So it appears that the church founders really wanted Christ to have skin in the game; he did actually suffer on the cross, sacrifice himself, and experience death. He was a risk taker. More crucially to our story, he sacrificed himself for the sake of others. A god stripped of humanity cannot have skin in the game in such a manner, cannot really suffer (or, if he does, such a redefinition of a god injected with a human nature would back up our argument). A god who didn’t really suffer on the cross would be like a magician who performed an illusion, not someone who actually bled.

The Orthodox Church goes further, making the human side flow upward rather than downward. The fourth-century bishop Athanasius of Alexandria wrote: “Jesus Christ was incarnate so we could be made God”. It is the very human character of Jesus that can allow us mortals to access God and merge with him, become part of him, in order to partake of the divine. That fusion is called theosis. The human nature of Christ makes the divine possible for all of us.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37611741)

when creating the Christian theology, they just came up with a justification for how God and humanity are intertwined in a beautiful way.

if it was real, it would be so amazing.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37618638)

instead we have Jesus affirming the law of Moses (and implicitly the story of the Exodus, which literally never happened).

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37620946)

Also more generally arguments about “why didn’t god just do x right away” are very odd and fail to consider the often neglected theology of TIME and the meaning of theodicy

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37623730)

Let me stop you right there, hoss

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37613154)

every historian believes jesus existed. that doesn't mean he actually performed miracles or w/e. there were plenty of doomsday messiah joos running around then.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37615653)

we know for a fact muhammad existed, doesn't mean he split the moon.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37615705)

we don't know for a fact jesus existed. many scholars believe that he didn't, that we can't know either way, or that he did but that doubting it is a completely position.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37615724)

go back to /r/atheism. only dumb, militant atheists believe in the christ myth theory. jesus existing is about as historically certain as any any figure from that period.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37615758)

Then why did biblical scholars Bart Ehrman and and Maurice Casey bother writing entire books trying to refute the christ myth theory? Why did Ehrman and Craig A. Evans debate mythicists on the subject?

"Ehrman falsely claims in his book that there are no hyper-specialized historians of ancient Christianity who doubt the historicity of Jesus. So I named one: Arthur Droge, a sitting professor of early Christianity (previously at UCSD; now at the University of Toronto).

And of those who do not meet Ehrman’s irrationally specific criteria but who are certainly qualified, we can now add Kurt Noll, a sitting professor of religion at Brandon University (as I already noted in my review of Is This Not the Carpenter) and Thomas Brodie, a retired professor of biblical studies (as I noted elsewhere). Combined with myself (Richard Carrier) and Robert Price, as fully qualified independent scholars, and Thomas Thompson, a retired professor of some renown, that is more than a handful of well-qualified scholars, all with doctorates in a relevant field, who are on record doubting the historicity of Jesus.

Most recently, Hector Avalos, a sitting professor of religion at Iowa State University, has also declared his agnosticism about historicity as well. And now Raphael Lataster joins the ranks of historicity-doubting experts, with a Ph.D. in religious studies from the University of Sydney.

That makes eight fully qualified experts on the record, three of them sitting professors, plus two retired professors, and three independent scholars with full credentials. And there are no doubt many others who simply haven’t gone on the record.

We also have sympathizers among mainstream experts who nevertheless endorse historicity but acknowledge we have a respectable point, like Philip Davies (Professor Emeritus of Biblical Studies at Sheffield University) and Zeba Crook (Professor of Religious Studies at Carleton University). Francesca Stavrakopoulou (Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter) says the historicity of Jesus is only “possible” and not certain. Which means she either agrees mythicism is plausible or is even an outright historicity agnostic. Further afield, historian Tom Dykstra, with a Ph.D. in Renaissance Christianity who has nevertheless published peer reviewed works in New Testament studies, similarly grants the plausibility of the mythicist position.

Which makes a dozen relevantly qualified experts now who concur mythicism is at least plausible."

https://www.richardcarrier.info/archives/1794#22

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37615792)

they're even sinking their claws into honest to god theology departments too, of course, but religion profs are just frothing shitlibs half the time

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37615799)

go back to reddit

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37615819)

would truly love to see what you would come up with

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37618657)

- Josephus, a Jew who never converted to Christianity

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37617169)

the EMPTY TOMB!!! THE SIGHTINGS!!

