The Easter myth


In my list of people occupying the lowest rank in society, the so called scum of society, I have politicians, police and pastors. I find pastors with access to the internet the worst type of persons. They are likely to have read volumes of tracts showing the impossibility of the bible narratives but still spread them as truth, gospel truths.

Pastor James Miller in his recent post has decided to convince his followers and anyone who happens on his site that the story of Jesus is factual.

He starts by telling us

Years ago I made an intentional exploration of the question of whether or not God was real.  I made a point of studying everything I could about it.  I read the holy books of many different religions with only one question in mind – could any of this be true?

and it is only fair for us to ask what were his findings.

Without giving us an answer for the above story, he moves on to write

One of the tests scholars may use to evaluate the validity of a historical claim is called “the criterion of embarrassment.” They say that if a story from history is embarrassing to the author or to the hero of the story, it is probably true.

and I guess you know where this is going.

I will not venture to quote the rest of his balderdash but I would like to offer a counter explanation. One, if the story of Jesus was meant to fulfill prophesy as the christian claims, then descriptions of a humble background are not embarrassing but actually buttress the story they are spreading. Lookie, he was a humble prince, he is the son of god, you know the nonsense.

In the case of Jesus narrative, we can safely say he doesn’t know what is being written about him. He has no room to be embarrassed.

It is also untrue that the criterion of embarrassment is always true. Reading about the saints, one gets the feeling that they took pride in some things that most of us would be ashamed to accept in public. There are instances you read of saints who didn’t shower or other things that a modern day pastor would be embarrassed to write about themselves.

In the discussions with the religious leaders of the time, Jesus is said to awe them with his wit, from a young age. In what parallel world would this be embarrassing to someone’s hero.

The christian cannot say the hanging on a cross is embarrassing to their hero. Did they want it written he was killed by the firing squad? Or killed by the guillotine as they used to do in France? The cross instead of embarrassing their hero or them, actually gives them a lot of pride. They like it, wear them everywhere. They claim it is a sign of great sacrifice, they would not want it any other way.

That women were the first at the tomb, instead of being embarrassing is to be seen as a welcome message to women that they too can be leaders and members of the church. There is nothing in Jesus story that can be interpreted as embarrassing to the authors of the story or to the hero of the story. It fits smugly with what they wanted to achieve. They wanted a humble, ass riding, virgin born, cross dying king and that is what they bequeathed the world. To think otherwise, is as my friend would say, to be full of shit.

I contend therefore that the criterion of embarrassment doesn’t in anyway lend support to the Jesus story and in fact destroys it.

Advertisements

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

112 thoughts on “The Easter myth

  1. I know this isn’t the whole of your post, but I tihnk you forgot thieves, rapists, terrorists and apologists for terrorism in your list of ‘scum of the earth’.

    I know that songs work better when they’re against the police, pastors or poliicians. However, these are much worse. These are people who are hurting people on purpose and targeting them.

    Like

  2. “criterion of embarrassment”. Haven’t heard of this as a precursor to historical accuracy. If I felt such an idiotic concept had merit, I’d be embarrassed to admit it. It’s that dumb. Criterion of embarrassment. I’ve now heard everything. Un-Fucking-Believable!

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      I hope you have heard of the minimal facts argument though? It is called clawing at straws as you are drowning

      Like

      • Yes. I just can’t believe anyone gives credence to such garbage. I love philosophy and debating things, but only to a point. At some point, science takes over in my brain, and I need tangible, solid evidence, or at least I need to see one striving to find it, or I dismiss the debate as mere wheel spinning. I can write rhetoric with the best of ’em, but so what? I don’t go to my doctor with an issue and expect him to write a well worded argument explaining why I must have open heart surgery to fix it. I need a lot more evidence than a nicely worded paper before I’ll let someone cut me open. Minimal facts arguments are like homeopathy for curing sickness. The less there is of anything real, the better the cure will be. It’s lazy, unconvincing rhetorical bullshit that serves nothing and proves nothing. Lazy.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          But you would be surprised how long and hard they hang on to such BS.
          It is easy easy to make someone think the criterion of embarrassment holds water for the case of Christ but it doesn’t

