outhouse
Atheistically
Because it is factual.
We are dealing with 98% to 95% illiteracy rates. People couldnt read. Their culture was factually steeped in oral traditions.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Could Jesus Have Been Simply a Fraud?
- Thread starter The Sum of Awe
- Start date
Because it is factual.
We are dealing with 98% to 95% illiteracy rates. People couldnt read. Their culture was factually steeped in oral traditions.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Really?
What's funny is, no one back then really even questioned the killing of all those babies ordered by Herod when this Jesus was supposedly born in Bethlehem, even his enemies didn't say this was fiction.
And no one questioned that a bunch of other people rose from their graves at the same time. So it must be so, I guess.
Where are you getting that from? Oh, from the Bible, of course.
By the way, we really can't be sure that Paul even existed since we have no eyewitness accounts of him and all of his amazing exploits, either. Probably not:
Demythologizing Christianity's Most Cherished Moment: Nero and the Christians, Part One
Who?
Last edited:
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
So claiming that Jesus had no physical body isn't the same as claiming that Jesus didn't exist?
Whatever, man.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Unless Paul didn't really persecute them.
That's nothing. I know a woman RIGHT NOW who would rather die than denounce Christ.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Even factual.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
If it's factual, then it is factual. That's all I've got to say about that.
outhouse
Atheistically
Really?
It is not completely different?
Arguing if he existed OR what he was made of?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
If Jesus was made of cloudstuff -- immaterial, spiritural, invisible, untestable -- then I could not possibly argue against his existence.
Same with unicorns. If they have no physical bodies, then I have no time to even engage the debate over their existence.
outhouse
Atheistically
Where are you getting that from? Oh, from the Bible, of course.
Probably not:
Demythologizing Christianity's Most Cherished Moment: Nero and the Christians, Part One
Who?
The link you supplied carries no credibility regarding Nero.
And Paul tells us himself he persecuted the early sect. And pauls historicity is not in question at all.
outhouse
Atheistically
Your missing the point. They are still making the claim a man named Jesus walked around and did what was stated in scripture. They only believed he was more god then man. They believed he had walked the earth though.
outhouse
Atheistically
Ya you know how illiterate people were always reading to one another.
psychoslice
Veteran Member
Well that is how I feel, and to me its no big deal if he existed or not, I can be a good person without believing in him, my life is also happy without needing to believe in him, yes I just don't need to believe in him, so if he lived or not I don't really care.
Oh, because it's not a Wikipedia link? Because it's not an "authority" who agrees with you?
So the Bible is a history book when it suits your argument, but not at times when it doesn't?
Let me guess, you think that "Matthew", "Mark", "Luke" and "John" were all necessarily real people who wrote the books bearing their names, right? They said that Jesus walked on water and raised dead people, so that's true too, correct?
What rubbish. There were some groups who believed that he didn't have a physical body and thought it was horrible to even suggest such a thing, because they viewed matter as evil. They viewed Jesus as a sort of celestial being akin to an angel and all the drama of his "life" taking place on another realm. It was one group out of many that imposed the view that he was a historical figure who actually did all the things the canonical gospels say he did. They were the ones who won out in the end after centuries of fighting and debate, and they didn't win because they had evidence to back their claims, either. They won because they had political power behind them to enforce their views of orthodoxy on their enemies. So the other groups were persecuted out of existence as the orthodox bishops got their puppet emperors to issue edicts enforcing their views on the public.
You have no proof that it was passed down orally. Just like Jews have no proof of an "oral Torah" given to Moses alongside the tablets at Sinai. They just go with what the rabbis tell them same as how you go with the hearsay that your beloved "authorities" tell you. (Oh, yeah - Moses probably didn't exist either. Just sayin'.
)
Last edited:
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Who is 'they'? The writer of 2nd John -- who claimed that many people were denying that Jesus lived in the flesh?
What are you talking about?
You claimed that no one denied the physicality of Jesus. I proved you wrong by quoting the verse from 2nd John. Many people back then denied that Jesus existed in the flesh, physically.
Yes? No?
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
No idea what you are talking about. Why not just address my points clearly and thoroughly?
If your Jesus theory is well-thought, well-researched, you should be able to argue for it.
AmbiguousGuy
Well-Known Member
Yeah. What difference does it make? Most people these days understand that no miracle-doing godman actually walked the earth. Most people understand that the teachings of the gospel Jesus were created by theologians. What does it matter if an actual flesh-and-blood man existed to serve as the kernal of the story.
But it seems a terribly important question to lots of people. I think we need our heroes.