Christianity is not defined solely by the Bible

[AmbiguousGuy]

From a literary standpoint, Luke reads more like ancient history of its time than it does like fiction of its time.

That's a fine personal opinion. Thanks for offering it.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

As you wish...

What I wish is that you might try to stick to our issue rather than making comments about my ignorance.

 

[fallingblood]

Well, OK, but I have no idea why you've made such an assertion. .

I did provide my argument against what you were saying. That is why I stated what I did. As for a vested interest, you'd have to prove that. Because if you read the scholarship, most Bible scholars do not take the Bible at face value. And that really shouldn't be held against them.

Yes, I'm aware that's the consensus. I was just wondering what date you personally accepted.

I accept the consensus. I might put it back a year or so, before the destruction of the temple, but that is still in the general time frame accepted by scholars.

Now let me ask you about the oral tradition. Jesus does not come down to us as a Jewish messiah but rather as one of the God-men so common in ancient story-telling. You know... born of a virgin, crucified, resurrected-after-3-days, etc. So why do you think a real man, living in Judea, would be presented in that way rather than as a Jewish messiah?

Jesus hardly resembles such a god-men. I cover the subject in much more detail here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/110449-jesus-mythical-god-men.html. Born of a virgin was not very common. Being crucified and resurrected after three days also is not common. Even the way Jesus is said to have been born is not similar to God-men. There was no physical union. So no, Jesus wasn't presented that way.

Paul presents Jesus as a Jewish Messiah. He is our first mention of Jesus. The Gospel writers also present Jesus as the Messiah. For instance, in Luke, Jesus is brought to the temple when one would expect him to be after he was born.

At least forty years after his supposed death, men sat down to pen stories about Jesus. And those stories contained fantastic claims about a guy whom they probably never had met. Why would you assume that such stories were non-fiction?

You have to understand that we are talking about an oral culture. Most information during that time was passed on orally. More so, we know that Paul, writing some 20 years later, also recognized Jesus and wrote about him in places. More so, we can assume he taught much more than what was in his letters, and this teaching would have contained information about Jesus.

It was not uncommon for oral tradition to pass on for many years without being written. That is what happens in a culture that is highly illiterate, and it is exactly what we would expect for Jesus; a peasant Jew in a marginal area of the Empire, speaking to other peasant Jews.

Most information during that time was written after the fact, and sometimes long after the fact. That was part of being in an oral culture. Even with Alexander the Great, the information we know about him comes long after his death.

Again, that is part of being in an oral culture. Oral tradition prevailed. It was only later, when the Jesus-movement started including the literate (primarily the upper class), that people really started writing down the oral tradition (partially because there was then a need for it).

So why should we except that this isn't fiction even though it was written long after the fact? Because we are dealing with an oral tradition, which is what we would expect in an oral culture. This oral tradition goes back decades. As with any oral tradition, it did end up including some myth, and exaggerated stories (just read the early accounts of Alexander the Great and Augustus, both who were said to have been born of the union between a god and woman), yet they are still non-fiction (especially when one considers that during that time, it was thought to be completely possible for a god to impregnate an earthly woman and a great figure be born).

Another question: Why did they wait forty years? If Jesus was real, wouldn’t people have been writing about him during his actual life? Why did they wait at least forty years?

That is a very easy question. We are talking about a culture that was highly illiterate. We are talking about an oral culture. Why would they wait? Because the early followers couldn't write, and found no real reason to do such. We see the same to be true with countless other historical figures.

And yet more evidence for fiction than non-fiction. (Just a little fun counter-assertion to your assertion.)

Yet, unlike your assertion, I have backed mine up. You have shown absolutely no evidence that they were written as fiction.

My One Big Piece of Evidence: The existence of the synoptic gospels.

As I mentioned to you earlier, I write a little bit. Mostly fiction. And I have boxes in which I keep earlier manuscripts of the same story. If you examine those old manuscripts, you’ll see a thing which is unique to fiction-writing. You’ll see lines of text which are precisely the same as later versions of the same story. Like the synoptic gospels.