          Like

          • It’s utter bullshit. And very lazy. Prove things via tangible, repeatable experiments or shut up. If something isn’t falsifiable, then it COULD be true, but, it also very well could NOT be true. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be believed. A “criterion from embarrassment” argument is most definitely not extraordinary, nor is it evidence of anything other than a sophomoric talent for wheel spinning.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            and they have been doing wheel spinning for 2K years. They sure have mastered the art

            Like

          • I just read about “criterion of embarrassment” on Wikipedia. If I wasn’t a non-believer before that, and I was, I’m one now. I’m a more convinced non-believer than ever. That argument is intellectually offensive. I feel like my intelligence has been violated just by reading it. Apologists are literally the stupidest beings to ever walk the earth. How someone can actually propose such lazy, weak reasoning as EVIDENCE for Jesus’ death and resurrection, is stunning in its stupidity. Truly, I feel as if my intellectual genitalia have been groped by a dirty old apologist against my will after reading about this. They HAVE to be kidding?!

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            You may have to shower and wash your hands carefully after such a violation

            Like

          • I’m soaking in bleach as I write.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            that will come close to half cleansing you.

            Like

          • I’m still trying to wrap my head around this. Unreal. “Criterion from embarrassment.” OMG!!!! The idiocy.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I don’t think you have had the end of idiocy.

            Like

  3. Barry says:

    I’ll ignore pastors for the moment, but why are police and politicians the so called scum of society? I thought that privilege belonged to second hand car dealers.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      In my part of the world, politicians and politicians are so corrupt they could remove corruption from the dictionary if they would.
      How are you Barry. Haven’t seen you in a while

      Like

      • Barry says:

        I do have a life outside the blogosphere, you know. Actually, living with chronic migraine means you do what you can when you can.

        Yeah, corruption isn’t something we experience much of here. We fluctuate between being the least corrupt and second least corrupt country. It’s big news here if a politician or a member of the police is even suspected of doing anything dishonest.

        Like

  4. john zande says:

    Agreed. This is a ludicrous angle to take, and I seriously doubt real scholars of history adhere to anything even approaching this equation. Many of the greatest characters of fiction are deeply flawed individuals. This is what makes them interesting from both the storytellers perspective, and from the standpoint of the audience who can “relate” to the characters blemishes. The Sumerian Pantheon, for example, is riddled with imperfect beings, their lives unfolding like an ever-expanding family drama complete with labour strikes as experienced when the 6th generation of Gods literally refused to work threatening the on-going process of creation. These marvellous characters were possessed by love, hate, envy, lust, sex, rape, incest, political manoeuvrings, alcoholism, and wars. They did terrible things to themselves, and to others.

    Sorry, but not cigar to the good pastor.

    Like

  5. Ron says:

    “They would not make up a story about the Messiah being born in a barn to unwed parents”

    There’s no mention of a barn in either gospel.

    But that aside, the real embarrassment here is the 21st century adult who still believes in 1st century fairy tales.

    Like

  6. SteveInCO says:

    I think there is a lot of misunderstanding here (and by the pastor in question) about the criterion of embarrassment, and when used properly, it actually *discredits* large parts of the Christian narrative. It is a favorite method of textual critics who are *not* biblical literalists, and I’ve seen it actually work to convince people that the bible cannot be taken literally. (This pastor you quote is a disingenuous schmuck.)

    First, the criterion should be applied against the author in his own context. If he’s proud of not having bathed for the last twenty years, then he’s not embarrassed. He maybe SHOULD be, but isn’t. This may seem like a trivial point, but it’s not; it is important to understand the author’s context, and oftentimes it’s not what we might think it is going in.

    For example: the crucifixion (or “cruci-fiction” if you will). Jesus claimed to be the messiah, and his followers believed it as well. The Messiah, *as understood then* was supposed to be someone of the Davidian line, from Bethlehem, who would become a great king, and I do mean a literal king, who would re-establish the Hebrew state and conquer its enemies.

