Story of Jesus Christ was 'fabricated to pacify the poor', claims Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill

[HunterSdVa29]

well.....ya
the sole purpose of monotheistic religions was to provide hope for those in the poor classes, and thus keep them in line producing in life aka prevent open rebellion and revolt.

Rich people aren't religious, why? B/c there life on earth is already legit.....

 

[ShadBo]

"Reckt", ring a bell? There are two main points of contention between scholars. The Theologians who debate that the archaeological evidence for events surrounding the Jesus story "prove" the existence of God, and the secular historians that say it simply proves he was a man who more than likely wasn't anything like the dude who is portrayed in the bible, plus a third, smaller group who don't even think he was a real person, who are mainly driven by their own agenda (see, unsuprisingly most of the young Leftists in this thread, like you for example.) None of that work is actually based on any real history whatsoever, and people from that school of thought, like you @Fawlty and others who seem to think it's "edgy" to follow along with some new, anti Christian position that's put foward for no other reason than because it's anti Christian without actually examining the information behind it, all while talking mindless shit like "this would be news to me" like you're some sort of expert. You're not. You don't know anything. Here is clearly ultra right wing, pro christian rag National Geographic's take on the issue, with some actual Arcaeologists in the region:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/magazine/2017/12/jesus-tomb-archaeology/



Pretty clearly not a consensus amongst actual experts that he was a real person or anything. I wonder what goofs you guys are reading. P.S., even many Theology classes you can take at the University level will teach you that the miracles attributed to Jesus are simply part of the mythology of the religion, something that is a part of all religions in human history, and not to be taken at face value.

1) There is no C in rekt.

2) <mma2>

 

[DeJulez]

C'mon bro, I'm not going to go down some deep google rabbit hole just because you said so. Sum up the main points: how is the original version of Genesis accurate in context of what we know to be true about the natural world?

It's all translation based.
So when you think Adam and Eve, you think two actual people named Adam and Eve when instead its Mankind and the living or source of life.
So when explaining Mankind being naked and finding knowledge, covering themselves up (clothing), leaving Eden, or migrating, and Eve being the life source. You're explaining the beginnings of man losing their "innocence" or really gaining awareness of the world.

When it comes to translations this is off wiki explaining stuff. I know wiki isn't the best but this kinda works for what we are talking about.

Genesis 2:18–22, the woman is created to be ezer ki-negdo, a term that is notably difficult to translate, to the man. Ki-negdo means "alongside, opposite, a counterpart to him", and ezer means active intervention on behalf of the other person.God's naming of the elements of the cosmos in Genesis 1 illustrated his authority over creation; now the man's naming of the animals (and of woman) illustrates his authority within creation.

The woman is called ishah, woman, with an explanation that this is because she was taken from ish, meaning "man"; the two words are not in fact connected. Later, after the story of the Garden is complete, she will be given a name, Ḥawwāh (Eve). This means "living" in Hebrew, from a root that can also mean "snake". A long-standing exegetical tradition holds that the use of a rib from man's side emphasizes that both man and woman have equal dignity, for woman was created from the same material as man, shaped and given life by the same processes. In fact, the word traditionally translated "rib" in English can also mean side, chamber, or beam.

 

[DeJulez]

The text of Codex Sinaiticus differs in numerous instances from that of the authorized version of the Bible in use during Tischendorf’s time. For example, the resurrection narrative at the end of Mark (16:9–20) is absent from the Codex Sinaiticus. So is the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer: “For thine is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen” (Matthew 6:13). The woman caught in adultery from John 8 is omitted in Codex Sinaiticus. According to James Bentley, Tischendorf was not troubled by the omission of the resurrection in Mark because he believed that Matthew was written first and that Mark’s gospel was an abridged version of Matthew’s gospel. If this were true, the absence of resurrection in Mark would not be a problem because it appears in the older Matthean gospel. Modern scholarship generally holds that Mark is in fact the oldest of the Synoptic Gospels, which could cause theological concerns over the omitted resurrection.

One other omission in Codex Sinaiticus with theological implications is the reference to Jesus’ ascension in Luke 24:51. Additionally, Mark 1:1 in the original hand omits reference to Jesus as the Son of God.

https://www.biblicalarchaeology.org...t-from-codex-sinaiticus-oldest-new-testament/

Isn't one based of Greek scriptures and the other Hebrew?

 

[Grenz]

It's all translation based.
So when you think Adam and Eve, you think two actual people named Adam and Eve when instead its Mankind and the living or source of life.
So when explaining Mankind being naked and finding knowledge, covering themselves up (clothing), leaving Eden, or migrating, and Eve being the life source. You're explaining the beginnings of man losing their "innocence" or really gaining awareness of the world.

When it comes to translations this is off wiki explaining stuff. I know wiki isn't the best but this kinda works for what we are talking about.

Genesis 2:18–22, the woman is created to be ezer ki-negdo, a term that is notably difficult to translate, to the man. Ki-negdo means "alongside, opposite, a counterpart to him", and ezer means active intervention on behalf of the other person.God's naming of the elements of the cosmos in Genesis 1 illustrated his authority over creation; now the man's naming of the animals (and of woman) illustrates his authority within creation.

The woman is called ishah, woman, with an explanation that this is because she was taken from ish, meaning "man"; the two words are not in fact connected. Later, after the story of the Garden is complete, she will be given a name, Ḥawwāh (Eve). This means "living" in Hebrew, from a root that can also mean "snake". A long-standing exegetical tradition holds that the use of a rib from man's side emphasizes that both man and woman have equal dignity, for woman was created from the same material as man, shaped and given life by the same processes. In fact, the word traditionally translated "rib" in English can also mean side, chamber, or beam.

Changes the narrative slightly, but is still doesn't do anything to explain the natural world.

 

[Bobby 3 Sticks]

Isn't one based of Greek scriptures and the other Hebrew?

No clue that was a quick google search

 

[lfd0311]

1) There is no C in rekt.

2) <mma2>

Exactly. When you don't have a response, you just post memes and disappear. This must be par for the course of getting "reckt".

 

[DeJulez]

Changes the narrative slightly, but is still doesn't do anything to explain the natural world.

I think it makes it more plausible than a person actually named Adam and Eve running amok and talking to snakes.
The snake was a reference to the past religions I believe that were leading people down the wrong path.
They didnt actually talk to a snake or a serpent or whatever.

And in the Bible the snake had legs until the Lord took them away.
Which is funny because Snakes use to have legs and evolved and now they don't

 

[DeJulez]

They also thought the Bible was written around 550-500 B.C.E.
But recently found some writings that might show that the Bible is even older than 1000 B.C.E

 

[Iceberg Slim]

Even if he was real, that doesn't change much for people who rely on logic and reason.

Guy was probably the David Blaine of the time.

Probably more of a David Koresh but yea...