Here is where this part of the argument fails. We are not talking about one writer, as in your case. We are talking about 3 different authors. One who admits freely that he used other sources. Such a case is not unique in the ancient world. People used, and still use other sources in order to get the story. Just look at a text book. They rely on other sources, and will take sections from other sources (it is now the practice to cite everything, but it is still the same).

 

[fallingblood]

Now consider a different case, in which four eyewitnesses are recounting the same event. In the text of each witness, you won’t find strings of words which are precisely the same among all four texts.

We aren't talking about four eyewitnesses. Scholarship has long realized that the Gospels are written by later followers. So really, this point fails as it is being based on a misconception.

More so, in historical work, one that is using other sources, we would expect to find strings of words which are precisely the same among them. As later writers are using the early writers as sources, this is expected. And Luke even tells us clearly that he is using other sources.

The only times I’ve seen such exact text-tracking has been with fiction-writing and with plagiarism. In either case, it seems we must discard Matthew and Luke before we even begin to consider the larger argument. Yes? No?

No. To discard them because they plagiarized simply is ridiculous. They didn't cite their sources. Josephus, an ancient historian, didn't cite his sources quite frequently as well. However, you haven't show that any of this is fiction. You simply showed what scholars have long known, Matthew and Luke used Mark as one of their sources. That is all you have shown.

And, of course, John is theology – written years after the purported events. I can’t see how anyone could think of John as writing non-fiction.

So theology is fiction? All of the theological books I have on my shelf, are fiction? No. Also, John is not strictly theology. Yes, it is the most theologically motivated of the four Gospels, but we also see historical records throughout it as well.

So we’re left with Mark, aren’t we?

No, because you are discarding Gospels based on no logical reason.

I agree that Paul’s letters seemed non-fictional – although clearly theological. I think Paul created Christianity. He is the reason we have a god-man rather than a Jewish messiah. Since Paul never met Jesus, he was free to concoct him as he pleased... growing the story as he went.

Paul never portrayed Jesus as a god-man. In fact, he states that Jesus was born of a woman, according to the flesh (as in, nothing supernatural). What Paul tells us of Jesus, while Jesus was on earth, is nothing supernatural at all.

As for creating Christianity, no. Paul never uses the term Christian. Christianity is never used until the second century, long after Paul was dead. Paul was working in the Jesus movement, which was still a part of Judaism. Christianity and Judaism really didn't split until sometime after 70 C.E. And even then it was a slow split.

Finally, Paul may never have met Jesus, but he met the brother of Jesus (James). Thus, he had a great source for the life of Jesus.

Yes. As Bram Stoker built on the Dracula oral tradition. It happens all the time. Twain did the same with the Jumping Frog story.

Saying ridiculous things doesn't help your argument.

Well, you obviously have little reason. But maybe your position will begin to shift a bit as we examine the evidence and engage in rational argumentation.

Then show the evidence. I am using rational argumentation. I am basing my opinion on the scholarship on the subject. I am not a Christian, and thus, that doesn't influence my beliefs.

Synoptic gospels. Tell me why you accept obvious revisions of the same text as eyewitness accounts. To me, it looks like special pleading – like you yourself may be a bit enslaved by the cultural respect for the Bible which I mentioned earlier. Do you accept other obvious revisions of the same story as independent eyewitness accounts?

What eyewitness accounts? The Gospels never portrayed themselves as eyewitness accounts. Luke specifically even states he is not an eyewitness, but instead that he is using other sources for his account. They only became eyewitness account decades after they were written. The majority of scholars do not see them as eyewitness accounts. And the Gospels, again, never make the argument that they are eyewitness accounts.

I'm not enslaved by a respect for the Bible. I have no problem pointing out contradictions in the Bible, or errors in the Bible. I have no problem calling it wrong on different accounts, or being composed of some forgeries.

Now, since we are not talking about revisions of independent eyewitness accounts (which again, Luke specifically states that he is using other sources (and thus not independent), and is not an eyewitness), but more close to ancient biographies, there is no problem with revision. I have on my shelf a dozen books on the life of Harry Houdini. Each one uses earlier sources, and revises them in order to show a more complete picture. Why? Because new sources become available and thus allows people to reexamine the previous sources.