    Well things didn’t work out according to plan, and this “messiah” was crucified, along with a bunch of common criminals. This was a particularly humiliating way to die, reserved for the lowest of the low. And this crucifixion is one of many reasons why most Jews never accepted Jesus as the Messiah. Christianity would have died an early death had it not been spread to the pagans, who didn’t understand such nuances.

    Now the crucifixion is central to the Christian mythos *today* but it wasn’t in the very early days; this whole notion of Jesus being the lord’s only begotten *literal* son and having died for our sins came about after the first three gospels were written, and the early Christians had had some time to think about a few embarrassing facts: their “messiah” had been executed as a common criminal, the end of the world that he had predicted stubbornly refused to happen and so on. (Yes all that apocalyptic ranting about how the world would end in his listeners’ lifetime (very prominent in the oldest gospel, Mark) is also “embarrassing” and they’ve had to get creative to explain it away.)

    Another embarrassing thing is his coming from Nazareth, when the Messiah was supposed to be from Bethlehem. The oldest gospel makes no account of this. Matthew and Luke tell two very different, even somewhat contradictory stories (the usual retelling of the nativity fable is a pastiche of the two) of a birth in Bethlehem, but ending up in Nazareth anyway, to try to explain how their alleged messiah could be from Galilee.

    Properly applied, the criterion of embarrassment leads us to (tentatively) conclude that there was indeed a perfectly ordinary human being named Jesus (well, Yeshua), who came from the Galilee area (not Bethlehem), who preached apocalypticism, like many were doing at the time, and claimed to be the messiah. That messiah bit got him into hot water with the Romans (since he was claiming to be the rightful ruler of Judea), so they executed him ignominiously. End of story. The rest, the nativity, the son of god, being sacrificed for our sins, the coming back from the dead, is embellishment added to attempt to explain away the embarrassing facts. The fact that none of this is embarrassing to a Christian NOW doesn’t change the fact that it was back then. A christian today believes in the “corrected” narrative where things that were embarrassing then are spun as positives (this can be so because they don’t believe the same things Jesus’ disciples did) or papered over, so today it’s not embarrassing.

    As for those who claim Jesus was completely mythological, they’ve yet to explain to my satisfaction (or the satisfaction of actual critical scholars of the bible) why anyone trying to completely make up a supposed figure would have him come from Nazareth instead of Bethlehem, or be crucified, or preach that the world was going to end within a lifetime. Or a host of other things.

    At least one person above commented that this is all ridiculous because, essentially, it’s not hard science. He’s right, this is not hard science. It can’t be. History involves making the best inferences from written records; that’s all it can do. When the record is thin, as it is here (our ONLY sources for Jesus are the gospels, contra Christian assertions to the contrary, and they are not contemporary), and clearly biased, as it is here (written by followers of Jesus), it’s still possible to see the (likely) truth in the lie, if you know how to do it.

    Like

    • makagutu says:

      Thank you Steve for the several points you raise. It is good to see you around.
      And I agree context makes a lot of difference in what a writer finds embarrassing. And as I pointed in my reference to taking baths, most of us find it embarrassing but to the particular saint, it wasn’t strange.
      Applied to the case of Jesus, we have no idea who the biographers are and what their intentions were. To say something was embarrassing to them would require, naturally, that we know something about them. I think you would agree.
      As to whether Jesus was real, or not, must rest on which Jesus you are referring to. If you mean a son of virgin who walks on water and makes water into wine, I think this did not exist. And this is the Jesus most believers talk of.
      If however you mean a preacher doing his business, that could be a real person but I don’t think this is the one described in the bible.

      Like

      • SteveInCO says:

        “If however you mean a preacher doing his business, that could be a real person but I don’t think this is the one described in the bible.”

        Yes, indeed. Scholars discussing this refer to the “historical Jesus,” the actual pink ape (OK he almost certainly didn’t look Northern European) that all the other tales were eventually made up about. He’s there in the Bible if you peel away all the embellishments encrusted onto him. But as you point out, those encrustations are the important part to Christians, so they certainly wouldn’t recognize the historical Jesus.

