The life of Christ / A bloke named Jesus

Post Reply New Topic

For a while now it has concerned me that many people who would otherwise demand empirical evidence, find the story of the Birth, Death, Resurrection of Christ as told in the bible to be not only plausible, but instead an untouchable fact. This belief maintains in-spite of advances in scientific knowledge that continually falsify explanations of the natural world and the universe as told in the bible.

So am wondering what alternative hypothesis' we can come up with to explain the life of Christ. I am looking for the obvious like "Mary conceived out of wedlock and the whole story was concocted to save her life with the willing help of a bribed priest, from this moment on the lie would have snowballed etc etc" to possible scientific explanations of a virgin birth such as this one;

http://img2.tapuz.co.il/CommunaFiles/21227065.pdf (this is a direct link to the pdf)

With regard to the above link and related PDF article I do accept that this may be a hoax, but it was published in the British Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology and the author has several articles on pubmed. Even if it is a hoax it shows how subterfuge can be used to protect a woman's 'innocence' in the eyes of a judgemental society.

From the birth we need to look at the rest of his life and death, trying to give a rational/scientific explanation to the story.

I would invite Christians to refute any suggestions that may arise in opposition to your beliefs.

Not sure how "scientific" this might be, but people do seem to tend to live and die after they are born.



As if you might have something scientific to be refuted?!

Right. I think most of 'em are smarter than to bite on that one.

DentArthurDent wrote (in part):
So am wondering what alternative hypothesis' we can come up with to explain the life of Christ. I am looking for the obvious like "Mary conceived out of wedlock and the whole story was concocted to...
---
Well, the Scriptures do say Jesus was born out of wedlock so the question is: Who is the real father of Jesus? Is it the milkman next door, an unnamed priest, Joseph, or an alien from outer space known as the Holy Ghost? The Scriptures do say that Jesus had brothers and sisters by Joseph and Mary so the question is: Who is the real father of Jesus Christ - the firstborn of perhaps five or more children?

---

X-reference:

The Harry Potter book story series (movies)
The birth of Harry Potter - The scar on Harry Potter's forehead, etc.
The life of Harry Potter

----

For a while now it has concerned me that many people who would otherwise demand empirical evidence, find the story of the Birth, Death, Resurrection of Christ as told in the bible to be not only plausible, but instead an untouchable fact. This belief maintains in-spite of advances in scientific knowledge that continually falsify explanations of the natural world and the universe as told in the bible. - DentArthurDent

---

Why will people pay money to go to Harry Potter movies and theme parks?
Why will people pay money to go to Superman movies and theme parks?
Who is real? Jesus Christ, Harry Potter, or Superman? One, two, all three? None?

---

Keyword:

Entertainment

---

In my view the Bible (Old Testament and New Testament) is like two symphonies. The Old Testament is Symphony 1; the New Testament is a variation of the Old Testament and is Symphony 2.

The New Testament is simply a continuation of the Old Testament thought process and the same motivations of the Old Testament writers motivated the writers of the New Testament.

The New Testament did not spring out of thin air. It sprang out of the Old Testament.

Without Judaism first, there would be no Christianity at all.

Christianity is essentially very liberal Judaism where Jesus Christ adopted some major variations to what Judaism did, for example, Jesus chose his cousin John the Baptist's water baptism, Jesus chose to turn the Passover into a bread and wine death memory religious service for himself/his new ideas about Judaism.

That's my view/part of my view today.

Please show any such statement.

No legitimate or honest question is being asked here, so this is a dead thread.

I think the whole "virgin birth" thing was added later, as a result of a translator or scholar wanting to spice up the myth, or mistranslating a word.

---

I think the virgin birth thing is likely the way some persons wrote about the topic of an ideal Jewish marriage between a man and a woman 2,000 years ago. Later, the idea of what a virgin birth is was intentionally twisted by some religious denominations (to spice up their teachings) into something which the term likely never, ever meant. Today I tend to view the topic as an intentional mistranslation/an intentional fib/an intentional lie.