What we are talking about is what is expected in work such as this.

Thanks for re-stating your opinion, but I'm pretty clear on your position already.

It is not uncommon for someone to sum up their argument. Instead of trying to make witty comments, you might want to provide some evidence for your position.

 

[sojourner]

It is obvious that you are unable to follow rational argumentation.

(Just kidding. I'm not really a nasty guy. But I do enjoy mirroring folks sometimes.)

I asked you a what-if question -- also called a hypothetical. May I ask it again?

If the novel "Dracula" had purported to be a recounting of actual events, you would believe that a real Dracula existed in the same way as you believe that a real Jesus existed?

If you don't like to extend your imagination so far as that, try Robin Hood. Do you believe in Robin Hood in the same way as you believe in Jesus?

There is a difference between the mythic Jesus and the historical Jesus. Which one did you have in mind?

 

[sojourner]

That's a fine personal opinion. Thanks for offering it.

Not opinion. Fact.

 

[sojourner]

What I wish is that you might try to stick to our issue rather than making comments about my ignorance.

Then get your terms straight before you use them, and you won't come off as ignorant.

 

[waitasec]

Ethiopia was never imperialized. Britain was imperialized later -- and there are small caches that never were. I think Xy would have survived in a different form, but would have remained closer to what it was intended to be.

ethiopia was clearly influenced in the same manner as britain...


"It began when Roman artisans and traders arriving in Britain spread the story of Jesus along with stories of their Pagan deities.

Christianity was just one cult amongst many, but unlike the cults of Rome, Christianity demanded exclusive allegiance from its followers. It was this intolerance of other gods, and its secrecy, which rattled the Roman authorities and led to repeated persecutions of Christians. Christians were forced to meet and worship in secret.

But a single religion with a single God appealed to the Roman Emperor Constantine. He saw that Christianity could be harnessed to unite his Empire and achieve military success. From 313 AD onwards, Christian worship was tolerated within the Roman Empire.

During the 4th Century, British Christianity became more visible but it had not yet won over the hearts and minds of the population. Pagan beliefs still abounded and Christianity was a minority faith.

It looked as if Paganism might again get the better of Christianity when, after the departure of the Romans, new invaders arrived: Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Yet somehow Christianity survived on the Western edges of Britain, even during the Dark Ages. Missionary activity continued in Wales and Ireland, and in Western Scotland Saint Columba helped to bring a distinctly Irish brand of Christianity to mainland Britain.

It could be argued that it was Augustine's famous mission in 597 AD from the Pope in Rome to King Aethelbert of Kent that really set up the future course of Christianity in Britain, creating a strong alliance between Christianity and Kingship."

BBC - Religions - Christianity: Christianity in Britain



"The adoption of Christianity in Ethiopia dates to the fourth-century reign of the Aksumite emperor Ezana. Aksum's geographic location, at the southernmost edge of the Hellenized Near East, was critical to its conversion and development. The kingdom was located along major international trade routes through the Red Sea between India and the Roman empire."
The story of Ezana's conversion has been reconstructed from several existing documents, the ecclesiastical histories of Rufinus and Socrates Scholasticus. Both recount how Frumentius, a youth from Tyre, was shipwrecked and sent to the court of Aksum. Frumentius sought out Christian Roman merchants, was converted, and later became the first bishop of Aksum. At the very least, this story suggests that Christianity was brought to Aksum via merchants. Ezana's decision to adopt Christianity was most likely influenced by his desire to solidify his trading relationship with the Roman empire. Christianity afforded the possibility of unifying the many diverse ethnic and linguistic peoples of the Aksumite kingdom, a goal of Ezana's leadership.


African Christianity in Ethiopia | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

 

[sojourner]

ethiopia was clearly influenced in the same manner as britain...


"It began when Roman artisans and traders arriving in Britain spread the story of Jesus along with stories of their Pagan deities.

Christianity was just one cult amongst many, but unlike the cults of Rome, Christianity demanded exclusive allegiance from its followers. It was this intolerance of other gods, and its secrecy, which rattled the Roman authorities and led to repeated persecutions of Christians. Christians were forced to meet and worship in secret.

