Many points in this article are presented as accepted fact, but are not (even among non-Christian scholars).
Such as:
> "Most important, there are the four Gospels, written in Greek some forty to sixty years after the Crucifixion is thought to have happened. These were composed somewhere far from Jerusalem, in a language that Jesus and his disciples would not have known, by writers who could not have been eyewitnesses.
The claim that Jesus and his disciples "would not have known" Greek is historically inaccurate. Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire and commonly spoken in Galilee and Judea alongside Aramaic and Hebrew. Coins, inscriptions, and documents from the period confirm its widespread use.
And "writers who could not have been eyewitnesses"? Presumably this is referring to Mark and Luke only, because Matthew and John were two of the twelve apostles.
Scholarly consensus is that the "Gospel of Matthew" was not written by the apostle Matthew and the "Gospel of John" was not written by the apostle John:
For that assertion to hold water, "scholarly consensus" would have to define "scholarly" so narrowly as to exclude the vast majority of scholars (it seems like it should go without saying that most scholars in this area are Christian who maintain apostolic authorship).
Perhaps they are dismissing scholars who identify as Christian? That would be quite the catch-22.
To me, it is apparent that the data cannot support any clean division between two "sides", it tells a more complicated story about sometimes there was apostolic authorship, sometimes not, and sometimes we don't really know.
I would suggest that the real academic consensus is that we can confidently rule out the us-vs-them preoccupation that is common in lay discussion.
"No sides in science" is a silly idea. Of course, scholars have biases. They're human. Humans like to group up and gang up against other.
Specific to Bible Scholarship, I wager the two big sides are scholars who have faith (i.e., Nicene Creed) and scholars who have little. Bruce Metzger who had some faith, and Bart Ehrman who has none. RSV/ESV which says Jesus is the "Son of God" in Mark 1, and NRSVue which deletes "Son of God" from Mark 1.
There are plenty of YouTube videos that go into the subject thoroughly. I couldn't find the one I watched recently stating the notion that the gospels ever could have been totally anonymous is absurd. Nobody would take you seriously, reputation was everything in the ancient world. The people of the time knew exactly who wrote what, even if there weren't any direct titles on the actual manuscripts.
So then who wrote Hebrews? It wasn't Paul's writing style, and it doesn't name it's author. Matthew and Luke don't name the Q source material they have in common. Let's take gMark, someone composes it around 70AD somewhere. It gets copied and sent to other communities elsewhere. Decades later it's attributed to Mark.
Reputation has never been everything & as crazy conspiracy theories like Qanon & antivax prove, some sizable fraction of the population will find a way to believe whatever they want to.
Where do the attributions come from, Papias? He claimed Mark wrote down Peter's teachings in the wrong order, and that Matthew's gospel was written in Hebrew. But the Matthew we have is in Greek, copies from Mark and shares other Greek material with Luke (Q source).
You are overstating the case on authorship (we don't know who wrote Matthew and John) but otherwise you are wholly correct -- the article misrepresents the scholarly consensus. I.e. as you say, Greek was pervasive and Jesus almost certainly spoke it (along with Aramaic) and it is quite possible that gospel accounts are either written by eyewitnesses or contain the direct testimony of those who were. The historical timeline allows for this and we simply lack historical evidence to make a wholly conclusive case either way (though many attempt to do so on each side).
Thanks for confirming the low quality, now I don't have to bother listening, like, the whole area got conquered by the Greeks before the Romans showed up. It's called Hellenization and is a major theme in the Book of Maccabees.
As far as I know the scholarly consensus is that none of the gospels, including Matthew and John, were written by disciples, or anyone who lived within Jesus' lifetime. Obviously Christians believe otherwise.
This is not correct. Secular academics disagree quite a lot about the specifics as we lack sufficient historical data but it is very widely accepted that:
* the gospels were written in the 1st century
It is therefore entirely possible that they were written by eyewitnesses, even though many do not think they were written by some of the 12 disciples. The topic of 'eyewitnesses' is however hotly debated. See e.g. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitne... which is pro this view but also plenty against.
Even John's gospel, which is often thought of as the latest, may well have been written very early; arguments for a late dating are almost wholly made in relation to the text itself (i.e. it has a 'higher' Christology) and not wider historical data.
Source: I am studying theology at Cambridge University in the UK and have heard several professors here debate these topics, plus I am familiar with the literature.
They "eyewitness" testimony would include things like Pilate talking to Jesus and the devil tempting Jesus in the desert. Or the women in Mark's gospel finding the empty tomb and then not telling anyone about it. There is a lot of legendary type of story telling that you get with ancient heroes.
Some of the teachings of Jesus might be historical.
Depends on the Catholics, too. Some who profess the Catholic Faith, educators and non-educators alike, find it scandalous that staff at a Catholic school teach their pupils such ideas. Others find it amusing, at best, that Catholic teachers impart any ideas re: Scripture that don't line up with areligious academic commentary.
In the mid-2000s, I attended evangelical 'kids night'. Held each Friday at the dead-center of an unincorporated community in rural Colorado.
The "cool" youth pastor who was responsible for these events told us "the Gospel's authors are anonymous, their names are totally traditional". I never had the sense that this view was in any way heretical or contentious, even in a strain of Christianity that strongly emphasized the historicity of the Bible.
This is what we learned in Catholic school. Christians are not delusional about the source of the gospels.
There's been this weird push to view the Bible like the Quran and the two really have nothing in common. The entire view on the book is wholly different.
The authorship of the Bible is actually not really important if you believe the claim of the Catholic/Orthodox church (who make the same claim)
Catholics may be willing to believe that the Gospels were written by other authors than the traditional ones, but many, many Protestants are not, particularly in the US.
It is not correct to assert this. More precise is to say: it is unlikely that all of the gospels were written by the names we now associate with them -- at least not insofar as these names relate to the 12 disciples.
The truth is we don't know who wrote the gospels. The evidence is that they are quite early (i.e. for Mark, consensus is late 60s so perhaps 30-40 years after Jesus' death). In fact, many scholars think 'Mark' was written by 'Mark Antony' who is mentioned in Acts. And John may have been written by a 'John the Elder' who is mentioned elsewhere. These are educated guesses though -- the evidence is circumstantial.
> [Our] truth is we don't know who wrote the gospels
Okay, because y’all forgot? People purposely want to remake Sacred Scripture?
I mean, the Church knows who wrote them; Jesus, Mary and the Saints know; bishops and priests and the faithful knew for centuries.
Naming of Bible books isn’t about some guy holding a pen and making stuff up: the names speak to provenance, lineage, and perspective. Somewhat the same function as the “begat” passages everyone hates (because who can remember who all THOSE people were???)
If scholarship wants to move past that attribution and unmoor the books from tradition, then they can. Modern interpretations, perspectives, and hermeneutics are always in demand. But I confidently assure you that anyone who mattered was well aware of where those books came from and “who” had written them, notwithstanding meddlesome medieval monkey business.
This is bit besides the point, but I'll stick it here anyway.
When I read <u>A Man Called Ove</u> in English I was impressed over and over again with the writing. It made me wish I could understand Swedish to compare the original prose. I concluded that Henning Koch is an amazingly talented wordsmith. And it made me suspect that Fredrik Backman might also be one. Clearly, Backman is a very good writer. But I wonder if Koch is a better wordsmith. Sadly, I am unable to enjoy Backman in the original language. As it is, I credit Backman with great writing and Koch with great wording (probably inspired by Backman's great wording).
The most compelling evidence for the historicity of Jesus does not come from the gospels, but from Paul's letters. He claims to have met with Peter and James which he calls Jesus' brother and the leader of the Jerusalem congregation. We can assume that James did exist since Paul writes about disagreements he has with him. Paul had no reason to make up a figure that challenges his views. Moreover, if James did exist, it seems far-fetched to believe that he were able to assume the title "brother of Jesus" without actually being the brother of Jesus. People would have known whether his brother had been publicly executed or not.
In a similar vein, the gospels have Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Various form of baptism were common among Jews at the time to purify themselves or cleanse them from sin. Why would the son of God need that? If Jesus was invented from scratch you would probably not include that story because it raises more questions than it answers.
> Paul had no reason to make up a figure that challenges his views.
Sure he would. Today we'd call James a strawman. A narrative fiction intended to argue against the author so that the author can pre-emptively debunk any argument from the actual audience. It makes a lot more sense if you consider the writing is intended to outlive the author. You have to present all possible arguments because there's no going back, republishing, or even talking to the audience.
You see strawmen like this a lot in scriptures. It's a pretty obvious tool when you think about it.
But I have no real reason to doubt James existing. The evidence I've seen is convincing enough that I don't doubt that a man named Jesus existed and did historic things. Whether he was a Messiah is a different question.
Always remember that the Bible is a collection of stories. It was intended to be passed down orally and to the illiterate. Oral histories are always dressed up. Either intentionally or mutated through the generations, the stories become more memorable over time, and thus more embellished. It is unwise to treat any religion's scripture as a literal, factual, historical document. They aren't, none of them are. They're all stories meant to teach lessons, and not a technical manual.
