Why I Lost My Christian Faith (Jerusalem, Judaism, golden rule, theology)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because Jesus is one of the best attested historical figures of that time period.
That's a blatant lie and I am astonished that Christians are able to get away with this lie repeatedly just like they're able to get away with the lie that "All the apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus".
There's not a single word from the 1st century outside the Bible for Jesus or the apostles. It's like saying Harry Potter is the most attested figure in 21st Century history because we have seven books about him!!!
Last edited by thrillobyte; 02-27-2019 at 09:58 AM..
So we're throwing away the gospels and Paul's writings, ignoring that these amount to more documentation on Jesus than we have on most figures of ancient times... why?
I am rather on your side, here. I DO regard Paul, first, and then the gospels, as reasons to think that a Jesus existed and in fact did a lot of what the gospels say.
I am aware of those who point to a lack of any real historical support for Jesus when one should surely expect some mention. It is possible to explain it away in mythicist terms. You could even explain away Paul and the apostles in that way, though it is a bit of a stretch.
e.g the rising expectation of the last days and a coming messiah together with those who had already come and gone could have led to the idea of a messiah who had failed but would come again. Paul could very well have invented the whole 'Believe in the messiah and you will be saved' theory (worked out in Romans) that had little to do with the beliefs of the Jewish disciples. Jeshua perhaps could have been borrowed from the OT as a messianic expectation. The graphic details of the temple and crucifixion being derived from the Jewish war - there is no solid reason to prove that the gospel -story predated the Jewish war.
And yet I'm not sure. Pilate, Caiaphas, Antipas. The historical details are in place. Even the Baptist, Aretas and the Nabateans, the Famine. Historically it is spot on. There is no way that Josephus (or even Philo) should have overlooked the Temple business, if it was true, since it was at a festival would mean that Jesus had to stand off near 1,000 Roman soldiers. Ok - say that it never happened, but then why are the gospels trying to water it down so much? Why it it not even considered as a charge at the trial when Pilate would have know about it and not have needed Jewish input to convict Jesus of messianic rebellion - which effectively was the actual charge.
It's why I think Jesus was real and so was Paul. But I get the Mythicist argument.
That's blatant lie and I am astonished that Christians are able to get away this lie repeatedly just like they're able to get away with the lie that "All the apostles were willing to die for their faith in Jesus".
Well you know how popular 'lying for Jesus' is amongst Christians.
I am rather on your side, here. I DO regard Paul, first, and then the gospels, as reasons to think that a Jesus existed and in fact did a lot of what the gospels say.
It's why I think Jesus was real and so was Paul. But I get the Mythicist argument.
Here's your problem with this, Trans: how do you know the epistles were written in the 1st century? We haven't a single scrap of manuscript from the epistles that date to the 1st century when they were purportedly written. We haven't a single mention of Paul in the 1st Century. Everything we have to support the existence of the New Testament originates from the 2nd Century at the earliest and possibly later. There is ample evidence to believe it was Marcion who wrote the epistles.
None but theologians accept that YOUR Jesus existed...that would be bibleJesus. Why don't you give us a list of credible non-theologian historians that say YOUR Jesus existed. Not Jesus the itinerant rebel rabbi executed and stayed dead but 'Jesus The Christ', divine son of the Hebrew war god Yahweh. executed and returned to life after three days...that one.
If attributing magical or religious attributes to heroes is disqualifying as a historical record then the record of Alexander taming the magical Bellerophon as the Son of God (Zeus) written some 400 years AFTER his death must be disqualified too. Heroes were routinely glorified with hyperbole and embellishment.
If attributing magical or religious attributes to heroes is disqualifying as a historical record then the record of Alexander taming the magical Bellerophon as the Son of God (Zeus) written some 400 years AFTER his death must be disqualified too. Heroes were routinely glorified with hyperbole and embellishment.
Waffle! Explain why no scholars/historians except theologians accept that bibleJesus existed. I'm more than happy to accept that many historians accept that 'historical' Jesus existed although goodness knows why, given that those same people willingly admit that there is absolutely no verifiable evidence to support their consensus. So now you hand over the non-theologian historians that believe that BibleJesus existed.
If attributing magical or religious attributes to heroes is disqualifying as a historical record then the record of Alexander taming the magical Bellerophon as the Son of God (Zeus) written some 400 years AFTER his death must be disqualified too. Heroes were routinely glorified with hyperbole and embellishment.
EXACTLY! Who today believes the story of Alexander and the Bellerophon? They classify it as myth, the same as they should classify the stories of Jesus raising Jarius' daughter and Lazarus as myth. If you want to leave in all the natural stuff Jesus did--arguing with the Pharisees and preaching to his disciple, fine. But leave out all the supernatural stuff. It just didn't happen. It was made up to turn the man Jesus into a god because pagans who were converting to Christianity demanded a god they could worship like they did in their old religion. The churchmen were only too happy to give one to them if they would join Christianity. That's how Jesus became a mascot/avatar for Christianity a few hundred years later.
EXACTLY! Who today believes the story of Alexander and the Bellerophon? They classify it as myth, the same as they should classify the stories of Jesus raising Jarius' daughter and Lazarus as myth. If you want to leave in all the natural stuff Jesus did--arguing with the Pharisees and preaching to his disciple, fine. But leave out all the supernatural stuff. It just didn't happen. It was made up to turn the man Jesus into a god because pagans who were converting to Christianity demanded a god they could worship like they did in their old religion. The churchmen were only too happy to give one to them if they would join Christianity. That's how Jesus became a mascot/avatar for Christianity a few hundred years later.
Exactly!
The evolution from man to god.
Paul make no mention of a virgin birth, raising the dead or walking on water kinds of miracles. A little healing but no big "WOW" except the resurrection. The next earliest source, Mark, adds a few miracles but no virgin birth and no raising people from the dead. Matthew has a virgin birth and even more miracles. Luke adds to the virgin birth and presents a slightly more miraculous being. John takes it another step by making Jesus the son of a god, raising Lazarus and generally being more spirit than human. The later the source the more fantastic the reports.
- Jesus dies.
- Paul adds resurrection.
- Matthew/Luke add virgin birth.
- John makes him a god.
EXACTLY! Who today believes the story of Alexander and the Bellerophon? They classify it as myth, the same as they should classify the stories of Jesus raising Jarius' daughter and Lazarus as myth. If you want to leave in all the natural stuff Jesus did--arguing with the Pharisees and preaching to his disciple, fine. But leave out all the supernatural stuff. It just didn't happen. It was made up to turn the man Jesus into a god because pagans who were converting to Christianity demanded a god they could worship like they did in their old religion. The churchmen were only too happy to give one to them if they would join Christianity. That's how Jesus became a mascot/avatar for Christianity a few hundred years later.
Then explain to me why the entire history of Alexander is not dismissed the way Jesus is???
Then explain to me why the entire history of Alexander is not dismissed the way Jesus is???
...because Alexander was a real person that did real things.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