But a single religion with a single God appealed to the Roman Emperor Constantine. He saw that Christianity could be harnessed to unite his Empire and achieve military success. From 313 AD onwards, Christian worship was tolerated within the Roman Empire.

During the 4th Century, British Christianity became more visible but it had not yet won over the hearts and minds of the population. Pagan beliefs still abounded and Christianity was a minority faith.

It looked as if Paganism might again get the better of Christianity when, after the departure of the Romans, new invaders arrived: Angles, Saxons and Jutes. Yet somehow Christianity survived on the Western edges of Britain, even during the Dark Ages. Missionary activity continued in Wales and Ireland, and in Western Scotland Saint Columba helped to bring a distinctly Irish brand of Christianity to mainland Britain.

It could be argued that it was Augustine's famous mission in 597 AD from the Pope in Rome to King Aethelbert of Kent that really set up the future course of Christianity in Britain, creating a strong alliance between Christianity and Kingship."

BBC - Religions - Christianity: Christianity in Britain



"The adoption of Christianity in Ethiopia dates to the fourth-century reign of the Aksumite emperor Ezana. Aksum's geographic location, at the southernmost edge of the Hellenized Near East, was critical to its conversion and development. The kingdom was located along major international trade routes through the Red Sea between India and the Roman empire."
The story of Ezana's conversion has been reconstructed from several existing documents, the ecclesiastical histories of Rufinus and Socrates Scholasticus. Both recount how Frumentius, a youth from Tyre, was shipwrecked and sent to the court of Aksum. Frumentius sought out Christian Roman merchants, was converted, and later became the first bishop of Aksum. At the very least, this story suggests that Christianity was brought to Aksum via merchants. Ezana's decision to adopt Christianity was most likely influenced by his desire to solidify his trading relationship with the Roman empire. Christianity afforded the possibility of unifying the many diverse ethnic and linguistic peoples of the Aksumite kingdom, a goal of Ezana's leadership.


African Christianity in Ethiopia | Thematic Essay | Heilbrunn Timeline of Art History | The Metropolitan Museum of Art

And your point with the diatribe would be...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not opinion. Fact.

That's funny -- not funny in a humorous way, but rather in a peculiar way.

You see, I was thinking that all of my comments are facts, while all of your comments are unsupported personal opinion.

Curious how people see things so differetly, don't you think?

 

[waitasec]

And your point with the diatribe would be...

can you verify that it would have survived had it not been for the fact it became an imperialized, standardized religion?

"Christianity demanded exclusive allegiance from its followers"
a pretty strong tool for emperors to use...
even in britain and ethiopia...


btw, it wasn't intended for you to take it as an attack....
:sorry1:

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then get your terms straight before you use them, and you won't come off as ignorant.

I should have guessed, I suppose, that Sojourner is the final arbiter of word meanings.

I've met very many such holders-of-the-true-meaning over the years, and did suspect you. But I try not to pre-judge.

Anyway, I'm glad it's out in the open now.

 

[Godwilling]

I'm ready to say that Christianity has little, if nothing to do with the Bible.

Reading the Bible, studying its origins, and comparing its content to the beliefs and practices of Christianity, it is hard to refute your statement.

I see a common thread between Catholicism, Anglicanism, Protestantism (with all its branches), the various forms of Orthodox Christianity, Nestorian Christianity, Coptic, Maronite, etc., but no connection between those and the Bible.

 

[sojourner]

"Christianity demanded exclusive allegiance from its followers"
a pretty strong tool for emperors to use...
even in britain and ethiopia...


btw, it wasn't intended for you to take it as an attack....
:sorry1:

Ok. I see where you're going with this now. It's big temptation (especially back then) to get involved politically, because that's where the power is. But Xy isn't about power. It's about liberating the powerless (and not through giving them political power). I think Xy would have survived as an underground movement. But it would look FAR different than it does today.

 

[sojourner]

I should have guessed, I suppose, that Sojourner is the final arbiter of word meanings.

I've met very many such holders-of-the-true-meaning over the years, and did suspect you. But I try not to pre-judge.

Anyway, I'm glad it's out in the open now.

