Latest British Social Survey finds 52% of the Country are non Religious

[Gofer Blue]

Only my (admittedly layman's) understanding of biology. Perhaps he was unconscious/presumed dead after his crucifixion, and spluttered into life a couple of days later before succumbing to his injuries/ascending to heaven, but then he wouldn't be dead and therefore not rising from the dead, and that's not as enticing a tale.

I had a google though and have bookmarked a couple of articles to look at later but even in a cursory search one sees there are a number of theories and doubts about the resurrection story alone. I suspect it would just come down to wanting to believe, wanting a faith, and that's fine if that's what people are looking for for themselves, but all that does is return to my question of why seek a faith in the first place.

Have a read of "Who moved the stone" by Frank Morrison. IIRC he covers the "swoon" theory pretty well, as well as other similar theories like Jesus had an identical twin brother who was happily crucified in his place.

[Rjk]

Have a read of "Who moved the stone" by Frank Morrison. IIRC he covers the "swoon" theory pretty well, as well as other similar theories like Jesus had an identical twin brother who was happily crucified in his place.

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

[jon1959]

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

Sounds about right.

[Rjk]

Sounds about right.

I also find the theory interesting that Jesus was actually the same person as Jesus Barrabus - a insurrectionist against the Roman occupation. Barrabus meaning "son of the father". He could well have been a freedom fighter of sorts but this aspect of his history has been expunged by people wanting to hold him up to be the pure son of god a long time after he died.

[jon1959]

I also find the theory interesting that Jesus was actually the same person as Jesus Barrabus - a insurrectionist against the Roman occupation. Barrabus meaning "son of the father". He could well have been a freedom fighter of sorts but this aspect of his history has been expunged by people wanting to hold him up to be the pure son of god a long time after he died.

An insurrectionist or a collaborationist.... 'Render unto Caesar....' Or just a very naughty boy!

[Taunton Blue Genie]

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

The Jews, Christians and Muslims perceive his role as rather different though, don't they? Son of God or not son of God? One component of The Holy Trinity and with God and Jesus effectively being the same entity or not? Tis nothing more than very interesting folklore. Many Abrahamist stories were lifted from previous religions and, in turn, the Christians, Jews, Mormons et al added their own layers at later stages. Some believers consider the Garden of Eden story as being absolutely true and others consider it to be allegorical. Almost every believer adheres to the religion they are exposed to as a child regardless of when and where they were born.
There's no evidence that could convince a person to believe in these stories and it's all about indoctrination and gullibility.
And it's hugely ironic that the Almighty chose to make his presence on Earth two thousand years ago and gave recent centuries a miss when world wars were taking place and millions of his believers were being sent to the gas chambers. He was obviously content with his representatives turning water into wine (Jesus), creating a hillock from whence a speech could be made (St David) and walking in the air, (Ja'far ibn Abi Talib), appearance of clothing when required (Zacharius) etc.
It's no coincidence that these relgions were formed at a time when the average person was illiterate and had no or little understanding of science as we know it today. Many natural features and events can be explained today and intelligent people know that we don't know it all. To think that invented stories from thousands of years ago (and which were often versions of previous ones) is quite amusing. Religion is fascinating mythology, that's all.

[Gofer Blue]

Or how about the theory that Jesus was a real man from the middle east, who was a reformer fighting against corruption in the theocracy he was living in, until they had him killed. His popularity remained and his story was embellished, so that by 100 years after his death all the magic parts were added to the story, like him rising from the dead, curing the sick etc. to perpetuate the following by people who stood to benefit from it.

I've noticed that this theory often comes up. Please explain who were these people who "stood to benefit" in the early days of the Christian church? The early Christians were persecuted and martyred for their faith - not exactly a benefit I'd have thought! And yet Christianity flourished despite all attempts to strangle it at birth.