logical story of christ

As a traditional Irish Catholic, I’m willing to look at these alternative views on Christ and the Christmas story - I’ve heard it said in the past that many believe the Bible to be the history book of Israel, both the Old Testament and the New Testament and only in recent years since Vatican II in 1962, Catholics were allowed under the code of Canon Law to read the Bible - we know that over the centuries many versions and translations of the Bible were edited and rewritten right up to the present day and there has even been some books of the Bible that were omitted from the “official” version of the Bible that only recently came to light 

I recently read an alternative theory of the origin of Christianity which made a lot of sense to me, but it's too controversial/offensive to repeat here.

Ultimately the origin story and whether Jesus was real, and whether he was the son of God, actually doesn't matter so much, because it's everything that happened after his death and how European people used it to preach forgiveness and moral good that matters. These messages can still be beneficial even if allegory or fictitious (I'm not Christian myself).

The original authors of the New Testament had no involvement in how it developed in the two millennia since; it ultimately became a mirror reflecting European sensibilities and morals, and incorporating pagan festivals and ideas.

The god status of Roman emperors was not simple. While during their lifetimes there was an 'imperial cult', the recipient of divine honours was not the emperor himself, but his 'genius', in this sense genius means spirit or soul. Only when an emperor died, did the senate decree that the emperor had become a god of the Roman state. Indeed, Trajan on his deathbed is reported as saying, ironically, "I believe I am becoming a god". Augustus, on some of his coins had the phrase 'DIVI FILIUS' inscribed. This meant 'son of a god', the god being Julius Caesar, deified on his death. Augustus was the great nephew of Julius Caesar, but was also his adoptive son.

Roman law and custom regarded adoption very, very seriously. An adoptive child was considered in every way the equal of a naturally produced offspring. There were a whole slew of adoptive emperors during the height of Roman power: Nerva adopted Trajan, who adopted Hadrian, who adopted Antoninus Pius ('pious' because of his filial duty to Hadrian) who, in turn, adopted Marcus Aurelius.

Hadrian, the descendant of Italian Roman citizens of senatorial rank, was the first emperor to be born outside Italy (born in Spain). A Jew from Palestine, even if a Roman citizen, would not have had any chance of becoming emperor in the first century. Jews were held in suspicion because their religion forbade them fully integrating into the syncretic Roman state religion. A person unwilling to offer sacrifice for the health of the emperor and the prosperity of Rome, was a deeply suspicious person.

Queen said:

It's dreadfully sad how many members who are no longer active here.

It is indeed

Thanks for supplying the link back to that thread. It's dreadfully sad how many members who are no longer active here.

This is a thread that is related in subject matter and might be of interest to one or two new individuals:

https://community.autism.org.uk/f/adults-on-the-autistic-spectrum/32942/what-is-faith

Nice.  Very nicely done.  We have previously established our common roots of research in this type of subject matter.  Always a delight to see your socks pop up.

Caelus said:

so that all seems very logical and checks out,

Hi Caelus.  I do like a bit of "first principles" thinking on some traditional discussions, but I must say that, irrespective of whether it is logical or not, correct or not ..... the one thing I can say with some certainty mate, is that these ideas of yours seem pretty unique in the field of which you speak.  Accordingly, I'm not sure you are being fair to the world when you say that it "checks out."

However, I do agree that Jesus (this is his name....the Christ bit is a label) does have a decidedly "sketchy" story line with few absolute certainties.....apart from the fact that a really big chunk of his life story seems to be completely missing from most accounts of him....and lots of the accepted bits do seem to follow other storylines from other places and earlier times.  Accordingly, I also do wish people could discuss this type of thing openly....if they are interested.....because it is absolutely fascinating to me - irrespective of my religiosity, or otherwise.  I love a good mystery, me...and I'm always open to hearing ideas.

Never looking for a fight, me....and btw....when I was researching how best to vandalise Isperg's grave stone yesterday (long story!)....and googled "Wot No Chad"....up popped your avatar....it made me jump a bit...I suddenly thought you might be a famous bloke in disguise...maybe with an urban street clothes designer label or something / Red Bull Paraglider or something.  I love having a mental mind.

Have a good weekend mate...and for the record, I do hope this thread doesn't turn into a hate-fest of point-picking....I'll not enable notifications, but dip in maybe when I have the stomach for a potential shock.