Not the case at all. You're blowing smoke here to cover your own mistake. "Myth" is a literary term that is not synonymous with "fiction." In myth, truth is "writ large," and not always watered down to basic facts. There is a mythic Jesus that is patently incongruent with the historical Jesus.
But that doesn't mean that truth isn't conveyed by the mythic stories. Therefore, your use of the term "myth" is misleading, and indicates that you don't understand what it means in a literary sense -- even though your use of it was meant to convey understanding on your part.

Sorry. That's just the way it is.

 

[waitasec]

Ok. I see where you're going with this now. It's big temptation (especially back then) to get involved politically, because that's where the power is. But Xy isn't about power. It's about liberating the powerless (and not through giving them political power). I think Xy would have survived as an underground movement. But it would look FAR different than it does today.

well that is impossible to say...
but yes i do agree it would be (or not be) today...

in a way i think the enlightenment may have resurfaced the original intent of Xy...

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Because if you read the scholarship, most Bible scholars do not take the Bible at face value. And that really shouldn't be held against them.

But can you prove that most Bible scholars do not take the Bible at face value? That's all I'm asking... that you prove it. Could you at least try?

(Please note that I'm not asking for you assert, yet again, your own personal position on the question. I'm asking instead whether you can offer any evidence or prove your claim.)

Jesus hardly resembles such a god-men.

That's a fine personal opinion. My own opinion differs. I can offer you some reading resources if you're interested.

Paul presents Jesus as a Jewish Messiah. He is our first mention of Jesus. The Gospel writers also present Jesus as the Messiah. For instance, in Luke, Jesus is brought to the temple when one would expect him to be after he was born.

It looks like a mishmash to me. Sometimes he's the Jewish messiah. Sometimes he's the god-man. I certainly acknowledge that after the purported events, people worked hard to make Jesus into the Jewish messiah. But others worked to make him the god-man.

You have to understand that we are talking about an oral culture. Most information during that time was passed on orally.

Sure. Just like Dracula and the Jumping Frog. Just like the Exodus.

It was not uncommon for oral tradition to pass on for many years without being written. That is what happens in a culture that is highly illiterate, and it is exactly what we would expect for Jesus; a peasant Jew in a marginal area of the Empire, speaking to other peasant Jews.

And every time it's told, it grows. Yes. Until after a few years, the original events are so contorted that it's really little use trying to sort them out.

Well, unless the cultural meme has already possessed a person, I mean.

Again, that is part of being in an oral culture. Oral tradition prevailed. It was only later, when the Jesus-movement started including the literate (primarily the upper class), that people really started writing down the oral tradition (partially because there was then a need for it).

So you believe that first-century Jews in Judea were illiterate? If so, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about that. I'll do a little research if you disagree about it.

Yet, unlike your assertion, I have backed mine up. You have shown absolutely no evidence that they were written as fiction.

I know a Creationist who continually asserts that no evidence has ever been presented for the theory of evolution. It doesn't matter what I present to him, it is NOT evidence.

I think he would be wiser to assert that my evidence exists, but that it does not compell him personally to believe in evolution.

We are not talking about one writer, as in your case. We are talking about 3 different authors. One who admits freely that he used other sources.

OK. I now accept that you reject the idea of eyewitnesses to the life of Jesus.

Instead, you believe that guys sat down years after the purported events, knowing nothing personally of those events, and embellished earlier texts which claimed to tell the Jesus Story?

Well, it's a happy day, then, since that's just what I believe. I see gospel writing as a competition during that time -- as a sort of cottage industry, like making sacred shrouds would become in medieval Europe.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Not the case at all. You're blowing smoke here to cover your own mistake.

Goodness. Are we having fun now -- or what!

"Myth" is a literary term that is not synonymous with "fiction." In myth, truth is "writ large," and not always watered down to basic facts. There is a mythic Jesus that is patently incongruent with the historical Jesus.
But that doesn't mean that truth isn't conveyed by the mythic stories. Therefore, your use of the term "myth" is misleading, and indicates that you don't understand what it means in a literary sense -- even though your use of it was meant to convey understanding on your part.

Unless you are very, very old, I knew all of that before you were born.