Well, you don't make up straw men that makes you inferior. Paul never met Jesus, James did and also was the leader of the (clearly) very important Jerusalem church. Paul knew and admitted that he lacked authority, hence he had to sell his ideas very hard to the readers of his letters. Nothing suggest that he intended for those letters to outlive him (the vast majority probably didn't) or become the backbone of a new religion. It just so happened.
The Pharisees in the gospels are good examples of straw men, though.
You’re totally right, I mean that Jesus we crucified was probably made out of straw or 3 kids in a really long tunic. And that’s why I still worship scarecrows.
> Sure he would. Today we'd call James a strawman. A narrative fiction intended to argue against the author so that the author can pre-emptively debunk any argument from the actual audience.
It's apparent from Paul's letters that his audience knew who the leaders in Jerusalem were (James, Peter, John), and had contact with them or their followers. He is writing letters responding to some issue(s) a particular group is having. Such as whether Paul was a proper apostle like those who new Jesus when he was alive.
As such, there's no reason to think Paul could get away with creating a fictional leader and family member after Jesus's death. The people he's writing to would know better.
> Pagels’s larger point is that the most improbable Gospel tales serve to patch a fractured narrative—using familiar tropes and myths to smooth over inconsistencies that believers struggled with from the beginning.
"Familiar tropes and myths" is perhaps something you'd consider as the 20/21 Century literary critic, but I'm not sure a bunch of mostly peasants writing in the 1st Century would be.
And it's not like they had anything to gain by writing and spreading about their beliefs: the early Christians were ostracized from their community(s) and persecuted. For the first ~300 years of the existence of Christianity there was probably little but trouble from believing in it, until roughly the conversion of Constantine (312) and later the Edict of Milan.
> Were first century peasants educated and wealthy enough to write?
"Peasant" would exist on a spectrum: some think Luke was a physician and thus literate. Peter was a fisherman and probably illiterate, but it was certainly possible to dictate someone who could write.
Remember also that oral tradition was a thing as well in many societies:
Although I really appreciate what Jesus adds to the religious stories as it opened it up to the world, in a sense of "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision).
> Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
John 3:2
> The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
John 20:16
> Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
"which is to say, master" is the part we're talking about here. jesus isnt a modern day rabbi, but was a teacher in the classical sense. makes sense to me. thanks
Rejected later upon evaluation of his entire life, but that's not to say he wasn't considered a teacher at the time. After all, there's plenty of modern-day preachers who have done some heinous acts, but they don't retroactively lose that title during the time they held it.
It's worth noting that Messianic Judaism is an offshoot that holds that Jesus (Yeshua) was who he claimed. (While I'm not religious at this point in my life, my wife is a member of such a congregation)
I think there's a decent case to be made that he was considered a "rabbi", or teacher in the time period prior to the destruction of the second temple, by a group of jewish folks.
As far as I understand it, the more formalized, institutional rabbinic structure came after the destruction of the second temple.
Sure, but as far as I understand it, his followers were Jewish people, those followers called him Rabbi, so at that time... it was a "Jewish viewpoint".
Yeah but as for Jesus, he was rejected by all Jews, Sanhedrin and high priests, also the Roman Empire for hundreds of years, zillions of Hellenics, and a large chunk of the entire world 2000 years hence.
I’d call that a unique achievement in the history of rejections.
Jesus' teachings fit within the diversity of Jewish sects existing at the time—Sadducees, Pharisees (literally "sectarians," derived from the Greek word Pharisaios, sharing the same root as the word "pariah"), and Essenes (a mystical, monastic sect; some speculate Jesus may have been associated with them).
Had it not been for Paul of Tarsus, Christianity might still be considered one of many Jewish sects. (In early Christian times, the Romans referred to Christianity as a "Jewish superstition.")
> "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision)
This idea originates explicitly from Paul's teachings.
What does "Jewish" mean in that context? The dominant religion at the time was a sacrificial cult centered on Temple worship. rabbinical Judaism as we know it today developed over centuries after that temple cult was fully decimated by the Romans. Its completely anachronistic to say "Jewish" refers to Jesus in the same way that it refers to your local synagogue.
Because Jesus fits the definition of a 2nd Temple Jewish teacher, regardless of how he later came to be viewed. Just because later rabbinic Judaism rejected the apocalyptic movements and texts doesn't mean it wasn't part of Judaism while Jesus was live.
Historians of reddit have to deal with this on a recurring basis. It's hard when textual refs stop in Josephus and the accretion of centuries of editorial over ur-texts.
Often times people seek to argue by comparison: "we have less evidence Darius or Julius Caesar existed" type arguments about the primacy of contemporary eye witness accounts, distinct from eg economic and architectural evidence.
Fugitive Christians didn't have time to collate the "I was there" takes and now it's Analects.
Why is this acceptable but if referring to Islam as a "mystery cult" a comment would be flagged immediately? I fully expect my critique here to receive a flag.
> referring to Islam as a "mystery cult" a comment would be flagged immediately?
Would it be? It's my experience of HN that these things are all grouped as Abrahamic mythology. Cult is quite a charged word but I would be surprised to see it flagged in this environment.
One of the three major categories of Hellenistic religions. The defining aspect was that their religious beliefs and rites were kept secret and only revealed to initiates. For obvious reasons we don't know a lot about them.
My vague understanding is that the idea that Christianity was significantly derived from local mystery cults was once taken seriously, but it's completely fallen out of favor and everything new we've discovered about the mystery cults has made the connections ever more tenuous.
Christianity isn't a mystery cult.There isn't really a hierarchy keeping secret rituals and knowledge from the masses or acolytes. At best it's a failed apocalypse cult.
And by "failed" I mean it seems clear from Matthew 24:34 that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes (assuming that account is credible,) and such a belief is consistent with every other apocalyptic cult, Christian or otherwise. Like Seventh Day Adventists, Christians do keep kicking the can down the road, but just as the book of Revelations more likely refers to Nero Caesar and a belief at the time that he would return from the dead ("Nero Redivius[0]") than some future nuclear war where the "locusts" are really Apache helicopters[1], so Christian beliefs about the second coming should be assumed to apply their own cultural and temporal context, rather than some as yet unknown future millennia removed.
Obviously the cult as a whole has been very, very successful.
Agree with the first part of your comment but "that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus's teachings where he said he does not even know when God will choose to bring the apocalypse.
In modern culture, it's often asserted the apocalypse has occurred any time someone doesn't get their way.
>"that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes" is at odds with Jesus's teachings where he said he does not even know when God will choose to bring the apocalypse.
The verse where he tells his disciples that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” would seem to be at odds with that. A lot of Biblical canon is at odds with itself, the Bible doesn't have a singular coherent narrative. I'm just suggesting an interpretation which seems more likely than not.
Just look at history - almost every generation of Christians have believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes, or at least the near future. Why would only the first generation accept that, no, it would be some thousands of thousands of years in the future? That isn't the way these things tend to work.
Forgive me hanging a view in a detailed conversation but you're discussing the english translation post James of a work written after his lifetime in any other language than English, assuming literalisms in the metaphorical quality of a transcription of a transcription.
I think thats close to a definition of insanity. Either move to the Aramaic, or Greek, or stop discussing the "literalism" of the words in question.
I never used the word "literalism." I refer to the English translation because I am an English speaker having a conversation in English with other English speakers, and the English translation of the Bible is the one commonly understood in the context of this conversation. I have no reason to assume that any English translation of the Bible diverges so wildly from the original sources, given the efforts put into Biblical scholarship, that to even use it in casual conversation could be considered insanity.
But fine. Since you brought it up, and since you bring up a fair point tell us your interpretation of the original Aramaic or Greek.
That would demand I become a biblical scholar. As I am not, I won't presume. But I will ask another question: Are you even confident the Aramaic uses a word which translates to "apocalypse" as we understand it or might it mean some other contextual meaning such as a revalation of the relationship with god, rather than the apocryphal end-of-times sense?
Because your reply presupposes the modern understanding is inherently sound because of an appeal to authority of the wisdom of times past. I would say instead by the time of the council of Nicea, things were already very political and the church was seeking to confirm words to suit the institution, not for their actual historical meaning. That was only 2-300 years after the record mind you.
I tend to agree with your general intuition that presupposing modern understandings creates all kinds of problems understanding ancient texts, some of which is in translation. But the specific case of "apokalypsis" it is kind of the opposite.
There is quite the extensive record of first/second century apocalyptic literature, (some of it even became the NT). These preserve remarkably detailed pictures of what apocalyptic thinking looked like long before Nicea.
The main thing to say is the concept of apocalypse was much broader than today's. To your question, it did mean a revelation of relationship with god, and then it also meant an end-of-times sense, and it also was political commentary, and it was also a conspiracy theory, etc. People did not distinguish between which modern, narrower concept they meant, because they actually meant the broad concept.
The section of Mathew is understood by mainstream Christianity as a "double prophecy" concerning both the destruction of the second temple and the eventual second coming of Christ. I can understand someone seeing this as moving goalposts until I consider that it could've been quietly deleted to avoid embarrassment if it wasn't intended this way.
