How much of the bible is real history?

I see. Yes, I can believe that some people would go to great lengths to make a convincing argument that the New Testament is made up. That would certainly take the wind out of any Christian’s sails if he was convinced that he believed a fable. But what these people who make such “convincing arguments” don’t really understand is the people believe not because they READ. They believe because they have an inner spark of faith. And if they lack that faith, there are a hundred things that will cause them to drop their belief. So such “convincing arguments” target people who likely would not be believers very long anyhow. And if, by chance, these “convincing arguments” do hurt the belief and faith of a weak Christian to the point of damaging his soul, then these “convincing argument” makers had better REALLY hope that the words they denounce as a fable are indeed a fable, since otherwise these words are meant just for them.

Jesus said to his disciples: “Things that cause people to stumble are bound to come, but woe to anyone through whom they come. It would be better for them to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around their neck than to cause one of these little ones to stumble."

In the New Testament book of Luke.

Reminds me of when I was a kid with a bow and arrow…I would take great pride in being able to shoot the arrow straight up.

Interesting theory, but a little too complicated compared to people really believing it.

It reminds me of a theory a friend of mine had about Lyndon LaRouche - that he worked for the CIA so they could keep track of conspiracy nuts. More likely, he’s just the king of the nuts.

1 Like

I am not sure if it was in “The Gay Science” or “Genealogy of Morals” I was reading where Nietzsche talks about this very same thing using the same example.

…as any good atheist would.

It doesn’t seem in character for the Romans to use such a finesse to control people rather than brute force

You are missing the larger point in what Nietzsche was trying to articulate, regardless of what you believe the Romans did. It goes back to your original question doesn’t it?

What was he trying to articulate? I’m just expressing skepticism that the whole “Jesus” movement was some clever trick by the Romans. You can doubt whether Jesus was a real person, if you want, but thinking that he probably was a real person doesn’t require accepting that he walked on water.

I am not doubting that Jesus was a real person and I am not sure where in anything I said previously you equate to me doubting that Jesus was a real person.

I was merely remarking on the argument Nietzsche was making in terms of Slave Master Moralities. I went back and It is in “Genealogy of Morals” where he makes a compelling argument in terms of what is created based out of a need to rise to power.

"The Masters are strong, creative, wealthy, and powerful. They can do whatever they like. They love themselves and see themselves as good. They name the opposites of themselves, the weak and feeble, as bad. Being bad is just how a person is, they didn’t choose to be that way; they’re just losers.

The Slaves are less well off. Oppressed by the Masters, they cannot do what they like. They are weak, poor, and resentful. They initially view themselves as bad, as the Masters do, because they lack the concepts to do otherwise.

However, Nietzsche suggests that after some time, a “slave revolt" occurs. This is not a physical revolution, as the slaves are too weak for that kind of revenge, but a moral one. In this revolt, the slaves decide that they can only endure their suffering if they redefine it as both being good and a choice. The slaves begin to praise the meek, the poor, and those who are unable to end their suffering.

The Masters are dubbed evil for choosing to be wealthy, powerful, and capable. The Slaves become good for being the opposite of the Masters. This gives them the psychological strength to carry on and allows them to get back at the Masters by undermining the values system that encouraged them to exhibit their strengths.

The Master morality involves those with strengths of both mind and body seeing themselves as good. It values things like wealth, glory, ambition, excellence, and self-actualization. It affirms life and everything in it.

Since the master morality is favored by the powerful or those with some strength, its followers are few. However, those few are unconcerned with the disapproval of the many. This also means the masters are creative, as they have no desire to follow a prescribed life plan and are willing to experiment with new life choices that suit them despite widespread disapproval.

An example of a morality that tends towards this would be that of the Ancient Greeks. Aristotle’s ethics, for example, pay no mind to the poor and praise the powerful man who can live life fully. The Greek heroes are strong, glorious characters who make their will into reality no matter the cost. This might be why they turned the phrase “the strong do what they will, the weak suffer what they must."

On the other hand, the slave morality condemns the strength that the hated masters possess and praises the weakness that they have. It is this act, the transvaluation of values, that Nietzsche sees as the key achievement of the slave revolt; he even praises it as an act of brilliance which succeeded in dominating western thinking for two thousand years.