Can't you say something substantial to me? I can walk down to any street corner and be insulted by strangers.

So anyway, what mistake, specifically, do you believe that I've made in regards to the concept of 'myth'? Please quote the text which you believe contains it and explain why it is a mistake.

Or are you -- as we streetcorner insulters like to put it... just blowing smoke?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

We aren't talking about four eyewitnesses. Scholarship has long realized that the Gospels are written by later followers. So really, this point fails as it is being based on a misconception.

In my view, 'scholarship' can't realize anything. Only people can realize things. Now that I understand your personal view on (no) gospel eyewitnesses, I'll try not to argue that point again.

More so, in historical work, one that is using other sources, we would expect to find strings of words which are precisely the same among them. As later writers are using the early writers as sources, this is expected.

I wasn't aware of that. Could you give me some examples? I'd like to see examples of published books, purportedly by different authors, in which many matching strings of words appear. If you can show me that evidence, I might begin to change my position on this point.

However, you haven't show that any of this is fiction.

Well, you certainly haven't shown that any of this is non-fiction. (I'm ready to drop this assertion/counterassertion business any time you are.)

So theology is fiction? All of the theological books I have on my shelf, are fiction?

Of course theology is fiction. I'd be more likely to call it 'personal musings', but I'm pretty sure there's no hard evidence as to how many angels can actually dance on the head of a pin.

Paul never portrayed Jesus as a god-man. In fact, he states that Jesus was born of a woman, according to the flesh (as in, nothing supernatural). What Paul tells us of Jesus, while Jesus was on earth, is nothing supernatural at all.

OK, I didn't know that. So Paul didn't believe that Jesus was resurrected from the dead on the third day? Are you sure about that? I seem to remember that he pushed that point pretty hard, but I could be mistaken.

As for creating Christianity, no. Paul never uses the term Christian. Christianity is never used until the second century, long after Paul was dead.

Who said anything about Paul using the word 'Christian'? I certainly didn't. I just opined that Paul created Christianity. Not that it matters, but very many Biblical scholars agree with me on that. A majority of the secular ones would probably agree.

Finally, Paul may never have met Jesus, but he met the brother of Jesus (James). Thus, he had a great source for the life of Jesus.

I've heard that claim made, but I don't necessarily accept it. Sorry.

Saying ridiculous things doesn't help your argument.

You're starting to love me already, aren't you. Only my lovers talk to me that way.

I am not a Christian, and thus, that doesn't influence my beliefs.

If you'll forgive me, I'm not yet convinced of that. You are seeming to me like a person whom I would personally label as Christian. Certainly in the Christian corner. I've never met a self-labelled agnostic who speaks of Biblical things with your certainty.

I have on my shelf a dozen books on the life of Harry Houdini. Each one uses earlier sources, and revises them in order to show a more complete picture. Why? Because new sources become available and thus allows people to reexamine the previous sources.

Really? Would you mind giving me the titles? I'd like to examine them to find the parallel strings of text from one book to the next.

Can I have the titles?

 

[fallingblood]

But can you prove that most Bible scholars do not take the Bible at face value? That's all I'm asking... that you prove it. Could you at least try?

It really isn't hard to prove this at all. Just pick up any writing from mainstream scholarship. Pick up the New Jerome Bible Commentary. It is great Catholic scholarship, and throughout it, one can see that the Bible is not taken at face value. The Anchor Bible Dictionary, a great scholarly resource, composed of by many different scholars, also shows scholars not taking the Bible at face value. Mainstream seminaries teach their students not to take the Bible at face value. In fact, there is a joke that seminary is one of the atheists best tools. There is some truth in that, as seminary does have a tendency to destroy what one thinks about the Bible, and replace that with modern scholarship.

Taking any introductory class in college, for the most part, also teaches one not to take the Bible at face value. The official Catholic position, since Vatican II, is to even question the Bible, and study it more thoroughly.

All one has to do is read some mainstream scholarship, and you will quickly see that the scholarly consensus is that the Bible is not to be taken at face value.

That's a fine personal opinion. My own opinion differs. I can offer you some reading resources if you're interested.