Christians have a wide range of views on eschatology, but the mainstream position for a while has been amillennial, which are not the people who get freaked out about locusts and red cows and whatnot.
>I can understand someone seeing this as moving goalposts until I consider that it could've been quietly deleted to avoid embarrassment if it wasn't intended this way.
The way it came to be interpreted by the church is not necessarily the way it was meant to be interpreted by first generation Christians, so its presence in canon isn't evidence of any particular intent on the part of the author.
I may be misunderstanding, but they were adding bits to support the doctrine of the Trinity quite a bit after the first generation of Christians had passed away.
>Christianity isn't a mystery cult.There isn't really a hierarchy keeping secret rituals and knowledge from the masses or acolytes.
I don't even know what to say. For the first thousand years or so, they didn't even teach their own scriptures to so-called Christians. They conducted mass in a language most didn't speak. Even now, the Vatican squirrels away who knows what down in some vault.
Yeh, in many places today it's not a mystery cult, if you ignore its origin, its history (and recent history at that), and nearly every other detail of consequence.
Indeed. They believe and that's that -- there's zero proof that would change their minds. I'm a non believer but would be willing to change my mind if there was compelling evidence.
If you don’t want to believe, I think that’s fine, however saying that there is zero evidence or philosophical arguments that could at least gives you pause would be shortsighted.
Hitchen’s tried to hold this position by regurgitatation decade old counter arguments publicly and all he got attributed to him at the end was “hitch-slaps”.
Ah, there's the rub. What I want to "believe" is whatever truth shall be revealed to me. It's not like I want to not believe in God, I simply haven't been presented with compelling evidence to lead me there.
And as for other's, they should be able to believe whatever they want (but there's a catch). My only concern for what others believe is how that translates into real world outcomes. A prime example of this is that the current US Administration is Christian Nationalist and want to pass laws on their interpretation of scripture -- then that become mine and everybody else's business.
If you haven’t found compelling evidence, then you haven’t looked. I’m not being snarky. Look up a list of atheists who set out to disprove God. Once you start looking, it’s impossible to miss.
What most people seem to mean by this is, “If God himself came down in a column of fire, then I’d believe.”
Most folks can’t be bothered to actually dig into the real, ample evidence that exists. You like philosophical arguments? There’s philosophical arguments for it. You like astronomical or geologic arguments? There’s that too. Logic? Check.
There’s so much evidence for Christ, it’s basically the only logically consistent worldview. I know I’ll get downvoted to hell for saying that (heh) but it’s true. There is not another logically consistent worldview beyond Christianity.
First off, you can't claim that Christianity is logical consistent until you find a way to resolve the Epicurean Paradox[0] and the question of how Sin/imperfection was introduced into our reality. If the Christian God was the only being who existed in beginning of time & everything that God created was also perfect, then which perfect being took the first imperfect action and how is it even possible for a perfect being to do something imperfectly?
Secondly, I'd like to know what you think is not logically consistent with atheism/evolution.
The Epicurean Paradox doesn't exist in the Christian worldview.
Free Will as described in the Bible fully explains why and how a good, omnipotent God could allow evil. Perfect beings making imperfect choices isn't a contradiction, it's the very essence of free will. God valued authentic relationship over robotic obedience. Natural evils entered as consequences of this freedom exercised poorly, not as part of the original design.
Christianity doesn't just acknowledge this tension - it provides the complete framework to understand it: creation, fall, and redemption.
I’ll also go ahead and acknowledge that just because a being that exists outside of space and time knows something will happen, doesn’t CAUSE it to happen. So while our minds may not like the fact that God knew it would happen, it doesn’t mean he caused it to happen.
You wouldn’t forgo the joy and wonder of having a child simply because you knew one day they might scrape their knee.
By the way, a sincere thank you for engaging instead of downvoting out of disagreement. We need more of that!
> Perfect beings making imperfect choices isn't a contradiction, it's the very essence of free will.
Either perfect beings, including God, are capable of imperfect actions/decisions on some random whim, or they are not.
If they are, then the definition of perfection is meaningless.
If they are not, then God's creations were imperfect, which suggests that God also is imperfect.
> I’ll also go ahead and acknowledge that just because a being that exists outside of space and time knows something will happen, doesn’t CAUSE it to happen.
You're implying that an entity that has perfect foresight of the consequences of its actions is not responsible for those consequences.
I disagree.
> God valued authentic relationship over robotic obedience.
Robotic obedience is the only theoretical option for a relationship with a timeless entity who created the universe.
If God knows the outcomes of all universal starting conditions, then no outcome is less pre-determined than any other outcome.
> You wouldn’t forgo the joy and wonder of having a child simply because you knew one day they might scrape their knee.
Actually, I'm child-free because I don't think that the additional joy & wonder I might gain from raising a child would be worth the pain that they may experience or cause.
> Strangely, that's the one constant... no one cared back then if he was real, and no one seems to care now.
Plenty of people cared then:
> 12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died[e] in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
The article is polemical, which I don't mean as a criticism but simply as genre description. There is no attempt to engage with the scholarly consensus (or indeed any of biblical scholarship beyond the named author). The piece wants to explain why religion persists but even on this lens it is heavy on words but lacking in depth. A lot is asserted.
> In various texts, including Apocryphal works that date to around the same time as the Gospels proper, Joseph appears to suspect Mary of infidelity.
This struck me as a strange statement to not explain further. Plenty of Christians interpret Matthew 1:19 to mean Joseph was going to divorce Mary because he believed she was unfaithful.
> The consoling notion of divine impregnation was commonplace in the Hellenistic world, with countless tales of gods foisting demigods on virgins. Plutarch, for instance, described Rome’s founder Romulus as born to a divinely impregnated vestal virgin.
The later is true but it's strange to use Plutarch as an example considering that at best he would have been writing Parallel Lives at the same time the Gospels were being written.
> Those attributed to Jesus—described in language nearly identical to accounts of the Greek mystic and holy man Apollonius of Tyana, say—are neither more nor less convincing than others.
Well "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" was written in the early 200ADs, approximately 100 years after the last Gospel was written. Once again, the point may be correct but the example given is confusing cause and effect.
> A scholarly paradigm that has shone in recent years shifts the focus: the Gospels are now seen as literary constructions from the start. There were no rips in the fabric of memory, in this view, because there were no memories to mend—no foundational oral tradition beneath the narratives, only a lattice of tropes. The Gospel authors, far from being community leaders preserving oral sayings for largely illiterate followers, were highly literate members of a small, erudite upper crust, distant in experience, attitude, and geography from any Galilean peasant preachers.
That seems like an extraordinary claim to make. The Gospels were drawn from no oral tradition, really? So there was a complete disconnect between the practitioners of early Christianity, who obviously would have their own oral tradition, and the Gospels writers. And the early Christians then accepted the Gospels even though they had no relationship to their existing traditions? Or is the claim the Christianity didn't exist until the Gospels were created, in which case you have to contest with the Apocrypha and historical accounts of Jesus.
The simplest explanation seems to be that the Gospels drew from early Christian oral tradition and now lost writings. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels# for an explanation "now lost writings".
"For the Jews ask for signs and the Greeks seek wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified, a stumbling block to the Jews and foolishness to the Gentiles. Yet to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God, because God’s foolishness is wiser than human wisdom, and God’s weakness is stronger than human strength." -- 1 Corinthians 1:22-25 (CSB)
Today is not so different from 30AD; It's still by God's mercy that any are saved. This reconciliation is still offered today:
"The righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, since there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." -- Romans 3:22-24 (CSB)
We're not done with Jesus because Christianity isn't a trend. This is God's rescue mission.
This is a deep topic. First, God is not the author of evil [James 1:13, Ezekiel 33:10-11]. You can read through Genesis 2-3 to get a good idea of why we're separated from God in the first place. God doesn't owe us forgiveness- as Creator he has every right not to save anyone. It's out of His grace that forgiveness/reconciliation is offered. A lot of people have trouble with the idea of a God who punishes/will punish their wrongdoings, but the central message of the Bible (back to that Ezekiel reference agin) is that God saves us *because He loves us* and that we are saved not simply from our own evil, but from *His just wrath*.
How then is God a just judge, if He both promises to judge evil and refrains from punishing those who are forgiven? Their punishment is poured out on Jesus instead. That's the Gospel. He died willingly so that they can have life. If you believe, this is for you too.
The problem isn't with the scriptures, it's with Christian interpretation of the scriptures. Anyone with any sort of knowledge of the Bible and the history of the people of the region knows that the god of the Bible was (a) part of a pantheon, (b) that was inherited from other cultures, and (c) evolved as time went on. That's not really up for debate with any serious students of history and religion.
The old testament biblical "God" at the time that Genesis was written was NOT perfect, and nobody believed him to be that way. That came later.
The Adam and Eve story just looked to tell a creation myth, and Genesis itself was cobbled together from multiple storytellers. It didn't say a single thing about damnation, which wouldn't even become a thing until Judea's hellenistic period.