After this revolt, things that the masters had were considered evil because the slaves used to lack them and the lack was made into something good. For example, Chasity was praised because the people writing the moral code couldn’t get the sex they wanted. Humility was held to be a virtue because they had nothing to be proud of. Endless generosity was praised because they needed help themselves. The slave morality is sour grapes made into a values system.

Of equally great importance to Nietzsche is the idea that the slave morality, under any guise, couldn’t stand any competing moral systems existing. Nietzsche posits that this is motivated by fear of what unchecked Masters might do. This leads to plans to take power, attempts to bring down the strong in the name of equality, the suppression of the minority who follow other moralities, the creation of stories about hell to terrify people into compliance, and the claim that the slave morality and way of life must apply to everyone.

Nietzsche thought the purest existing form of the slave morality was to be found in Christ’s teachings and explained that the Beatitudes best expressed the morality’s core ideas. He also saw the slave morality manifest in Buddhism, Democracy, Socialism, and other mass movements that sought to make everyone equal and encourage dull lives. Since the slave morality is often life-denying, he saw them all as part of the gradual slide into the nihilism which he feared." ~ BIG Think Article
https://bigthink.com/scotty-hendricks/the-master-and-slave-moralities-what-nietzsche-really-meant

Perhaps the mistake I am making here is assuming you read anything from Nietzsche to understand what the inference I was making.

You can assume that I’ve forgotten whatever I read from him, that stuff rings a bell and reminds me why I have a low tolerance for his stuff. Too pompous, too certain that he’s got it all figured out.

And I wasn’t assuming that you, or anyone, believes one thing or another. I’m just giving you my take on the issue of Jesus being a real person. Some people seem to deny he ever existed just because it annoys Christians. I’m a hardcore skeptic, but some things are more worthy of skepticism - like walking on water - than his mere existence.

Got what figured out? He merely posed an argument that seemed to be persistent to have endured over time, so apparently it must be thought provoking enough on a deeper level than to be dismissed outright such as what you seem to want to do. That is OK, its your opinion!

Than what is this suppose to mean if you weren’t assuming?

I wasn’t doubting Jesus was a real person, as there were many people named Jesus at the time the one Christians identify with lived. Also ■■■■ don’t believe in Jesus, yet they are considered Christian, is that not only a irony but a contradiction as well?

Actually, I was just using “you” in a sloppy way. The whole reason I started this thread was a poster named Magog who claimed that the whole of Christianity was just silly myths.

■■■■ are considered Christians? I suppose it depends on who you talk to, I know some fundamentalists who claim that Catholics and Mormons and Jehovah’s Witnesses aren’t Christians, I expect that they’ll tell me that ■■■■ aren’t either. As a non-Christian, I just find that stuff amusing. I look at Jehovah’s Witnesses as just oddball Christians, and knowing a lot of Mormons, I look at that as much as a social club as a religion.

What about these ■■■■■

https://■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■

Yes I know who Magog is, He is a poster on the “Shithole” who consistently and on a regular basis posts things that supports anit Semitic, Anti American, Anti Christian views along with the other conspiracy bullshit he seems to obsess about!

According to some Christians I have had conversations with. They don’t believe in the New Testament but that they are still considered Christians. Wasn’t Jesus considered “King of The ■■■■■■

I have a lot of Mormon friends after spending considerable time living in certain places out west, and I still have a hard time with Joseph Smith and his moment of Epiphany! Also Romney is a hypocrite but that is another conversation altogether!

As you are one of the top 3 most prolific posters in the “shithole” as of writing, I would suggest you are the one who is full of shit.

1 Like

Jesus, Moses, Salomon, Nebuchanezzar, Joseph, David, Pilate, the Apostles, … were real people, in real places, in a historical timeline.

Sorry trash talkers, the Bible is full of real history.

And it is better preserved than most of the secular crap.

Awww! For someone who submits to Magog’s conspiracy theories that little snarky comment doens’t mean much! Only makes you look like a bigger hypocrite! But hey if it makes you feel better fire away!

So was Mohammed. Doesn’t make Islam any more valid.

Off topic for the thread.

I find it funny how alternative views are automatically invalidated and labeled as “secular crap”! Way to have a constructive conversation while going the morally superior route!

Only because you don’t like being smacked in the face with it. Your religion isn’t more or less valid than any other religion.

1 Like