main objection to theory nº 1 is the religious and cultural background Jesus and his disciples lived in. Men DID NOT become Gods in Israel. If there was one place in the entire world where you could not convert a mortal into a God, it was Israel. For Jesus even to say what He said is astonishing. For His followers to believe it and die for it is even more astonishing. The notion of God and man in one person is the supreme blasphemy for a jew. Nobody would claim to be the living God unless they were as nutty as a fruitcake, had some kind of a death wish, or unless it were true. And nobody would have believed Jesus´ extraordinary claims unless they were true, and unless He demonstrated they were true.

The main objections to nº2 are the timeframe to the Gospel stories, and the historical accuracy of the details given in the Gospels. The writing of the Gospels has been proven to have ocurred well within the first century, and the synoptics before the destruction of Jerusalem (see John A.T. Robinson´s “Redating the New Testament”) This rules out posterior reworkings of christian “myths”. It also permits us to suppose that the NT books are authentic, ie the authors are eye witnesses or contemporaries of Jesus as they affirm. The historical accuracy of the Gospels rules out the theory that they are merely stories with a spiritual intention that do not necessarily refer to real events. Why paint a perfectly accurate and detailed backdrop to a fake picture? If you´re going to make up miracles about Jesus, why risk being discovered by giving specific names and places, if the stories are no more than metaphores designed to convey a spiritual moral?

I hope that is more to your liking. I have tried to sum up my arguments without going into detail, and without sarcasm, so that you can give me a good reply.

 

[santodomingo]

I’ve already discussed this video in another thread so you might want to check out my posts in that thread. Although I am an atheist, I don’t agree with every argument made by other atheists.

Hello Evil Atheist,

Thanks for the link. This chap sounds very clever. A formidable enemy of the faith!

I´m not an arqueologist, so I can´t go that far into the evidence, although what he says about “no hard proof that Nazareth existed in the time of Jesus” is not as clear-cut as he claims. I read some of the thread you offered on this. Very interesting…

My reply to Randi is this: if Nazareth didn´t exist in Jesus´ time, why did St. Luke, who wrote his Gospel barely a couple of decades after the death of Jesus, invent such a pointless piece of information? It´s so hard, even from a purely sceptical point of view, to see why he would have written that Jesus had grown up in Nazareth unless it was true. What would he have achieved by making this up? St.John even includes the question “can anything good come out of Nazareth?” It would be like writing a story about a superhero, and have him grow up in a slum.

This is what the experts call the “discontinuity criterion”. If it makes no sense to make something up because it weakens their position, and yet the authors say it, it suggests the information is true. This is the case of Nazareth and it´s also the case of the women who first saw Jesus after His resurrection. The only rational explanation for the inclusion of this episode in the Gospels is that things really ocurred in that way.

 

[anon5216]

If you are referring to the sarcasm in my post, I couldn´t help it. Your sugestion that Jesus was a buddhist just blew me away! I´ll try to be more constructive, as long as you stick to the realm of reality!

There are, as I see it, two possible “ways out” for people like you who choose to bring everything into doubt:

1. A man was made into a God (critical approach)
2. A God was made into a man (mythological approach)

There are multiple objections to both options, and that is basically what my book is about. BTW, it´s in spanish, so you probably wouldn´t be interested anyway.

The main objection to theory nº 1 is the religious and cultural background Jesus and his disciples lived in. Men DID NOT become Gods in Israel. If there was one place in the entire world where you could not convert a mortal into a God, it was Israel. For Jesus even to say what He said is astonishing. For His followers to believe it and die for it is even more astonishing. The notion of God and man in one person is the supreme blasphemy for a jew. Nobody would claim to be the living God unless they were as nutty as a fruitcake, had some kind of a death wish, or unless it were true. And nobody would have believed Jesus´ extraordinary claims unless they were true, and unless He demonstrated they were true.

