Blog powered by Typepad

« 'O Jed, what a falling off was there!' | Main | Hillary's password »

Tuesday, 28 August 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

There's no point blaming Pope Frances for the dissolution of The Roman Catholic Church that's been ongoing since before The Enlightenment. Over here the trend of religion being less popular and subsumed by politics continues:

If you're not willing to do the research, David, you just might be an apatheist:

Thank you, Bob, my word, you really are an education! Whilst I have always admitted to being an agnostic I don't think I qualify as an apatheist because I do think it is an important question - particularly given how many people have died for it!

I feel it is my duty to inform you that Frances is a girl's name. Popes are (almost) always male.

Yours pedantically
Francis, aka Frank

Sorry, Francis, error corrected and 100 Hail Marys chanted!

A point to consider is that the Jewish historian Josephus makes a passing reference to Jesus when he talks about James, the brother of Jesus, and the head of the Christian community in Jerusalem. As an outsider, he admits that Jesus existed, though not about the claims about his Messiah-hood.

I am prepared to believe that someone named Jesus existed and that he was the leader of some form of cult,but all the rest of the stuff, son of God, miracles, resurrection etc, no not at all. Like all religions it is mind control and money and power over others.

Duffers - I think there is no doubt the Jesus the man existed, but quite possibly Jesus the myth and in any case the catholic church, was made by Paul.

He was a Jewish lad who lost his way unlike Brian who was, according to that reliable source "The Life of Brian", just a naughty boy.

David, I'd remind you that a large number of people have also died over more-or-less imaginary geographical boundaries. Religion is just one more manifestation of tribalism. The evidence for the Jesus of the Bible never having existed far outweighs that he did. And you're right, it takes a lot of reading to decide one way or the other.

What I do not understand is how the church came to claim that God sacrificed his only son on the cross to redeem us from our sins As he knew that after three days he would be resurrected to eternal life where was the sacrifice. It's. like me giving someone a pound, getting it back three days later for eternity. a good deal not a sacrifice.

Peter - very good point you old cynic, wish I'd thought of that

Speaking of the Church, the Devil and the 'meme' tradition. Worth a read in our current world.

John Duckett said it all.

Peter- the pain was the sacrifice. Would you go through a literal crucifixion on behalf of total strangers even if you knew that modern medicine would cure you up as good as new?
As for 'Son of God' titles- every King of Israel was called a son of God. One of the psalms makes that clear. "This day I have adopted/begotten you." And the very name Israel does not mean 'Is Ra, El?' but Prince-holy. The whole nation had a name claiming a divine status.
As for the cures, I can believe it. A lot of people seem to think that they need to go to the doctor to be cured of the common cold, but their bodies do the healing whilst the doctor gets the praise. I believe a lot of them were placebo cures. Modern medicine supports the idea that placebos work- see this week's issue of 'New Scientist'! If now, why not also then?

Yes, something like the Resurrection MUST have occurred! We can tell because of what his disciples did- they founded a new religion! Not one of them ever denied the resurrection of Jesus- and none of the other oppressed groups ever claimed their founder had come back from the dead! The disciples of John the Baptist seem to have dispersed, as did the followers of other groups over time. That alone shows that something different happened this time.

The comments to this entry are closed.