So, nah. You seriously are out of your element here with all the blinders you've put up for yourself.
If you disbelieve the Abrahamic God, I then ask you, why would this be evil? What absolute set of values permits you to pass judgement on what is good or evil? If we're just all (un)happy random accidents, even actions that go against the rights of others can't be considered wholly evil. So what if something causes the suffering of humans? All of us, all of the people we know, everything the eye can see will simply vanish anyways after the heat death of the universe. So what is the absolute, unchanging and universal basis for calling something evil, allowing you to judge one's actions?
Now, if you do believe in Him, there's really no sense in trying to take our own warped sense of justice and apply it to God. He's the only one who has a complete understanding of every single thing that has happened and will happen, only He understands the reason for anything being the way it is. Try as we may, we'll never be able to see the big picture as He is able to.
Mention of Richard Carrier was odd. The mythicist angle of Gospel accounts seems the least worthy of mention, even when the author encourages taking his work with the proverbial sodium. I like watching Tim O'Neill angrily refute everything Carrier says - he really doesn't like the guy.
It seems self-evident that clinging to inherited faith traditions can impede critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance.
But it seems empirically true that much of what we consider critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance has been handed down to us through societies that practice(d) inherited faith traditions. That is, even critical thinking, etc. that did not originate in a particular faith-clinging society has been preserved and nurtured through multiple other societies even when the interceding societies largely clung to inherited faith traditions different than the origin.
So perhaps faith-clinging societies can be inconsistently close-minded and open-minded at the same time. Rather human.
I won't defend religion here as such, but whatever was happening in the Mediterranean basin in 1st to 3rd century wrt. the religion seems to be incredibly fascinating via the anthropological/cultural lens too.
I agree. It’s way more interesting to gain insight into when, why and how people in a position of power succeeded in abusing religious beliefs to project even more power. It’s quite fascinating how powerful that manipulation tactic was. And, sadly, still is.
Athenians (early AIdeologues) being too successful for their own good, then dropping the ball like Sama/PG? Their neighbors learning the wrong lessons? Surely other places before & somewhat after had to grapple (in sword & word ) with the implications of extending the "FranchAIse". Like in the Levant, forex.
Slightly tangential but The Economist put out a really cool interactive article a year or so back — it explores the relationships between factors like economic development, secularism, social trust, and in essence, levels of tribalism. The findings are a bit more complex than people might expect.
Excerpt:
"On the face of it, this shift suggests that people do think differently as they escape from poverty and insecurity... Perhaps. But at the moment, the WVS findings suggest this is not happening without obstacles and detours. If poorer countries were indeed converging with rich ones in terms of values, you would expect that they would be the ones where values are changing fastest, whereas the countries they are catching up with would be more stable. In fact the survey finds the opposite. Countries that are already the most secular and individualistic are changing fastest and becoming even more secular; those that are most traditional and clannish are changing less and sometimes becoming more traditional, not less."
In the Middle East it would be Muslim, India would be Hindu. Perhaps you mean China, which historically tended to be be Confucian, which could perhaps be considered more of a philosophy than a religion? But modern China is (notionally) Marxist-Communist, which is materialist/atheistic in teaching, but born out of the Enlightenment, which is certainly Christian inspired.
The idea of secularism—a separation of Church/Temple/Mosque and State, and religion being a private affair—is itself a Christian/Protestant one.
The interesting question is whether the West is succesful because of or inspite of our Christian base. There's no denying the place of Christianity in European history, but that doesn't mean that the good things about our societies are due to Christianity. Christianity has changed a lot since Roman times, and its place and expression in various societies have been affected by other ideological currents and reinterpretations.
I'm Danish, which while nominally Christian has been a fairly irreligious country for a few generations now, and it certainly seems to me that the less influence and visibility Christianity has had, the better off we've been. Most of the things that make this country a good place to live come from socialism/social democracy and feminism, whereas many strands of Christianity has mostly been a reactionary force (with some exceptions).
Christians and Christian apologists like to pretend that Christianity led to social progress, when at every turn, the church had to be dragged kicking and screaming into the modern world, and only then claimed the progress as their own.
English is not my native language - could you help me understand where I gave the impression that Christianity made no contributions to the development of the west?
> There's no denying the place of Christianity in European history, but that doesn't mean that the good things about our societies are due to Christianity.
Well, the elimination of slavery, and development of human rights (every human is a 'child of God', whether king or peasant). Which is tied in with the concept of individualism:
The modern idea of science needed certain metaphysical assumptions that weren't really present in many other religions (and to the extent they were present in philosophy, aspects of said philosophy(s) were often mainstreamed by Christianity (e.g., Aristotle)):
And where "science" (or what passed for it at the time) existed elsewhere, it often withered or was snuffed out; the invention of the telescope was transformational in Europe, but not so much in Muslim lands, Mughal India, or Imperial China:
Various legal forms were promulgated by the Church (including that the authorities themselves were not (notionally) above the law: not something you'll find with (e.g.) the Chinese Emperor), as were universities:
And if they were not due to Christianity, I'd say [citation needed] on how they developed otherwise. And more than developed, but became 'mainstream' thinking in many parts of the globe (though certainly not universally, as Chinese Uyghurs are experiencing).
But if these things are because of Christianity, and it is often implied that western modernity is present in it from its beginning, almost an unavoidable consequent of it... then why are they not universal in Christendom? Why can I point to just as many Christian movements who are anti-science, pro-slavery, anti-individual?
> Why can I point to just as many Christian movements who are anti-science, pro-slavery, anti-individual?
Because people have free will,† and can choose to accept or ignore orthodox teaching.
This is especially true after Protestantism came about which caused a splintering into (tens of?) thousands of denominations,[1] rejecting even some tenets that were present since the beginning of Christianity (e.g., the Real Presence).
Whereas if you look at Catholicism (and Orthodox churches), they generally have consistent teachings going back to their beginning.
† Which of course some Christian denominations (and some modern materialists like Sapolsky) deny.
I just don't see how it holds water at all to say that Christianity was what caused the abolition of slavery, when just as many Christians were in favour of it.
> the elimination of slavery, and development of human rights (every human is a 'child of God', whether king or peasant)
I can understand that slavery goes against the 'child of God' philosophy, but there seems to be very little (none?) explicit condemnation of slavery in the bible and certainly there's been organised Christian religions for centuries before slavery was abolished.
To my mind, Christianity seems incidental to the abolition of slavery as it's only been relatively recently (18th century) that Christians condemned slavery rather than just wanting slaves to be treated well (and that they had to obey their masters).
> I can understand that slavery goes against the 'child of God' philosophy, but there seems to be very little (none?) explicit condemnation of slavery in the bible and certainly there's been organised Christian religions for centuries before slavery was abolished.
Galatian 3 would be the key statement:
> 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring,[k] heirs according to the promise.
Slavery was often view as a 'natural evil' like famine or pestilence, of which we just had to live with, but it was never viewed as good; Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD) for one took this view. His (biological) brother Gregory of Nyssa took the view that slavery was inherently sinful:
> If [man] is in the likeness of God, ... who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself. [...] God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since [God] himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God's?
So right from very early times there was a strong anti-slavery leaning and desire in Christianity. The above referenced book Inventing the Individual goes through the history of constantly increasing individual freedom starting in the late-Roman period:
> His thesis is simple: the origin of secular liberalism, - conceived of as the intellectual current and attitude that puts the individual at the centre, as a unique acting object and as fundamentally equal to other individuals -, its origins don’t lie in the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, but much earlier, in medieval Christianity. "Secularism is Christianity's greatest gift to the world", he states. Christianity, through Paul and Augustine, put the freedom and equality of the acting man first, in contrast to ancient Antiquity, where inequality determined the character of society and each individual found its place in a certain, natural hierarchy. It took centuries for Christian intellectuals to focus on freedom and equality in their thinking and to make it a natural starting point for people and society. The major breakthrough took place between the 12th and 14th century, in the high Middle Ages. That is the central thesis of this book.
What I find fascinating is that people seeking their roots and historical family tree always stay within their religion.
Almost all Muslim Pakistanis and Christian Indians somehow trace their family tree back to Middle East during the time period of their prophets. Many times it is obvious that even if they have any middle eastern DNA, it is negligible compared to rest of it. Why not learn about your ancestors who were not of same religion as you.
And why stop at 1400 or 2000 years back. Why not trace it further back.
And in the west, with superiority complex of European culture, many serious Christians get absolutely confused when you tell them that it is amazing how a middle eastern religion took over the entire Europe and the west. Some people even deny that Christianity is middle eastern.
> ...Christians get absolutely confused when you tell them that it is amazing how a middle eastern religion took over the entire Europe and the west. Some people even deny that Christianity is middle eastern
Many atheists make this claim but I've never met one of these Christians in my life. At least in my experience Judaism and Middle Eastern history were taught as part of my religious tutoring.
Christianity as a individual religion maybe not, but christianity as a state religion, controlling all debates, power structures and research very much was a negative influence, stopping progress in Europe for centuries, until their powerhold could get broken.
