The Son of God? An Atheists view please.
The problem is that most christians see the bible as literal, and in fact some of the more problematic parts of the bible are clearly written as law and instruction. That leads to the problem of what you hope to get from the bible, because if you use it to teach yourself something about life and how to interact with your fellow man then how do you differentiate the parts telling you it's ok to enslave other humans? If that is part of the book then it holds no moral authority.
The comment you made earlier that worldly things tear down and how holy things build up is a good example, on what basis can you make that claim? I would say that the state of a good number of countries put lie to that claim. After all according to you the Scandinavians as some of the most godless and secular countries in the world, must be inundated with crime and corruption? American prisons must be full of atheists hedonistically crime spreeing their way through life?
But we both know that the opposite is true.
for what reason do you think the bible was written?
The ancient Hebrews like other ancient civilizations needed a god or gods to explain or give answer to the world in which they lived, a necessity based from their inherent ignorance.
They thought like other civilizations if you pleased these gods they would in turn help them in their troubles and enduring problems.
So stories were developed as a means and intent to create power and relevance to their gods, the Hebrews did the same but through writings, ie , Noah's flood
Other civilizations made pictographs of their select gods on Temples of worship etc.
Creating power and relevance toward these gods was also a means by self identifying spiritual priests to create power and prominence around themselves as the High priests were the most powerful people within these civilizations, right up there was kings and the royal families.
I think the Messiah savior god (Jesus) was one that was developed through again mythological expressions by certain people who wanted and strived for a god that had more humanistic appealing values to help with mankind's problems and enduring plights, after all the ancients were still human just like us.
Why is easier to authenticate Paul existence then Jesus?? I don't recall Paul calling the 12 apostles Jesus disciples, he never says Jesus HAD disciples-or a ministry, or did miracles and gave teaching. The few cryptic hints he offers aren't just vague, but contradict the gospels. It seems that the earliest NT writers were ignorant of the details of Jesus life, which become crystalized in later texts..Paul never mention the wise men, star in the east and his miracles.Paul is silent on the most basic biographical facts and teaching of Jesus. My thought, Paul recognized this Jesus thing could turn out to be BIG....I do believe if not for Paul's writing it would be a different world today.
1 Cor 15:3-9
Paul does mention 'the twelve' and the apostles in regard to the alleged resurrection of Jesus but funnily enough fails to mention any women.
My mistake, thanks Randomthoughts.....
Early writings from supposedly his family don't make him out to be anything other then a preacher/teacher. James and Jude both supposedly his brothers never mention him being a messiah or anything about this concept.
Most evidence supports the idea that Serapis Christos a highbread God made up by Ptolemy Sotar to get all his subjects both Greek and Egyptian to worship one god a god of the state and him being a son of this god the Pharaoh.
All mentions of Christ by later historian are talking about this Christ or other Greek versions and not Jesus except the forgery in Josephus .
Everyhing this messiah Jesus was said to do was taken from older rising and dying gods including a couple that were absorbed in to this Serapis god. Both Dyonisus and Osiris died and were resurrected. Jesus being most closely related to Osiris the most popular god of the Egyptians for a long time.
For what reason do you think the bible was written?
I don't think much about it to be honest. I don't feel like I have to have any justification for any of it simply because I don't believe in the Bible as "the word of God" or "sacred" or any of that. To me, asking for a reason for the Bible to be compiled (and it's a compilation of writings, not some one-time deal by one author), is like asking why today's supermarket shopper was printed. Who knows, who cares. I see no difference.
Jesus did exist. A man who either wanted power over people or had some sort of psychosis or other mental health problem that lead him to believe he was the son of the creator of all things.
It is well documented and never refuted by me (as an atheist) that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person. He existed. Before anything else, please bear in mind that I am just one atheist. There's a wide misconception that atheists are all somehow united in the same way of living, thinking, acting or believing. That's very inaccurate. Atheism is not a religious denomination and should not be thought of or dealt with as such.