        The correct answer to McDowell’s question “Liar, Lord or Lunatic” is “Legend.” An ordinary man became a legend after he died. (Though I suspect there was a good deal of “lunatic” in there as well.)

        Like

        • I’ll be reading Bart Ehrman’s latest book on this topic this week. How Jesus became divine is what the book’s about. The actual title eludes me at the moment. I’m really looking forward to it. I also enjoyed, and learned much from, the FrontLine episode from the late nineties on this topic. The First Christians, I believe it is called. Fascinating stuff. Nothing magical about it at all. Just regular folks weaving stories around a Jewish “end of days” preacher to make him the god he is today. I find that story quite believable.

          Like

      • “If however you mean a preacher doing his business, that could be a real person but I don’t think this is the one described in the bible” I agree with you on this, Dr. Mak. It is entirely believable such a “regular” preacher, or preachers, who were eventually blended into one fictional “Son of God”, existed. But, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence to be believed, and claiming a “criterion of ignorance” as a defense in favor of the son of god walking around 2000 years ago and resurrecting from the dead is a lazy, weak, very non-extraordinary argument that I hold in intellectual contempt. I’ve only read the Wikipedia article on this topic, so, I’m clearly no expert, but in that article it clearly states christians use it (criterion of embarrassment) to explain the truth behind Jesus’ crucifixion BECAUSE it is SO embarrassing. They may be using it “incorrectly” but, to me, arguing such a point is merely more wheel spinning in rhetorical semantics like apologists do with bible inconsistencies. “You’d believe what I’m saying if you read it RIGHT.” Right being how they tell me to read it. I’m sorry, but a “criterion of embarrassment” argument is intellectually offensive. Surely historians, true, hard-working, open-minded historians have better methods than shit like this to form sensible hypotheses about historical happenings. Again, such thinking, to me, is intellectually violating and deeply insulting to human beings of reason. $Amen$ And a blessed Day of the Zombie to all. 🙂

        Like

    • I’m assuming Steve is a Christian. My question to him is: do you worship an itinerant Jew who claimed to be the messiah and died and stayed dead that could have existed? Or do you worship a man/god that has no evidence for its special state? Why did no one notice the magic at all?
      We have some references to believers in such a character. If this is considered evidence that there are magical gods, then all gods can be considered as “real” as the Christian one. Most Christians are horrified by that thought.

      Like

      • makagutu says:

        Far from it, he is died in the wool atheist friend of mine.

        Like

      • SteveInCO says:

        Your assumption is incorrect.

        I think he was an itinerant apocalyptic Jew who thought he was the messiah, and managed to convince a few followers of the same. I don’t think he himself, or his earliest followers, believed him to be the literal son of God. That belief came later, about a hundred years later.

        I don’t think he actually WAS the messiah, I don’t think there ever has been or will be a messiah, or a Yahweh, or any other god.

        Now with that in mind, please re-read what I said. I tried to make the case that the pastor Makgutu was quoting was misusing what is in fact a valuable historical tool. That tool, used correctly, *discredits* Christianity. Hardly something a Christian would say! But that tool also leads to the implication that Jesus wasn’t *completely* fictitious, just the divine attributes commonly attributed to him. Christians will find no comfort in that, since I deny what to them is his key attribute, his divinity, and deny even the existence of such a thing as divinity.

        Like

        • makagutu says:

          I told her assumption was incorrect.

          Like

        • Again, there is nothing embarrassing in the stories. As has been pointed out, a humble beginning is common in myths. Dying in a less than noble manner is also common for a hero.
          It doesn’t surprise me too much when you say “used correctly”, which seems to mean only used as the way you wish it to be. The idea of embarrassment is rather hard to use as a tool to show or not show historicity or truth when there is no embarrassment to be had.

          Like

          • SteveInCO says:

            “Dying in a less than noble manner is also common for a hero.”

            Yeah, any other hero, and I’d say you’re right.

            But it’s embarrassing when you are claiming your hero is the messiah. That is the vital context here, which you are not using. The messiah was someone who had been anticipated by the Jews for at least a century or two, and he would become the king of the Israelites, restore Judah’s independence, and become a conquering hero.