It’s difficult to measure religion’s overall impact, since it has had both positive and negative effects, and I’m not interested in engaging in speculative “what if” scenarios. From my perspective, moving beyond a singular religious influence has been beneficial because it allows individuals and communities to develop norms and policies based on wide-ranging human needs and evidence-based reasoning rather than strict dogma.
If you believe a particular group is inherently superior and that anyone can join it simply by following arbitrary rules, then our discussion ends here. Such a view indicates an unwillingness to seriously consider broader philosophical questions.
Or unluckily. Europe has Christian roots, values, and dreams. Cutting that out without also destroying or transmuting Europe is not necessarily possible.
It seems to me that the rise of woke ideology is an attempt to replace a religion sized hole in the fabric of society.
That objection aside, Europe is well below replacement birth rates. Should that continue, it will be replaced by cultures which reproduce. Is religion required for that? Maybe
In a society less influenced by religion, you might not be as concerned with these particular issues. Many secular countries, for example, demonstrate strong overall well-being and social outcomes, suggesting that emphasizing shared human values over religious or cultural divisions can benefit society as a whole. Rather than prioritizing one specific group, focusing on the common good can lead to more equitable solutions for everyone.
Equitable is a terrible goal. Taken to extremes, it's communism. Where everyone ends up equally poor.
It's a noble goal and idea in theory, but put into practice it causes great misery and poverty.
Because fundamentally it's at odds with reality. People are not equal, and do not bring equal value to the table. For a system of organizing a society and economy to be successful, it has to acknowledge that and empower the out-performers, who then pull everyone else along for the ride.
> Equitable is a terrible goal. Taken to extremes, it's communism. Where everyone ends up equally poor.
How you go from a society that focuses on the common good to communism is beyond me. One is a moral goal, the other is a form of government. Most Christians in this thread boast that they are somehow morally superior. I guess not.
> It's a noble goal and idea in theory, but put into practice it causes great misery and poverty.
Again. The secular countries are all doing much better than the USA and that gap is getting wider rapidly. Why are you denying obvious truths?
> Because fundamentally it's at odds with reality. People are not equal.
Ah. There you have it. You somehow feel superior to the people around you and think that if we take care of "underperformers", it somehow disadvantages you.
I just argue that we should take care of people who aren't able to bring value to the table (anymore). And that is a net benefit to society. Less crime, less suffering, better life expectancy, more social mobility. Basically every index where the US is underperforming, reflects societal efforts to care about the poor.
Again. Where are your superior christian morals?
> For a system of organizing a society and economy to be successful, it has to acknowledge that and empower the out-performers, who then pull everyone else along for the ride.
Nothing about a secular government is incompatible with capitalism, as long as the government takes their job as a regulator seriously, which hasn't been the case in the US for a long time.
Jesus is fundamentally interesting because the moral teachings of the cult in his name have persisted as the dominant state morality for European societies for about a millennium and a half since Julian the apostate’s death to the present day.
Even Marx owes a huge amount of his philosophy to Owenite socialism and Christianity. The teachings of Jesus turn ideas of power on their head.
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
This idea is so deeply ingrained in western morality at this point that most cannot even see it but Christianity is the bottleneck through which all egalitarianist thought in the west has passed through.
You talk about faith impeding critical thinking while in the same paragraph talk about secularism as though it arose out of nothing.
The moral philosophy of the earliest of christians is profound and is the foundation of everything good in western society. The fanatical purism and reaction in what followed is instructive in terms of the cruelty that can exist in people professing empathy and the pitfalls of expecting a state to somehow act morally.
If we are talking about Jesus the same way we are talking about Zeus it will be the end of history there will be because there is no power in the idea that everyone is equal.
It would be interesting if the moral teachings started with Christianity, but they did not. There are plenty of other philosophical teachings from that time that had great impact on morality without feeling the need to subjugate others. For example, Greek philosophers like Socrates and Aristotle taught about virtue and justice centuries before Christianity. Confucius in China emphasized benevolence and duty long before Christian doctrine existed, and Buddha’s teachings focused on compassion and nonviolence without forcing conversion. These traditions show that moral ideas thrived in many places independently.
Yeah but none of the thinkers you listed came close to saying something as radical "the first shall be last and the last shall be first".
Like any moral philosophy professed Christianity has it's flaws, is professed by many a hypocrite, and worn as a cover for many a wicked person but its message on equality goes further than pretty much all moral philosophy I know from any earlier time.
Diminishing sectarian hierarchy and placing the church above everything else is a clever strategy for an organization seeking to control your thoughts, your actions, your relationships, your financial obligations, and even your eternal fate.
You have to acknowledge that in our current time, atheism largely exists within christian societies. That's the basis for humanism and social justice and such. Before and after christianity you have master morality. The best thing I can say about atheist and prechristian societies is that they are "interesting".
You do realise morality is fundamentally logic and predates Christianity by a fair bit? Christianity has an extrapolation over the basic tenets and certainly didn't stick to most of them over the years, or today based on The Lord's Resistance Army...
Morality is not fundamentally logic, and the “fundamental tenets” are not universal but baey between moral systems, but, yes, it predates Christianity by quite a bit.
If the success of secular societies is attributed to their Christian roots, it raises the question of why nations with large, active Christian populations aren’t even more successful.
Perhaps the key isn’t Christianity itself, but rather the move away from any one religious framework.
By broadening our focus to the well-being of all citizens, guided by compassion and inclusivity rather than a singular religious authority, societies can foster more equitable systems.
This shift encourages diverse perspectives, evidence-based policymaking, and a shared commitment to improving everyone’s quality of life.
But you can also attack school teachers because your kid read a book you don't like. That will surely help.
> I can’t wait till we talk about Jesus and God in the same way we talk about Hades and Zeus.
> When societies cling too tightly to the faith traditions they’ve inherited—by accident of birth—they often impede critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance.
It's pretty clear he's talking about atheism.
And a secular state is definitionally a state without a state religion. Sweden and Norway both had state churches until very recently. A closely related country, Denmark, still has an official state church.
You can also look to Belarus, a secular state with a high rate of non-religiosity.
Such as:
> "Most important, there are the four Gospels, written in Greek some forty to sixty years after the Crucifixion is thought to have happened. These were composed somewhere far from Jerusalem, in a language that Jesus and his disciples would not have known, by writers who could not have been eyewitnesses.
The claim that Jesus and his disciples "would not have known" Greek is historically inaccurate. Greek was the lingua franca of the Eastern Roman Empire and commonly spoken in Galilee and Judea alongside Aramaic and Hebrew. Coins, inscriptions, and documents from the period confirm its widespread use.
And "writers who could not have been eyewitnesses"? Presumably this is referring to Mark and Luke only, because Matthew and John were two of the twelve apostles.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_Matthew#Author_and_d...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John#Authorship
Perhaps they are dismissing scholars who identify as Christian? That would be quite the catch-22.
To me, it is apparent that the data cannot support any clean division between two "sides", it tells a more complicated story about sometimes there was apostolic authorship, sometimes not, and sometimes we don't really know.
I would suggest that the real academic consensus is that we can confidently rule out the us-vs-them preoccupation that is common in lay discussion.
Specific to Bible Scholarship, I wager the two big sides are scholars who have faith (i.e., Nicene Creed) and scholars who have little. Bruce Metzger who had some faith, and Bart Ehrman who has none. RSV/ESV which says Jesus is the "Son of God" in Mark 1, and NRSVue which deletes "Son of God" from Mark 1.
It's quite a fault line.
Unreal.
The Origins of Early Christian Literature: Contextualizing the New Testament within Greco-Roman Literary Culture ( Preview pdf: https://robynfaithwalsh.com/content/files/2023/01/Walsh-OECL...)
She has a ton of content on youtube as well.
* the gospels were written in the 1st century
It is therefore entirely possible that they were written by eyewitnesses, even though many do not think they were written by some of the 12 disciples. The topic of 'eyewitnesses' is however hotly debated. See e.g. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Jesus-Eyewitnesses-Gospels-Eyewitne... which is pro this view but also plenty against.
Even John's gospel, which is often thought of as the latest, may well have been written very early; arguments for a late dating are almost wholly made in relation to the text itself (i.e. it has a 'higher' Christology) and not wider historical data.
Source: I am studying theology at Cambridge University in the UK and have heard several professors here debate these topics, plus I am familiar with the literature.
Some of the teachings of Jesus might be historical.
Depends on the Christians. My Catholic school teachers in Germany taught us what you write.
The "cool" youth pastor who was responsible for these events told us "the Gospel's authors are anonymous, their names are totally traditional". I never had the sense that this view was in any way heretical or contentious, even in a strain of Christianity that strongly emphasized the historicity of the Bible.
There's been this weird push to view the Bible like the Quran and the two really have nothing in common. The entire view on the book is wholly different.