The main objections to nº2 are the timeframe to the Gospel stories, and the historical accuracy of the details given in the Gospels. The writing of the Gospels has been proven to have ocurred well within the first century, and the synoptics before the destruction of Jerusalem (see John A.T. Robinson´s “Redating the New Testament”) This rules out posterior reworkings of christian “myths”. It also permits us to suppose that the NT books are authentic, ie the authors are eye witnesses or contemporaries of Jesus as they affirm. The historical accuracy of the Gospels rules out the theory that they are merely stories with a spiritual intention that do not necessarily refer to real events. Why paint a perfectly accurate and detailed backdrop to a fake picture? If you´re going to make up miracles about Jesus, why risk being discovered by giving specific names and places, if the stories are no more than metaphores designed to convey a spiritual moral?

I hope that is more to your liking. I have tried to sum up my arguments without going into detail, and without sarcasm, so that you can give me a good reply.

If your book is intended for spiritually educated non-Christians, your two “ways out” for “people like me” doesn’t cover it.
Neither of those options express my position and so even 1,000 pages of careful, well argued, thoroughly documented rebuttal of those two “ways out” would be completely irrelevant.
(Since I do not know Spanish and my perspective is not yet that common, from a purely marketing perspective of addressable audience, your approach to your book could easily be successful regardless).

God and man in one person being the supreme blasphemy for a Jew I 100% agree with - they did have Jesus executed for that claim.
However, that claim of being one with God is precisely part of Adwaita Vedanta - no blasphemy, no heresy, but also no exclusivity.

I didn’t say Jesus was a Buddhist. I said his teachings are very consistent with some of the Buddhist teachings, while they were conflicting with Jewish teachings.
Buddhist missionaries had reached Alexandria Egypt at least 100 years before Jesus was born, so the those ideas were certainly available.
Adwaita Vedanta is older and there’s no reason to assume that its concepts were entirely unknown in the Middle East either.
(Of course the experience/realization is direct and available to anyone - it is not just a human theory that you hear about or read or are taught words descriptive of it.
It is also not a claim that is valid just because you happen to know the texts describing it.)

Please try to get over C.S. Lewis’ line about Jesus had to be either a liar, or insane, or God as defined by Christianity.
Those are not the only options and proving the 1st two false does not by any means prove the 3rd true.

You still don’t get my reference to mythologizing.
I’m not saying the Gospel stories were made up in the same way I see the ancient Hebrews having made up their mythology.

I’m stating that none of the early Christians were qualified to interpret the meaning, significance and ramifications of their spiritual experiences and therefore the context and interpretation they supply can and should be questioned.
It is precisely because these fallible humans would never be believably convincing with their interpretations that the whole “guarantee of infallibility via the Holy Spirit” myth was started.
(This unquestionable authority of the priesthood was derivative of the Jewish religion and not unique to Christianity in general concept - although the mythology explaining it is not identical).

This layer of interpretation was added over many years and it is this secondary layer that I’m referring to as having been mythologized - i.e. the conversion of original facts into myth in the process of attempting to explain them.
The Gospel narratives themselves have some amount of interpretive context as well, since the writers wrote from their own religious background and tried to place/explain Jesus within that context.

 

[Detales]

Well, I just had to jump back in for this one.

Anon has pretty well hit the nail on its proverbial head, completely and accurately. As far as we are concerned, your points of contention, Santo, are irrelevant, and neither address nor approach the area of interest in which the Identity statements of Jesus would land us, had you a broader perspective.

But, nevertheless, I encourage you to do everything you can with all the available energy you have to complete your work on its own terms. It may be the only way you will ever have out of your own limitations. Then we might actually have a fruitful conversation. Bon chance!

Bindar Doondat, FZPC

 

[antichrist98]

Isaiah 45 and Zefania 3 shows that when the messiah arrives the world will unite in monotheism (belief in only one god). When the messiah Jesus came (if he was real) this never happened during his lifetime so the prophets, that wrote in gods perfect word, made a mistake. Or they were completely wrong which means christianity is not real. Plus having three gods, Jesus, God and the holy spirit isnt exactly monotheism either.

Deuteronomy 24:16 says ‘every man shall die for his own sin’, yet Jesus died for our sin, another bible mistake by the perfect god???

If God loves everyone then why does the bible have so many homophobic suggestions.

I mean none of this in any form of offence to the christian faith but im just stating some facts, by sending this message i might even turn to the christian faith… eventually when there is enough evidence.