            Two thousand years later, people are so used to hearing “Jesus = Messiah” that they’ve lost track of what the term “messiah” meant in Jesus’ time and assume all of his story actually fits what the messiah was supposed to be. It didn’t, and doesn’t.

            Like

          • It appears that you are using special pleading.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            Steve, how would we explain the many instances where jesus after performing a miracle forbids the person to tell. Why doesn’t he want to be known as the messiah

            Like

          • SteveInCO says:

            “It doesn’t surprise me too much when you say “used correctly”, which seems to mean only used as the way you wish it to be.”

            I do my best to use it as Bart Ehrman uses it. (Whether he’d agree is another question, but this particular argument is one I’ve seen him make.) Bart Ehrman has a doctorate in this sort of thing and has devoted his career to analyzing the New Testament from a secular perspective. It’s safe to say he knows how to properly use the method. He started out as a fundamentalist but applied this method (and others) during his graduate work and came to the realization that the bible could not be literally, word-for-word truth.

            As I said before I may be unintentionally misusing the method in some subtle way, but I am sure I am doing it better than that pastor.

            Like

          • Perhaps, but again, there is nothing to be considered embarrassing in the stories since the themes are in many other stories, and no one says “why since Heracles is said to fail and to be a jerk, that means he must have been a real character”.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            That is true Steve. The pastor could be repeating what he heard another pastor say

            Like

          • SteveInCO says:

            You continue to miss the point that the Messiah as prophesied by the Jews of the time *could not be the messiah* and die the way Jesus did. Jesus’s crucifixion was used back then and still is used by Jews today, to argue that he cannot have been the messiah. In that specific case, it IS embarrassing to have the hero die the wrong way.

            It’s not regarded as embarrassing today by Christians because they did a lot of after-the-fact spin and rewrote the definition of Messiah to suit their purposes.

            Like

          • I haven’t missed the point. You seem to assume that the Jews were not influenced by any other cultures.

            Like

          • They were. They got their matzo ball soup recipe from the Egyptians. Thank Jeebus for it, too, cause I LOVE matzo ball soup!

            Like

          • SteveInCO says:

            “Steve, how would we explain the many instances where jesus after performing a miracle forbids the person to tell. Why doesn’t he want to be known as the messiah”

            As I understand it those incidents were peculiar to the gospel of Mark (feel free to correct me if I am wrong), and I don’t know why he didn’t want people to know him as such. But it makes the point–he’s not loudly proclaiming himself to be divine, or the son of god, until later gospels, much more embellished with the passage of time.

            Like

          • makagutu says:

            I will need to refresh my memory and check the instances and whether it is any different in the later gospels.

            Like

  7. It has been my experience that theists feel that they need to claim “embarrassing” nonsense to make their claims of
    salvation sound better. Sure are a lot of drug using, abusive assholes who find Jesus. However, as you said, there is nothing “embarrassing” in any of the versions of the Jesus narrative.

    Like

  8. Embarrassment? The entirety of the birth story is twisted to try to fit prophecy. Much of the rest of the facts about the Jesus are plagiarisms from other god stories. They certainly would not have been embarrassing at the time, they were the same stories (but improved) as for other gods. That theory doesn’t work for mythical gods at all.

    Like

    • SteveInCO says:

      “The entirety of the birth story is twisted to try to fit prophecy.”

      Yes, indeed. They had to twist it to hide the inconvenient (embarrassing) fact that their alleged messiah had come from the wrong place. What we have now is two different, nearly contradictory accounts added on to solve the “problem.” I conclude that the “real” Jesus never came from Nazareth.

      If they had made Jesus up entirely from whole cloth, he would not have come from the Galilee area, and there’d have been no need to add nativity tales (and that plural is deliberate) to later gospels (Mark, the earliest gospel, completely ignores the problem). Ironically, the whole fact that two different stories are told in an attempt to justify the Messiah coming out of Galilee is very good evidence that all this bullshit was based on a real, perfectly ordinary human cult leader’s life. He wasn’t completely mythical, but the virgin birth, the rest of the nativity tale, his miracles, and the resurrection, are.