The authorship of the Bible is actually not really important if you believe the claim of the Catholic/Orthodox church (who make the same claim)
The truth is we don't know who wrote the gospels. The evidence is that they are quite early (i.e. for Mark, consensus is late 60s so perhaps 30-40 years after Jesus' death). In fact, many scholars think 'Mark' was written by 'Mark Antony' who is mentioned in Acts. And John may have been written by a 'John the Elder' who is mentioned elsewhere. These are educated guesses though -- the evidence is circumstantial.
Okay, because y’all forgot? People purposely want to remake Sacred Scripture?
I mean, the Church knows who wrote them; Jesus, Mary and the Saints know; bishops and priests and the faithful knew for centuries.
Naming of Bible books isn’t about some guy holding a pen and making stuff up: the names speak to provenance, lineage, and perspective. Somewhat the same function as the “begat” passages everyone hates (because who can remember who all THOSE people were???)
If scholarship wants to move past that attribution and unmoor the books from tradition, then they can. Modern interpretations, perspectives, and hermeneutics are always in demand. But I confidently assure you that anyone who mattered was well aware of where those books came from and “who” had written them, notwithstanding meddlesome medieval monkey business.
When I read <u>A Man Called Ove</u> in English I was impressed over and over again with the writing. It made me wish I could understand Swedish to compare the original prose. I concluded that Henning Koch is an amazingly talented wordsmith. And it made me suspect that Fredrik Backman might also be one. Clearly, Backman is a very good writer. But I wonder if Koch is a better wordsmith. Sadly, I am unable to enjoy Backman in the original language. As it is, I credit Backman with great writing and Koch with great wording (probably inspired by Backman's great wording).
In a similar vein, the gospels have Jesus being baptized by John the Baptist in the Jordan. Various form of baptism were common among Jews at the time to purify themselves or cleanse them from sin. Why would the son of God need that? If Jesus was invented from scratch you would probably not include that story because it raises more questions than it answers.
Sure he would. Today we'd call James a strawman. A narrative fiction intended to argue against the author so that the author can pre-emptively debunk any argument from the actual audience. It makes a lot more sense if you consider the writing is intended to outlive the author. You have to present all possible arguments because there's no going back, republishing, or even talking to the audience.
You see strawmen like this a lot in scriptures. It's a pretty obvious tool when you think about it.
But I have no real reason to doubt James existing. The evidence I've seen is convincing enough that I don't doubt that a man named Jesus existed and did historic things. Whether he was a Messiah is a different question.
Always remember that the Bible is a collection of stories. It was intended to be passed down orally and to the illiterate. Oral histories are always dressed up. Either intentionally or mutated through the generations, the stories become more memorable over time, and thus more embellished. It is unwise to treat any religion's scripture as a literal, factual, historical document. They aren't, none of them are. They're all stories meant to teach lessons, and not a technical manual.
The Pharisees in the gospels are good examples of straw men, though.
It's apparent from Paul's letters that his audience knew who the leaders in Jerusalem were (James, Peter, John), and had contact with them or their followers. He is writing letters responding to some issue(s) a particular group is having. Such as whether Paul was a proper apostle like those who new Jesus when he was alive.
As such, there's no reason to think Paul could get away with creating a fictional leader and family member after Jesus's death. The people he's writing to would know better.
"Familiar tropes and myths" is perhaps something you'd consider as the 20/21 Century literary critic, but I'm not sure a bunch of mostly peasants writing in the 1st Century would be.
And it's not like they had anything to gain by writing and spreading about their beliefs: the early Christians were ostracized from their community(s) and persecuted. For the first ~300 years of the existence of Christianity there was probably little but trouble from believing in it, until roughly the conversion of Constantine (312) and later the Edict of Milan.
"Peasant" would exist on a spectrum: some think Luke was a physician and thus literate. Peter was a fisherman and probably illiterate, but it was certainly possible to dictate someone who could write.
Remember also that oral tradition was a thing as well in many societies:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40859393
I don't know why they put rabbi there. Jesus is later rejected by Jewish teachings and is probably considered heretical.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_views_on_Jesus
Although I really appreciate what Jesus adds to the religious stories as it opened it up to the world, in a sense of "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision).
John 1:38
> Then Jesus turned, and saw them following, and saith unto them, What seek ye? They said unto him, Rabbi, (which is to say, being interpreted, Master,) where dwellest thou?
John 3:2
> The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.
John 20:16
> Jesus saith unto her, Mary. She turned herself, and saith unto him, Rabboni; which is to say, Master.
It's worth noting that Messianic Judaism is an offshoot that holds that Jesus (Yeshua) was who he claimed. (While I'm not religious at this point in my life, my wife is a member of such a congregation)
As far as I understand it, the more formalized, institutional rabbinic structure came after the destruction of the second temple.
Judaism wasn't a monolith then and isn't now.
I’d call that a unique achievement in the history of rejections.
Had it not been for Paul of Tarsus, Christianity might still be considered one of many Jewish sects. (In early Christian times, the Romans referred to Christianity as a "Jewish superstition.")
> "everyone can be Christian" without the need for completely surplantting yourself with old laws and traditions (like circumcision)
This idea originates explicitly from Paul's teachings.
Often times people seek to argue by comparison: "we have less evidence Darius or Julius Caesar existed" type arguments about the primacy of contemporary eye witness accounts, distinct from eg economic and architectural evidence.
Fugitive Christians didn't have time to collate the "I was there" takes and now it's Analects.
Would it be? It's my experience of HN that these things are all grouped as Abrahamic mythology. Cult is quite a charged word but I would be surprised to see it flagged in this environment.
My vague understanding is that the idea that Christianity was significantly derived from local mystery cults was once taken seriously, but it's completely fallen out of favor and everything new we've discovered about the mystery cults has made the connections ever more tenuous.
And by "failed" I mean it seems clear from Matthew 24:34 that first generation Christians believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes (assuming that account is credible,) and such a belief is consistent with every other apocalyptic cult, Christian or otherwise. Like Seventh Day Adventists, Christians do keep kicking the can down the road, but just as the book of Revelations more likely refers to Nero Caesar and a belief at the time that he would return from the dead ("Nero Redivius[0]") than some future nuclear war where the "locusts" are really Apache helicopters[1], so Christian beliefs about the second coming should be assumed to apply their own cultural and temporal context, rather than some as yet unknown future millennia removed.
Obviously the cult as a whole has been very, very successful.
[0]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero_Redivivus
[1]I know people who believe this, and they'll claim it as evidence of the Bible's divine prophetic power.
In modern culture, it's often asserted the apocalypse has occurred any time someone doesn't get their way.
The verse where he tells his disciples that “this generation will not pass away until all these things take place” would seem to be at odds with that. A lot of Biblical canon is at odds with itself, the Bible doesn't have a singular coherent narrative. I'm just suggesting an interpretation which seems more likely than not.
Just look at history - almost every generation of Christians have believed the end times would occur within their lifetimes, or at least the near future. Why would only the first generation accept that, no, it would be some thousands of thousands of years in the future? That isn't the way these things tend to work.
I think thats close to a definition of insanity. Either move to the Aramaic, or Greek, or stop discussing the "literalism" of the words in question.
But fine. Since you brought it up, and since you bring up a fair point tell us your interpretation of the original Aramaic or Greek.
Because your reply presupposes the modern understanding is inherently sound because of an appeal to authority of the wisdom of times past. I would say instead by the time of the council of Nicea, things were already very political and the church was seeking to confirm words to suit the institution, not for their actual historical meaning. That was only 2-300 years after the record mind you.
There is quite the extensive record of first/second century apocalyptic literature, (some of it even became the NT). These preserve remarkably detailed pictures of what apocalyptic thinking looked like long before Nicea.
The main thing to say is the concept of apocalypse was much broader than today's. To your question, it did mean a revelation of relationship with god, and then it also meant an end-of-times sense, and it also was political commentary, and it was also a conspiracy theory, etc. People did not distinguish between which modern, narrower concept they meant, because they actually meant the broad concept.
Christians have a wide range of views on eschatology, but the mainstream position for a while has been amillennial, which are not the people who get freaked out about locusts and red cows and whatnot.
The way it came to be interpreted by the church is not necessarily the way it was meant to be interpreted by first generation Christians, so its presence in canon isn't evidence of any particular intent on the part of the author.
See also the additional New Testament citations I compiled in "Is Jesus Coming Again? The Predictors' Track Record Doesn't Inspire Confidence" [0]
(Some of the comments there are mildly amusing.)
[0] https://www.questioningchristian.com/2005/10/is_jesus_coming... (2005; self-cite)
I don't even know what to say. For the first thousand years or so, they didn't even teach their own scriptures to so-called Christians. They conducted mass in a language most didn't speak. Even now, the Vatican squirrels away who knows what down in some vault.
Yeh, in many places today it's not a mystery cult, if you ignore its origin, its history (and recent history at that), and nearly every other detail of consequence.
Indeed. They believe and that's that -- there's zero proof that would change their minds. I'm a non believer but would be willing to change my mind if there was compelling evidence.
Hitchen’s tried to hold this position by regurgitatation decade old counter arguments publicly and all he got attributed to him at the end was “hitch-slaps”.