Number.

Not a bad analysis, there are other possible logical explanations though... The Jesus story is identical in its central elements - including Virgin birth and dying on a cross/tree and subsequent resurrection to other religions that had preceded.  Afterall we do know that Christmas is mapped onto the pagan solstice festivals to make it palatable to converting folk.

Some scholars have looked at the earliest texts in Aramaic and found no evidence that the man ever claimed to be divine, except in as much as we are all metaphorical children of the creator.  This "son of man" business in the modern translations meant "I am fully human".  

Whatever the details here we have to remember that the Bible as we know it has been through many translations/ mistranslations and that the Early Church did a very human editing job deciding which of the many Christian Texts knocking about were to be permitted entry to the Bible and what they were to mean - was Jesus divine or not, was a central question considered.  They then persecuted any one with any other interpretation; Gnostics, Cathars, as heretics.  As these things always are, it all got very political.

Now, I must confess I do have a faith.  I'm a Spiritualist and love to pick universal truths about human nature and spiritual wisdom from all faiths.  I do personally believe there was a teacher wandering around Judea with a good deal of value to impart.  Others will say he is just a fable.  

But what we can be fairly certain of is that one way or another some very human intervention has mapped older legends  on to the life of either a fictious man or a very real man, and moulded them to suit themselves politically.  Telling folk your soul is in peril if you don't buy into the story as told by an institution wielding ever more earthly power - the Church, is pretty effective propaganda.  Shame - some of the Gnostic texts are truly beautiful.

All that said, I have no argument whatever or desire to fall out with those who want to believe that there literally was a virgin birth of a guy who was the literal "son of God" and who corporeally (as opposed to just spiritually) came back to life.  There is much wisdom to be found in old texts and if some souls find within it their path to a good life - good for them.

I just personally think the evidence is too strong above to believe that whatever truth is to be found in the Bible is literal truth. For me, not logical.  Best taken as a collection of spiritually helpful parables I think.

Misguided ?
I suggest you confirm with NAS the facts before you get off your high horse.

Interesting take on this. I enjoyed reading it.

I don't understand why people celebrate Christmas (I mean, I understand having a winter festival about the time when everything is cold and dark, but not the religious part). An all powerful god impregnates a child because he wants a son who can later be tortured and killed? That's horrific. If god as described in Christianity exists, he certainly doesn't deserve worship.

Uh huh.

No offense Caelus, but...

No.

As, once more, I don't have either the will or energy to debate your inaccurate and misguided post with you, I will say this.

If you're interested in Christ from a 'historical' perspective, research some Greek mythology. Possibly you may find it illuminating.

That's all I'll say on the matter.

Correct me if i am wrong but does NAS not have a " Rule " on Religion ?
I know it's Christmas soon and the festive Season, and i am not a " Party Pooper " but i might be mistaken.
Please correct me if i am misinformed.

There was scientific explanations for the Parting of the Red Sea, as well as David's vanquish of Goliath.

Plus, they found boat-shaped wood at the top of Mount Ararat.

Also, several end-times prophecies have actually occurred over the past year, or so, such as the drying of the Euphrates River.

And 'Aliens' are actually Nephilim; the giant fallen angels. They came to herald the Antichrist.

Ditto. I'm along the same lines of thinking as Sparkly is regarding this. I mostly try not to think of it, I focus on the here and now if I can.

i too agree that theres many unknown things beyond our lives. ive experienced enough weird phenomena myself, and im super skeptical and analyse everything by logic and reality and id still say the supernatural and unexplainable do certainly exist.... although my skeptical side does still reserve that i may have been hallucinating or having some mental symptoms perhaps when i experience strange things.

Well Caelus, you've lit the blue touch paper........ now stand back and enjoy the fireworks.

Ben

I don't consider myself to be a religious person either. I have a hard time wrapping my head around the notion of the 'Immaculate Conception'.

That said, I do not believe that death is the end... or maybe I just don't want to believe that death is the end. I do buy into the notion that while our bodies cease to exist in a physical sense when we die, our Soul/Spirit lives on.

Whilst I have *some* interest in Roman history, it isn't enough to excite me. Therefore, I am unable to state whether I agree or disagree with the theory you have put forward.