      Like

      • makagutu says:

        Steve help me understand something. Are the additions to make the story embarrassing or are they to hide the inconvenient truths that the later followers did not like? And how does it help the Jesus story

        Like

        • SteveInCO says:

          The embarrassing fact was that the alleged “messiah” was from the Galilee area. Previously existing prophecy (and it really was previously existing prophecy, the Christians didn’t invent it) indicated that the messiah should come from Bethlehem.

          That creates a disconnect, one that many Jews at the time used as their reason NOT to become Christians. (So was the crucifixion.) They found claims that this guy was supposed to be the messiah laughable.

          (Ask a Jew well versed in Judaism sometime, why they don’t accept Jesus. But first reassure him you aren’t a Christian, just curious, lest he or she think you are trying to proselytize, which they are sick of dealing with. Anyhow, if you can persuade him you actually want to hear his or her reasoning, you’ll get an earful.)

          The solution was to invent a nativity tale, to explain how this guy from Galilee could nevertheless have *really* been born in Bethlehem. Two different gospel writers did this, and they didn’t consult with each other. Rather, they extracted the tales from their own rectal databases, so the two tales are *quite* different. I don’t think there is a shred of truth value to either of those nativity tales. I don’t even believe his actual mother and father ever told the “born of a virgin” story to anyone (much less that he actually was).

          Like

      • I don’t even think the twisting of the birth shows it to be about a real person. I think they altered it after the original because someone pointed out the problem of the prophecy.

        Like

        • SteveInCO says:

          The implication here would be that someone made up, completely, the character described in the Gospel of Mark. That Mark (yeah I know we have zero evidence that the author’s name was Mark, but scholars use the name anyway for convenience) didn’t just tell embellished tales about some guy, but made the guy up too.

          That would imply that whoever was making the guy up didn’t know jack shit about what the Messiah thing was supposed to be about. That was actually a specific bit of Jewish culture at the time, and Jesus as portrayed doesn’t fit it. The author of Mark, apparently, used the term without knowing what it was supposed to mean. Which would mean he wasn’t Jewish. So: Why? If he’s making up a religious hero *totally from scratch* why have him come out of that oddball place, Judea, where they worship that funny jealous god? Why not use more familiar referents. He undoubtedly know them; the twelve disciples, etc. etc. all the common attributes of supposed “gods.” But this guy who had to be an outsider (if he was making it ALL up) chose to fake an add-on to that weird jewish mythos.

          If I were to try to invent a religion out of whole cloth today, the last thing I’d do is base it on a “foreign” religion; I’d try to leverage off today’s most common religion. Like Joseph Smith did. I’d base it on today’s most prevalent religion, here where I live which is (unfortunately) Christianity. Likewise, back then as a pagan, I’d not base it off of Judaism, which was marginalized.

          Like

          • Sure, but you have the benefit of the information age. The authors didn’t have the same knowledge as yourself. Christianity is built on Judaism and Islam is in turn built on Christianity and judaism. The other options at the time were basically mythical gods. When Mark was written, assuming it was the first of the four to be written it was a recording of oral traditions or worse a copy of a recording of oral traditions. The author of Mark need not have made up anything – the story it records could have been changed many times since it’s first telling.

            The idea that the educated Greek authors of the 4 gospels are responsible for any and all changes is silly. There were at least 40 years of oral telling and we know how that can end up. The authors of the 4 gospels need not even have been Christians. The simple fact is that we know nothing of them other than that they had to have been educated in Greece/Greek. The veracity of the stories they recorded is lost or never existed. To guess or wager on what they did or didn’t do is pointless. We can only take the words as written and see if they make sense with other evidence and stories. In the end, they don’t.