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37618646)

There are of course reasons why one might find christianty preferable to other belief systems (or purported lack of belief systems), but those reasons are largely based on apparently non-physical observations, which many unbelievers deny as epistemically relevant, or in extreme cases, ontologically coherent.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37618796)

Such as?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37618800)

I suppose I am attempting to suggest that there exists, when the brain is in such a physical state, not just that physical state, but also a nonphysical state; the images of the memory are not located in three dimensional space, but some nondimensional, abstract space.

Do you agree that thoughts exist in more than physical space?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37618842)

From there I would simply suggest that if its true that we have this faculty for nonphysical thought, how can we know where it comes from? Is there any amount of correlative observation that would allow us to conclude that the brain produces consciousness? Or is there a simpler explanation for its origin, namely that the world is comprised of two types of things (physical and nonphysical) working together, or perhaps one neutral thing with two aspects or properties?

That is, if we are not happy to be reductive physicalists, and we think we know that there exists some amount of matter and energy in the universe, do we know what exists that is the source of the nonphysical thing?

Taking a bigger step, what do we think the properties of the source of our nonphysical abilities are?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37618936)

If you are content to at least follow along from that conclusion, then we can deduce properties of this source of consciousness. Most importantly, I would think, and believe I can show, that this source of consciousness must be personal in nature - if we have personhood, it must too. Skipping ahead, I believe this source of consciousness must also have power over matter. Further, I believe this source of consciousness must be able to understand, comprehend, and know matter. With these abilities, I believe that this source of consciousness must have therefore created matter. As the creator of matter, of which we are made, I believe this source of consciousness must have also made us, and done so in its image. To again cut to the chase, I believe the image of the creator was perfectly embodied in Christ, who had been waiting for incarnation as the Logos at the beginning of time. Etc, etc.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37619017)

Okay, but this kind of thing just seems like a bunch of poetic conjecture that theologians just sort came up with and declared was the case about their religion. What I mean is, I don't see how any of it connects with the start of Christianity and the supposed miracles that we're supposed to believe occurred. Suppose it had been Islamic theologians who had dreamed up all that about the Logos and how their version of God was "waiting at the beginning of time" or whatever it is you're trying to say. Would you then believe in the moon miracle instead of the resurrection miracle?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37619073)

Obviously, I don't believe this. Presumably you mean that the magical aspects of his life, like that he allegedly came back from the dead, were "world historical." Aren't we now back to arguing over whether there is sufficient historical EVIDENCE for such a claim? I could just as well start pontificating about how Muhammad receiving the Koran from an angel was a historical event that miraculously shifted man's relationship to "god and the world." This is where I would repeat my earlier requests that you explain why you think there is sufficient evidence to believe that the central miracle claims of Christianity actually occurred.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37619134)

I don't at all mean this. Even if I were to grant that its impossible to show that jesus existed as a human being, even if we assume that christ was 15 people or whatever they think Shakespeare was, it would be enough to point to the writings of Paul and the reverberations therefrom to sufficiently substantiate the historical context. whatever the confluence of events around the birth of christianity, it was a world historic event (series of events) that properly oriented man towards his creator. Whatever happened, it is enough to justify the claim that "christ is Lord". It's enough to say that Jesus performed miracles.

To translate this into terms too concrete for my taste, "christ's life" being a single man's IRL is not critical to the subscription to all the tenants of the religion. I don't mean that, but I feel compelled to say it to an unbeliever.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37619164)

As far as I can understand, you seem to be trying to say that pretty much anything might have historically happened around the birth of Christianity, but whatever happened was enough for you to be satisfied that some sort of important divine shift occurred. This supposed divine shift is only of any interest to someone who's already accepted that Christianity isn't just made-up nonsense, so I'm not sure why you think there would be any point in saying that to an "unbeliever."

Are you really saying that anything at all could have happened and it would still be good enough for you? Paul could have invented the whole thing while hallucinating and yet there are such impressive "reverberations" from his writings that Christianity still seems to be correct? Please elaborate on what these reverberations are and why they are so convincing to you.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37623252)

Yes. Christianity is 180. Christian theology is good and true.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37623432)

You really bounce around all over the place. Just come home to Joel Osteen.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37617068)

Before you converted into a Protestant, of course.

So if it wasn’t a hardcore Catholic, what was it?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37617181)

I’m sure the wind will blow him into the holy mother church one of these days.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37617209)

it is lulzy he's your fellow banner-bearer for evangelicalism, although of what sort i'm not clear

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37617254)

This has been the progression so far:

Greek Orthodox, and Protestants are athiests >>>>>>> Committed Protestant >>>>>>>> Christianity is a lie

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=4180135&forum_id=2]#37618126)