Ah, there's the rub. What I want to "believe" is whatever truth shall be revealed to me. It's not like I want to not believe in God, I simply haven't been presented with compelling evidence to lead me there.
And as for other's, they should be able to believe whatever they want (but there's a catch). My only concern for what others believe is how that translates into real world outcomes. A prime example of this is that the current US Administration is Christian Nationalist and want to pass laws on their interpretation of scripture -- then that become mine and everybody else's business.
What most people seem to mean by this is, “If God himself came down in a column of fire, then I’d believe.”
Most folks can’t be bothered to actually dig into the real, ample evidence that exists. You like philosophical arguments? There’s philosophical arguments for it. You like astronomical or geologic arguments? There’s that too. Logic? Check.
There’s so much evidence for Christ, it’s basically the only logically consistent worldview. I know I’ll get downvoted to hell for saying that (heh) but it’s true. There is not another logically consistent worldview beyond Christianity.
Secondly, I'd like to know what you think is not logically consistent with atheism/evolution.
0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epicurean_paradox
Free Will as described in the Bible fully explains why and how a good, omnipotent God could allow evil. Perfect beings making imperfect choices isn't a contradiction, it's the very essence of free will. God valued authentic relationship over robotic obedience. Natural evils entered as consequences of this freedom exercised poorly, not as part of the original design.
Christianity doesn't just acknowledge this tension - it provides the complete framework to understand it: creation, fall, and redemption.
I’ll also go ahead and acknowledge that just because a being that exists outside of space and time knows something will happen, doesn’t CAUSE it to happen. So while our minds may not like the fact that God knew it would happen, it doesn’t mean he caused it to happen.
You wouldn’t forgo the joy and wonder of having a child simply because you knew one day they might scrape their knee.
By the way, a sincere thank you for engaging instead of downvoting out of disagreement. We need more of that!
Either perfect beings, including God, are capable of imperfect actions/decisions on some random whim, or they are not.
If they are, then the definition of perfection is meaningless.
If they are not, then God's creations were imperfect, which suggests that God also is imperfect.
> I’ll also go ahead and acknowledge that just because a being that exists outside of space and time knows something will happen, doesn’t CAUSE it to happen.
You're implying that an entity that has perfect foresight of the consequences of its actions is not responsible for those consequences.
I disagree.
> God valued authentic relationship over robotic obedience.
Robotic obedience is the only theoretical option for a relationship with a timeless entity who created the universe.
If God knows the outcomes of all universal starting conditions, then no outcome is less pre-determined than any other outcome.
> You wouldn’t forgo the joy and wonder of having a child simply because you knew one day they might scrape their knee.
Actually, I'm child-free because I don't think that the additional joy & wonder I might gain from raising a child would be worth the pain that they may experience or cause.
Also, you're welcome. ^^
Plenty of people cared then:
> 12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15 We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17 If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have died[e] in Christ have perished. 19 If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians...
And plenty of people care now:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus
This was directly addressed in 2 John 7
"I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world."
This struck me as a strange statement to not explain further. Plenty of Christians interpret Matthew 1:19 to mean Joseph was going to divorce Mary because he believed she was unfaithful.
> The consoling notion of divine impregnation was commonplace in the Hellenistic world, with countless tales of gods foisting demigods on virgins. Plutarch, for instance, described Rome’s founder Romulus as born to a divinely impregnated vestal virgin.
The later is true but it's strange to use Plutarch as an example considering that at best he would have been writing Parallel Lives at the same time the Gospels were being written.
> Those attributed to Jesus—described in language nearly identical to accounts of the Greek mystic and holy man Apollonius of Tyana, say—are neither more nor less convincing than others.
Well "Life of Apollonius of Tyana" was written in the early 200ADs, approximately 100 years after the last Gospel was written. Once again, the point may be correct but the example given is confusing cause and effect.
> A scholarly paradigm that has shone in recent years shifts the focus: the Gospels are now seen as literary constructions from the start. There were no rips in the fabric of memory, in this view, because there were no memories to mend—no foundational oral tradition beneath the narratives, only a lattice of tropes. The Gospel authors, far from being community leaders preserving oral sayings for largely illiterate followers, were highly literate members of a small, erudite upper crust, distant in experience, attitude, and geography from any Galilean peasant preachers.
That seems like an extraordinary claim to make. The Gospels were drawn from no oral tradition, really? So there was a complete disconnect between the practitioners of early Christianity, who obviously would have their own oral tradition, and the Gospels writers. And the early Christians then accepted the Gospels even though they had no relationship to their existing traditions? Or is the claim the Christianity didn't exist until the Gospels were created, in which case you have to contest with the Apocrypha and historical accounts of Jesus.
The simplest explanation seems to be that the Gospels drew from early Christian oral tradition and now lost writings. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels# for an explanation "now lost writings".
Today is not so different from 30AD; It's still by God's mercy that any are saved. This reconciliation is still offered today:
"The righteousness of God is through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe, since there is no distinction. For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God; they are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus." -- Romans 3:22-24 (CSB)
We're not done with Jesus because Christianity isn't a trend. This is God's rescue mission.
How then is God a just judge, if He both promises to judge evil and refrains from punishing those who are forgiven? Their punishment is poured out on Jesus instead. That's the Gospel. He died willingly so that they can have life. If you believe, this is for you too.
The problem isn't with the scriptures, it's with Christian interpretation of the scriptures. Anyone with any sort of knowledge of the Bible and the history of the people of the region knows that the god of the Bible was (a) part of a pantheon, (b) that was inherited from other cultures, and (c) evolved as time went on. That's not really up for debate with any serious students of history and religion.
The old testament biblical "God" at the time that Genesis was written was NOT perfect, and nobody believed him to be that way. That came later.
The Adam and Eve story just looked to tell a creation myth, and Genesis itself was cobbled together from multiple storytellers. It didn't say a single thing about damnation, which wouldn't even become a thing until Judea's hellenistic period.
So, nah. You seriously are out of your element here with all the blinders you've put up for yourself.
If you disbelieve the Abrahamic God, I then ask you, why would this be evil? What absolute set of values permits you to pass judgement on what is good or evil? If we're just all (un)happy random accidents, even actions that go against the rights of others can't be considered wholly evil. So what if something causes the suffering of humans? All of us, all of the people we know, everything the eye can see will simply vanish anyways after the heat death of the universe. So what is the absolute, unchanging and universal basis for calling something evil, allowing you to judge one's actions?
Now, if you do believe in Him, there's really no sense in trying to take our own warped sense of justice and apply it to God. He's the only one who has a complete understanding of every single thing that has happened and will happen, only He understands the reason for anything being the way it is. Try as we may, we'll never be able to see the big picture as He is able to.
But it seems empirically true that much of what we consider critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance has been handed down to us through societies that practice(d) inherited faith traditions. That is, even critical thinking, etc. that did not originate in a particular faith-clinging society has been preserved and nurtured through multiple other societies even when the interceding societies largely clung to inherited faith traditions different than the origin.
So perhaps faith-clinging societies can be inconsistently close-minded and open-minded at the same time. Rather human.
I do wonder if things went differently we'd be 1000 years ahead of where we are now.
Excerpt: "On the face of it, this shift suggests that people do think differently as they escape from poverty and insecurity... Perhaps. But at the moment, the WVS findings suggest this is not happening without obstacles and detours. If poorer countries were indeed converging with rich ones in terms of values, you would expect that they would be the ones where values are changing fastest, whereas the countries they are catching up with would be more stable. In fact the survey finds the opposite. Countries that are already the most secular and individualistic are changing fastest and becoming even more secular; those that are most traditional and clannish are changing less and sometimes becoming more traditional, not less."
Here it is: https://www.economist.com/interactive/international/2023/08/...
Archived page is less visually engaging without the interactive graphs but the analysis is still worth reading: https://archive.ph/rRx7s
And which countries have "secular foundations"? Anything in 'the West' would have Christian foundations:
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_WEIRDest_People_in_the_Wor...
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dominion_(Holland_book)
In the Middle East it would be Muslim, India would be Hindu. Perhaps you mean China, which historically tended to be be Confucian, which could perhaps be considered more of a philosophy than a religion? But modern China is (notionally) Marxist-Communist, which is materialist/atheistic in teaching, but born out of the Enlightenment, which is certainly Christian inspired.
The idea of secularism—a separation of Church/Temple/Mosque and State, and religion being a private affair—is itself a Christian/Protestant one.
* https://pragyata.com/secularism-as-a-colonial-project/
* https://www.jstor.org/stable/4417675
* https://research.flw.ugent.be/nl/projects/secularism-colonia...
I'm Danish, which while nominally Christian has been a fairly irreligious country for a few generations now, and it certainly seems to me that the less influence and visibility Christianity has had, the better off we've been. Most of the things that make this country a good place to live come from socialism/social democracy and feminism, whereas many strands of Christianity has mostly been a reactionary force (with some exceptions).
Well, the elimination of slavery, and development of human rights (every human is a 'child of God', whether king or peasant). Which is tied in with the concept of individualism:
* https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/27/inventing-indi...
