I couldn't agree with you more! I am curious when you act, talk, and write TraderZones do you ask yourself how Jesus would act, talk, or write in this situation or how Torquemada, "the hammer of heretics," would act, talk, or write in this situation?
You acted you could say that Jesus was not a historical figure and yet you could state that Paul was the start of Christianity. Being that historical records from the time were scarce I wondered if you saw the logical flaw. Now I see you enjoy speculation about the Jewish religion at the time and you like to cite to partial records and biased sources. Your point seems to be the Jews would not accept a divine Messiah. You seem to lack a historical understand of the time and the Jewish testament. From chapter one - God refers to himself as WE. The famous cry in the old testament Hear all Isreal the Lord God is One. Is the Isreals proclaimation of a coming divine messiah - even if they did not know it. You can check the argument but the word used for "One" is the is the hebrew word for a compound unity. It is used that way in other places in the bible - for instance when branch is grafted to a tree. You have your speculations about what it meant to be a jew - I quote their bible. I can also tell you that older copies of their bible arguably le predict the coming of a divine messiah. However so of the books in the Jewish bible in the times before Jewish are no longer in the Jewish bible. There is a raging debate on this subject on the internet. The bottom lines is some Jewish communites had those other books in the bible. Which is the bible used by Catholics. Plus Isiah has been altered. Finally - it is conceded that Eusebius or someone else may have augmented the historical record of Josepheus in some of the historical record. However multiple copies have been found. And scholars almost universal state that Joesphues does record the existence of Jesus and Christian in multiple passages. It is also accepted that the sentence referring to his divinity was probably a fraud. But, note Joespheus reference to the Christian community is virtually unchallenged. In short - there are scarce records of the times. One of the best does reference Jesus. So Jesus was probably a historical figure. And your speculations regarding Paul creating Christianity out of nothing are unsupported speculations and the speculations could never be supported because we have such a scant record. Which is pretty much why I challenged your statement. Whether I believe or not is off point. The point was you have no basis for your speculation.
I was editing when this edit was locked out. It is a toned down a little and perhaps more clear. You sort of said Jesus was not likely a historical figure and yet you could state that Paul was the start of Christianity. Being that historical records from the time were scarce I wondered if you saw the flaw in your statement. I still ask how could you know much about the very early church? I see you enjoy speculation about the Jewish religion at the time. Did you take into account all the different sects at the time? Your point seems to be the Jews would not accept or expect a divine Messiah. You seem to lack an understanding of the time and the Jewish testament. Some Jews were awaiting a Messiah and some were expecting a divine Messiah. From chapter one of the "Old" testament- God refers to himself as WE. The famous cry in the old testament... "Hear all Isreal the Lord God is One." Do you know the definition of that word "one'? You can check the argument but the word used for "One" is the is the hebrew word for a compound unity. It is used that way in other places in the bible - for instance when branch is grafted to a tree. Now were you also aware of the fact that there have either been revisions to the Jewish bible or at least disputes as to which books were in the bible prior to Christ. Would it surprise you that some of the predictions of the divine messiah were in those books which are no longer in the Jewish bible. You may also wish to learn about the alterations to Isaiah. regarding Joesepheus. Why would use such a slanted argument. Were you aware that scholars almost universally agree the statements about Jesus divinity were added to the record, but that there were original references to Jesus and Christians. Note Josepheus reference to the Christian community is virtually unchallenged. In short - there are scarce records of the times. One of the best does reference Jesus. So Jesus was probably a historical figure. And your speculations regarding Paul creating Christianity out of nothing are simply not supported by the scarce records we have of the time. Which is pretty much why I challenged your statement. Whether I believe in Christ or not is off point. The point was you have no basis for your speculation. And I simply questioned your sources.
The short answer to the topic is in my opinion that science should make all religion obsolete. However, as we all know is very obvious - learning religion is A LOT easier than learning science. Traditionally in older times, old women would try to hold their status in a family by talking about tales of ghosts, supernatural wonders and other scary stuff and try to keep the respect from children and young ones. Religion has almost always had a political position - and in some countries this is more expressed than in others - although most countries have some sort of religious party participating in politics. Taking into regard the need for people without real contribution having the need for feeling respected, they will continue preaching religion - and continuing traditions - some will make professions out of the old stories. When we go beyond religion we start understanding philosophy - and we are onto science again. Very few religious zealots are capable of taking part in serious philosophy discussion for various reasons, although there are philosophical consequences to the various belief systems. This transforms the blind beliefs into more rational ramifications without all the story-fluff. Religion is stupid and desperately lost people's way to "find a system in the madness". Thus it has some function, but maybe some day we can bring people to a better educated levels so that they can shed the old shackles. Oh, and Jesus was a historical person without much doubt. However, there were so many competing "messiahses" at the time, that the whole idea and political rat-race at the time becomes very obvious. Look at www.livius.org for objective looks at ancient history in that region and elsewhere - free from the religious fanaticism.
If it were true that science would make belief in God obsolete, then it would necessarily follow that elimination of science, or non existence of science would make belief in God valid. That of course is a logical fallacy, science has not invalidated belief in God nor made belief in God obsolete, but then the atheists aren't ever really very interested in logical consistency in defending their atheism and their own belief systems. Science has become the religion of the atheists, the dogma of the atheists, and scientists have become for the atheists the apostles of science...consequently the argument of using science to make belief in God obsolete is presented in scientific terms...thus making for a completely circular argument.