With that out of the way, historians, archaeologists and all other related scientists have confirmed that Jesus of Nazareth did live where the Bible and other writings from his era say that he did. To me that's indisputable. Now, Jesus the son of God, turning water into wine, resurrecting people, resurrecting himself, reigning Earth for 1,000 years, none of that is true to me. Furthermore, and actually even the WT wrote something about it, during that time, there were many others claiming to be the "Messiah"; it was a trend at that time. Jesus of Nazareth happened to be the one who became famous for it.
If someone today believes they are the son of God or Satan or whoever, no one would believe them. They would be treated for mental illness.
Actually, I wouldn't say that categorically. In fact, the reasons why organizations like the WT exist is precisely because of their claim to be directly connected with their Jehovah, and because of them claiming that they are the one and only organization directly connected with their Jehovah.
Furthermore, those and similar claims are textbook cases of manipulation and control of the masses. As crazy as it sounds, there always is(are) someone(s) who believe whatever claim some person makes. That's the oldest trick in the book.
Without getting into the science and research for that effect, I can assure you that there are in fact people out there who, with and without any type of mental health issue, claim to be Jesus, or "chosen" by Jesus, etc. Gazillions of books have been written on this specific matter.
Thank you for your post. It's a very interesting topic.
1- The bible was written to frighten or control men by men who wanted that control. The whole thing is made up stories to aid a monumental control of the people in a time when no other sources of information were available.
Actually my people wrote "the Bible" around the time of the Babylonian exile. We had been taken from our land, had no king, and our Temple was destroyed. In order to preserve our cultural identity, our ancestral stories of being a people who were once slaves in Egypt and freed to enter the "Promised Land" took on a special meaning as captives in Babylonia. What one reads in the Hebrew Scriptures, especially in Torah, has this particular slant of a Jew of the Diaspora.
We never expected that Gentiles would be reading this book, and in particular making their own interpretations of it. While it has been used to control people, that began once Christianity became the state religion in Rome. Jews already had a functioning religion and many writings before they began to assemble what would become the Tanakh or Old Testament. The writings were designed to be used for public proclamation, for the synagogue liturgical reading schedule that would annually retell these stories as our holy days approached each year.
While the narratives have some basis in the history of my people, what you read in the Scriptures is indeed a legendary take on it all. Much "poetic license" has been taken in order to reshape the stories to preserve our culture and teach religious lessons. It is neither a history or science textbook, though some Christians often attempt to use it as one or both.
Being a product of the Diaspora, there was also much information available all around the world as we are talking about the years 586-583 B.C.E., and civilizations were quite advanced by that time in history. Therefore one can't merely say it was written "in a time when no other sources of information were available."
Or 2- Jesus did exist. A man who either wanted power over people or had some sort of psychosis or other mental health problem that lead him to believe he was the son of the creator of all things. In a time when no one knew any better, people believed him, loved or feared him. Maybe even a hereditary condition passed on from his mother as she believed he was the son of God.
Jews recognize Jesus of Nazareth not only as a historical figure but as one of our very own sages. In fact, Maimonides was one of the first Jews to speak of Jesus in this manner. He was real, only not recognized as an authentic messianic figure by the Jews in general.
Those that did follow him as Messiah are the ones responsible for what is attributed to him in the New Testament writings. The sayings of Jesus are not merely made up of what his followers remembered. They also contain their own personal take on what the early Christians believed Jesus meant.
Just one of thousands of examples of this can be found in the NABRE, the official Roman Catholic translation of the Bible in the United States. In a footnote to the Sermon on the Mount at Matthew chapter 5, we read:
Although modified by Matthew, the first, second, fourth, and ninth beatitudes have Lucan parallels (Mt 5:3 // Lk 6:20; Mt 5:4 // Lk 6:21b; Mt 5:6 // Lk 6:21a; Mt 5:11–12 // Lk 5:22–23). The others were added by the evangelist and are probably his own composition.--Italics added.
All mainstream Christianity now admits that what Christians read in the New Testament are not purely the words of Jesus. They are the early church's interpretation of Jesus. This goes for Jesus' actions, his miracles, and how the first Christians interpreted his death (which explains why none of the Gospel accounts match on the subject of the Resurrection). Therefore it cannot be said that Jesus literally stated he was the direct offspring of God. This is merely how Christians composed his words much later after Jesus' death.