How so? I am saying that I do not find the story of christ as told in the bible to be credible, and I am asking for 'rational' or scientific explanations for the story. That a preacher named jesus was killed by the authorities for challenging their position is highly probable. What I am challenging is the supernatural side to the story and asking for plausible explanations for the 'virgin' birth, the miracles and the resurrection.

So yes Lee drilling a little deeper, there is a very legitimate question being asked here;

Why if you believe in the scientific method do you believe that Jesus was the son of god and therefore your saviour?

The example of the woman become pregnant through a knife wound was a poor one I think. The effect of her story didnt shelter her; I suspect a vagina-less woman would receive more social stigma than an unmarried woman giving birth.

In regards to alternate explanations of biblical accounts, the way your text is phrased it is only of interest to religious people to answer, and they are going to be pretty uniform, so Lee has a point: its a bit of a dead end subject.

I can however, take a stab at what you are asking.

It seems to me that the new testament gospels are laid out in a very particular style. In fact, it reminds me of something common to the area at the time, quite pervasive, and something well understood.

I think that the new testament is a play. I think the apostles were players in a theater, and the various accounts they wrote were revisions to a basic stage script. So if the gospel of Mark doesnt agree with Mathew, its simple: each man had his own vision for how the play should unfold. This neatly sums up all the discrepancies. It explains how Judas could have so many different fates.

At the time Greek style plays were very common, and the new testament shows clear signs of being one of these. Indeed, many of the people in the area spoke Greek.

It begins with the immaculate conception: a god takes some action that embroils the mortals into interesting times. The NT divides up into 3 main acts, - birth, youth and adulthood - different times of Jesus' life. These correspond to the classic acts in a play. You'll notice that the chronology skips over some bland times. A true accounting of someones life would be too lengthy and tedious. Surely a true Christ figure would be interesting at all stages.

Throughout you see typical Greek drama. People are introduced, shaking up the status quo. The play slowly builds to a finale. In the end, its all summed up with a deus ex machina: The god in question finally steps in and clears everything up. Tragedy is presented but the righteous triumph, and the wicked are punished.

The Christian bible is a Greek style morality play.

I am not enough of a scholar of Scripture to say that is/was true at the times of the writings of the individual books now found within "the Christian bible", but yes, I would say that is at least part of the effect of religion causing its assembly as known today.

Many years ago it once took me quite a while to consider why someone would bother to mention "The Bible 'Jesus' Read", the title of another book, but now I know the so-called "New Testament" is really little more than a bit of commentary added to Scripture long after "Jesus" had lived a life of obedience to our Father in the heavens.



Are you suggesting all people who "believe in" scientific method (evidently as a religion) also believe that other stuff?

If you want to be taken seriously, you are at least going to have to learn how to word any legitimate or honest question you actually might have.

Well if you want to be a petty pedant I will reword it for you.

I do not understand how someone who accepts the scientific method as the best approach we have to discover the intricacies of the natural world, who requires empirical evidence to form an opinion, and above all searches for the 'truth', can in all honesty believe in the story of Christ as told in the bible.

The point of my thread is to come up with rational explanations for the events depicted in the bible.

They can hope or wish the story is true, even though there is no evidence to support it. Man does not live by bread alone. People need their hopes, wishes and fancies to energize them and keep them going when the going gets rough.

ruveyn

If it requires my seeming to be a "petty pedant" in order to have a clear discussion that might actually benefit anyone at all, I gladly fill that role!



In my own case, I abandoned the sectarian religion called "Christianity" some years ago over that specific issue: Its mysticism is just far to "out there" and impossible to square with anything rational.



"God" causing a volcano to rain plagues upon Egypt is a rational thought within my own mind, and so is the thought of a man being "resurrected" from a state of Scriptural "sleep" commonly known among us all as "death".