The modern idea of science needed certain metaphysical assumptions that weren't really present in many other religions (and to the extent they were present in philosophy, aspects of said philosophy(s) were often mainstreamed by Christianity (e.g., Aristotle)):
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalism_(philosophy)#Provid...
* https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:God_the_Geometer.jpg
And where "science" (or what passed for it at the time) existed elsewhere, it often withered or was snuffed out; the invention of the telescope was transformational in Europe, but not so much in Muslim lands, Mughal India, or Imperial China:
* https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/intellectual-curiosity-...
Various legal forms were promulgated by the Church (including that the authorities themselves were not (notionally) above the law: not something you'll find with (e.g.) the Chinese Emperor), as were universities:
* https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/M/bo562094...
And if they were not due to Christianity, I'd say [citation needed] on how they developed otherwise. And more than developed, but became 'mainstream' thinking in many parts of the globe (though certainly not universally, as Chinese Uyghurs are experiencing).
Because people have free will,† and can choose to accept or ignore orthodox teaching.
This is especially true after Protestantism came about which caused a splintering into (tens of?) thousands of denominations,[1] rejecting even some tenets that were present since the beginning of Christianity (e.g., the Real Presence).
Whereas if you look at Catholicism (and Orthodox churches), they generally have consistent teachings going back to their beginning.
† Which of course some Christian denominations (and some modern materialists like Sapolsky) deny.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Christian_denomination...
I can understand that slavery goes against the 'child of God' philosophy, but there seems to be very little (none?) explicit condemnation of slavery in the bible and certainly there's been organised Christian religions for centuries before slavery was abolished.
To my mind, Christianity seems incidental to the abolition of slavery as it's only been relatively recently (18th century) that Christians condemned slavery rather than just wanting slaves to be treated well (and that they had to obey their masters).
Galatian 3 would be the key statement:
> 25 But now that faith has come, we are no longer subject to a disciplinarian, 26 for in Christ Jesus you are all children of God through faith. 27 As many of you as were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. 28 There is no longer Jew or Greek, there is no longer slave or free, there is no longer male and female; for all of you are one in Christ Jesus. 29 And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s offspring,[k] heirs according to the promise.
* https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians%203&v...
Slavery was often view as a 'natural evil' like famine or pestilence, of which we just had to live with, but it was never viewed as good; Basil of Caesarea (330-379 AD) for one took this view. His (biological) brother Gregory of Nyssa took the view that slavery was inherently sinful:
> If [man] is in the likeness of God, ... who is his buyer, tell me? Who is his seller? To God alone belongs this power; or rather, not even to God himself. [...] God would not therefore reduce the human race to slavery, since [God] himself, when we had been enslaved to sin, spontaneously recalled us to freedom. But if God does not enslave what is free, who is he that sets his own power above God's?
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_of_Nyssa#Slavery
So right from very early times there was a strong anti-slavery leaning and desire in Christianity. The above referenced book Inventing the Individual goes through the history of constantly increasing individual freedom starting in the late-Roman period:
> His thesis is simple: the origin of secular liberalism, - conceived of as the intellectual current and attitude that puts the individual at the centre, as a unique acting object and as fundamentally equal to other individuals -, its origins don’t lie in the Renaissance or the Enlightenment, but much earlier, in medieval Christianity. "Secularism is Christianity's greatest gift to the world", he states. Christianity, through Paul and Augustine, put the freedom and equality of the acting man first, in contrast to ancient Antiquity, where inequality determined the character of society and each individual found its place in a certain, natural hierarchy. It took centuries for Christian intellectuals to focus on freedom and equality in their thinking and to make it a natural starting point for people and society. The major breakthrough took place between the 12th and 14th century, in the high Middle Ages. That is the central thesis of this book.
* https://www.hup.harvard.edu/books/9780674979888
* https://literaryreview.co.uk/jesus-will-set-you-free
* https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/jan/27/inventing-indi...
Almost all Muslim Pakistanis and Christian Indians somehow trace their family tree back to Middle East during the time period of their prophets. Many times it is obvious that even if they have any middle eastern DNA, it is negligible compared to rest of it. Why not learn about your ancestors who were not of same religion as you.
And why stop at 1400 or 2000 years back. Why not trace it further back.
And in the west, with superiority complex of European culture, many serious Christians get absolutely confused when you tell them that it is amazing how a middle eastern religion took over the entire Europe and the west. Some people even deny that Christianity is middle eastern.
Many atheists make this claim but I've never met one of these Christians in my life. At least in my experience Judaism and Middle Eastern history were taught as part of my religious tutoring.
Not really that many. Basically only some Nazi "christians" and they are not a thing anymore.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_Christians_(movement)
https://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/newpix/2018/03/23/15/4A789846000...
If you believe a particular group is inherently superior and that anyone can join it simply by following arbitrary rules, then our discussion ends here. Such a view indicates an unwillingness to seriously consider broader philosophical questions.
It seems to me that the rise of woke ideology is an attempt to replace a religion sized hole in the fabric of society.
That objection aside, Europe is well below replacement birth rates. Should that continue, it will be replaced by cultures which reproduce. Is religion required for that? Maybe
It's a noble goal and idea in theory, but put into practice it causes great misery and poverty.
Because fundamentally it's at odds with reality. People are not equal, and do not bring equal value to the table. For a system of organizing a society and economy to be successful, it has to acknowledge that and empower the out-performers, who then pull everyone else along for the ride.
How you go from a society that focuses on the common good to communism is beyond me. One is a moral goal, the other is a form of government. Most Christians in this thread boast that they are somehow morally superior. I guess not.
> It's a noble goal and idea in theory, but put into practice it causes great misery and poverty.
Again. The secular countries are all doing much better than the USA and that gap is getting wider rapidly. Why are you denying obvious truths?
> Because fundamentally it's at odds with reality. People are not equal.
Ah. There you have it. You somehow feel superior to the people around you and think that if we take care of "underperformers", it somehow disadvantages you.
I just argue that we should take care of people who aren't able to bring value to the table (anymore). And that is a net benefit to society. Less crime, less suffering, better life expectancy, more social mobility. Basically every index where the US is underperforming, reflects societal efforts to care about the poor.
Again. Where are your superior christian morals?
> For a system of organizing a society and economy to be successful, it has to acknowledge that and empower the out-performers, who then pull everyone else along for the ride.
Nothing about a secular government is incompatible with capitalism, as long as the government takes their job as a regulator seriously, which hasn't been the case in the US for a long time.
But other countries do way better. Deal with it.
Jesus is fundamentally interesting because the moral teachings of the cult in his name have persisted as the dominant state morality for European societies for about a millennium and a half since Julian the apostate’s death to the present day.
Even Marx owes a huge amount of his philosophy to Owenite socialism and Christianity. The teachings of Jesus turn ideas of power on their head.
> There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus
This idea is so deeply ingrained in western morality at this point that most cannot even see it but Christianity is the bottleneck through which all egalitarianist thought in the west has passed through.
You talk about faith impeding critical thinking while in the same paragraph talk about secularism as though it arose out of nothing.
The moral philosophy of the earliest of christians is profound and is the foundation of everything good in western society. The fanatical purism and reaction in what followed is instructive in terms of the cruelty that can exist in people professing empathy and the pitfalls of expecting a state to somehow act morally.
If we are talking about Jesus the same way we are talking about Zeus it will be the end of history there will be because there is no power in the idea that everyone is equal.
Like any moral philosophy professed Christianity has it's flaws, is professed by many a hypocrite, and worn as a cover for many a wicked person but its message on equality goes further than pretty much all moral philosophy I know from any earlier time.
Boy, oh boy, did that backfire!
Ah yeah, so long as we disregard a lot of history both within and outside of Islamic societies this is true.
Huge waves of conquests, the jizya. These are all coercive as any Christian state act.
As for separation of religion and public policy, it is difficult when one is designed to parasitically attach itself to the other.
Perhaps the key isn’t Christianity itself, but rather the move away from any one religious framework.
By broadening our focus to the well-being of all citizens, guided by compassion and inclusivity rather than a singular religious authority, societies can foster more equitable systems.
This shift encourages diverse perspectives, evidence-based policymaking, and a shared commitment to improving everyone’s quality of life.
But you can also attack school teachers because your kid read a book you don't like. That will surely help.
> When societies cling too tightly to the faith traditions they’ve inherited—by accident of birth—they often impede critical thinking, open inquiry, and evidence-based governance.
It's pretty clear he's talking about atheism.
And a secular state is definitionally a state without a state religion. Sweden and Norway both had state churches until very recently. A closely related country, Denmark, still has an official state church.
You can also look to Belarus, a secular state with a high rate of non-religiosity.
and they claimed that secularism led to better social outcomes.
This enables us to talk freely about religious belief and to educate our kids on how they have been exploited by many factions over the years.
It doesn't limit your own spirituality. It also doesn't hand the keys to the country to one specific group of people.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/happiest-...
Only 1 of the top 5 countries in this list have neither blasphemy laws or a state church. 2 of them have both.