            Like

          • SteveInCO says:

            @myatheistlife

            OK, I’ll concede that the actual person who put pen to papyrus and first created the Gospel of Mark was not the originator of the tale. So, if you go back to what I wrote and replace all occurrences with “Mark (or his sources)” or whatever is necessary to get back to the person who originally *made up Jesus*, my argument still stands. If that person made him up completely, and none of this is based on a real human being, that person would have made up a very unmessiah-like messiah out of whole cloth. It would be like me telling stories about a unicorn that didn’t have a horn (and had never had a horn). People would look at me like I was nuts and didn’t know what a unicorn was supposed to be. I wouldn’t put myself through that, unless I had seen a horse and somehow convinced myself it was really a unicorn. Then I’d have to explain away the inconsistencies. Much as Jesus’ earliest followers had to deal with the fact that their leader, who was supposed to lead Judah to an age of glory, had now ended up dead nailed to a cross.

            Going back to my analogy, The horse would actually have existed, the unicorn would not have. The human historical Jesus existed, the divine one did not.

            The embellishments began as soon as he died. Mark provides a snapshot of the amount and extent of the embellishment. Matthew and Luke provide a later snapshot. More embellishments, and nativity tales to paper over another issue. John, finally, goes all out and makes Jesus into God. You see in the same progression a de-emphasizing of his apocalyptic preaching as it became clear the world wasn’t going to end in the lifetime of Jesus’ earliest followers; most of them were dead by the time of John. (Another embarrassing thing they had to try to sweep under the rug.) The trinity doctrine came even later (and is not fully attested in the bible, believe it or not).

            Like

          • Ron says:

            I have no horse in this race (re mythical Jesus), but I think L. Ron Hubbard fits the description of someone who created a religion out of whole cloth.

            Like

          • And because of it, we now have to listen to Tom Cruise and John Travolta talk about it and make asses of themselves doing it. Damn you, Hubbard! Damn you! I believe, though I may be wrong, as I often am, that Hubbard debated whether to make his B.S. a business or a religion and religion won out because it’s tax free. Great thinkin’ there, eh?

            Like

          • SteveInCO says:

            Even Hubbard based his bullshit on a part of his current cultural millieu, it just wasn’t a religious part: a belief that extraterrestrial life was possible and a belief that there was a point to trying to perform therapy on one’s mind. His technique might have been totally unrecognizable but the concept wasn’t. Scientology recruits people by getting them to try out “dianetics” which claims to unlock the power of the mind. (Or at least that’s how I interpreted all those damn TV ads decades ago. It’s a sewer I never dipped a toe in.)

            Like

          • I tried reading that book, “Dianetics” back in the 80’s. Total, impenetrable gibberish. I mean, I did a paper on Joyce’s “Finnegan’s Wake,” and that book, by comparison, is child’s play compared to the nebulous mess that is “Dianetics”. Pure trash, albeit money making trash for the Scientology big wigs.

            Like

          • SteveInCO says:

            It appears that in my imaginings of what might be in that book, I was far too generous, then.

            Like

        • makagutu says:

          Or rather it was never intended to be one book. By having them side by side in one collection, there you have an embarrassing situation to deal with

          Like

    • makagutu says:

      Yes, every bit of the story has been rewritten to fit prophesy

      Like

    • makagutu says:

      It is called the business of apologetics. If you have no facts, throw bs at them

      Like

  9. >>> “In my list of people occupying the lowest rank in society, the so called scum of society, I have politicians, police and pastors. I find pastors with access to the internet the worst type of persons.”

    I’d like to nominate the following persons to your list: big business executives who exploit and subordinate everyone and everything possible in their insatiable pursuit of greed and power.

    Like

  10. foolsmusings says:

    I really thing these clowns use this argument to appeal to those who need simple answers. If you can convince people of an easy to understand, yet ludicrous explanation, you know you have control of them.

    Like

  11. shelldigger says:

    While it is possible Jesus the ordinary human existed. I remain unconvinced. The entire story of Jesus was ripped off from, was it Horus? It all looks like B.S. to me.

    …and what of the lack of records during the time of our supposed Jesus life? I understand the Romans were meticulous record keepers, yet not a peep about or x-ian hero.

    Take the tendency to steal from other myths, the lack of any convincing evidence of our man god, and all I see is a bunch of hooey. And a bunch of slinging shit on the wall hoping something will stick.

    Like

  12. Sonel says:

    I think that pastor needs a smack behind the head. Just let me get off my Unicorn …

    Like

We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s