If you read the link I posted, you will see that I have read different resources propounding your opinion. However, that opinion is simply wrong, as I showed in the link that I posted (which is part of a paper I wrote, and posted on this forum).

The fact is, in order to get Jesus into being a God-men, one has to make up sources, and make up accounts of Jesus that simply do not occur in the actual sources.

It looks like a mishmash to me. Sometimes he's the Jewish messiah. Sometimes he's the god-man. I certainly acknowledge that after the purported events, people worked hard to make Jesus into the Jewish messiah. But others worked to make him the god-man.

For Paul, he never describes Jesus as a god-man. Paul describes Jesus as a human, born of a woman. He was a Jewish man, who preached. He was the Messiah to Paul. Even the resurrection of Jesus is not simply unique according to Paul. It signaled the beginning of the general resurrection, which Jesus is only the first (but not unique).

As for being a god-man, Jesus contains very few similarities. In fact, one could make the same case for Augustus or Alexander the Great, who contain basically the same similarities.

Sure. Just like Dracula and the Jumping Frog. Just like the Exodus.

No. Neither Dracula or the Jumping Frog were produced in an oral culture. They did not rely simply on oral tradition. They may have gotten the idea from a previous story, but that is as far as it goes. It is similar to the inspiration to the Texas Chainsaw Murder. It is inspired very loosely on a previous story, of a man named Ed Gein. Now, if you read about Ed Gein, you will see that there are basically no similarities. The same is true for Dracula and the Jumping Frog. They were written as fiction, and sold as such. That is very different from the Gospel stories.

As for Exodus, that is a very different subject. Yes, the Gospels fit more closely to that; and both were written as histories (or with historical ideas being the basis of their writing).

And every time it's told, it grows. Yes. Until after a few years, the original events are so contorted that it's really little use trying to sort them out.

Well, unless the cultural meme has already possessed a person, I mean.

That is not how oral culture works. The stories, in an oral culture, can remain the same for centuries. Yes, there will be some differences; however, the gist remains the same.

So, in an oral culture, the oral tradition can remain nearly unchanged, or at least containing the gist of the original message for centuries.

So you believe that first-century Jews in Judea were illiterate? If so, I'm pretty sure you're mistaken about that. I'll do a little research if you disagree about it.

Yes, the majority of Jews in Judea were illiterate. Current estimates puts the literacy level, in Palestine, during the first century, around 1-3%. In ancient times, literacy was at most 10%, and that is talking about times such as ancient Athens.

Literacy was primarily reserved for the upper class. The reason being that the upper class had the money and time to afford to go to school and learn how to read and write. It was expensive, and time consuming. More so, there was little need for it. Generally, people did not read books. They were not mass produced, and were quite expensive. For the most part, they were read out loud.

More so, being literate, during that time, did not mean one could read and write. Even fewer people could write during that time.

I know a Creationist who continually asserts that no evidence has ever been presented for the theory of evolution. It doesn't matter what I present to him, it is NOT evidence.

I think he would be wiser to assert that my evidence exists, but that it does not compell him personally to believe in evolution.

You haven't presented any evidence that would prove your point correct. The very little evidence you have provided has been shown to be incorrect. And that really is a very small amount of evidence.

If you provide evidence, I'd be happy to recognize that, and then discuss it. However, you have yet to do that.

Instead, you believe that guys sat down years after the purported events, knowing nothing personally of those events, and embellished earlier texts which claimed to tell the Jesus Story?

You need to understand how an oral tradition works. You need to understand that we are dealing with an oral culture, that little is actually written down.

Well, it's a happy day, then, since that's just what I believe. I see gospel writing as a competition during that time -- as a sort of cottage industry, like making sacred shrouds would become in medieval Europe.

Except we are talking about an oral culture, where most people couldn't read. And really, no one was buying these books. Why? Because most people couldn't read, and buying books was not done by many. They were expensive, and not mass produced, as they couldn't be.

There is no evidence to suggest that they were being created as some sort of cottage industry. Why would they if they were not something that could make money? It was expensive to produce books, especially books people weren't going to buy. Instead, they were read out loud, and that is what the Gospels were written for.