did jesus exist?

[dogsgod]

"Jesus started a movement that would later be the basis of Christianity "

This statement simply cannot be proven.

Exactly. The epistle writers and the unknown author of Mark are the main founders simply due to the fact that they took pen to paper.

 

[dogsgod]

Why do you say this?

Sorry, I meant to say that it's all true.

 

[fallingblood]

Exactly. The epistle writers and the unknown author of Mark are the main founders simply due to the fact that they took pen to paper.

How does that make sense? Especially when Paul, the first Epistle writer, was a Jew who simply was following a movement that had already been in existence. Mark was written quite some time after that, after the movement had already gained quite a few followers.

 

[Oberon]

How does that make sense? Especially when Paul, the first Epistle writer, was a Jew who simply was following a movement that had already been in existence. Mark was written quite some time after that, after the movement had already gained quite a few followers.

It makes perfect sense... as long as you start with the assumption that Jesus was a myth and then try to explain all the evidence in light of your assumption, no matter what improbable roads it leads you down.

 

[fallingblood]

words like this bother me

Words like those are a must, and not just in historical Jesus research. Even closer to our time, the same words are used in the study of Houdini, who had a mass of written material surrounding him. Simply, it is being responsible, and shouldn't be ruled out because of that. Especially when we see those same phrases in historical researches of many other individuals.

everything you read about paul and mark and Q is up for debate, and looking for a majorty rules mentality "IS" finding the happy place in all this.

Not quite everything. But that is besides the point. Even with Houdini, much is open to debate. Such as, what was the cause of his death. When was he born. Where was he born. Was he a skilled magician. How did he perform his escapes (natural or supernatural methods). Etc.

IF this is true



this evidence surely makes biblical jesus a myth.

What are you talking about? If we can know certain things for sure about Jesus, then it must be a myth? That simply doesn't add up.

I still think you can add traveling teacher to that and miracle worker [as most jews of the time were known for it]

Actually, most Jews were not known for that. Yes, there were some traveling teachers and miracle workers, but they made up a minority. We could add them as there is evidence he do so, but not because it was the norm.

 

[dogsgod]

Christianity is based on these writings whether a Jesus existed or not. The writings are everything, and Christianity is nothing without them. It's been that way since people at the end of the second century started paying attention to them.

 

[fallingblood]

biblical jesus is a myth just like the rest of the parrallels before him, way to many parrallels for that to fly. As well as the content says its BS fiction.

What parallels? Yes, he had similarities to people before him; however, that also includes Augustus. I can just as many parallels to those god-men with Augustus as you find with Jesus, especially considering the amount of those similarities that are made up.

if the OT wasnt such hogwash, people would have a easier time believing the shovel's full of NT fecal matter.

How is the OT hogwash? Yes, it was written from a certain perspective, and like much of the writings during that time, it included myths. However, there is also a lot of historically verified ideas in the OT as well. Not to mention the help it has been in archeological research in that geographical area.

 

[fallingblood]

Christianity is based on these writings whether a Jesus existed or not. The writings are everything, and Christianity is nothing without them. It's been that way since people at the end of the second century started paying attention to them.

Maybe you would like to do a little more research on the development of Christianity.

First, those writings were based on oral traditions and preaching that was already being done. They may have put pen to paper, but they were only spreading the ideas that were already in existent, and had been created by others. Some of these would go back to Jesus himself. And even if you dismiss Jesus, the information presented in the Epistles and Mark go back further than them.

As for second century Christianity, it was extremely diverse. There were groups who believed there was only one god, two gods, 12 gods, and I believe even 365 gods, and that isn't covering all of the beliefs about numbers of gods. There were those who believed Jesus was fully divine, fully human, fully human and divine, etc. There were those who believed that the OT God, the God of the Hebrews, was an evil God. The diversity of early Christianity is much more diverse than it is now.

Also, there were many different Gospels and other Christian "scripture" being written well into that time and later.

Finally, there would be no need for the Council of Nicea, or any of the other councils if what you're saying is true. Basically, no.

 

[dogsgod]

So, Augustus was a dying and rising Son of God that was sacrificed.

 

[dogsgod]

Maybe you would like to do a little more research on the development of Christianity.

First, those writings were based on oral traditions and preaching that was already being done. They may have put pen to paper, but they were only spreading the ideas that were already in existent, and had been created by others. Some of these would go back to Jesus himself. And even if you dismiss Jesus, the information presented in the Epistles and Mark go back further than them.

Right Sherlock, because the author of Mark says it goes back further, none of which you can prove.

As for second century Christianity, it was extremely diverse. There were groups who believed there was only one god, two gods, 12 gods, and I believe even 365 gods, and that isn't covering all of the beliefs about numbers of gods. There were those who believed Jesus was fully divine, fully human, fully human and divine, etc. There were those who believed that the OT God, the God of the Hebrews, was an evil God. The diversity of early Christianity is much more diverse than it is now.

Paul said people were preaching a different Jesus. Ater the second century people started paying attention to the gospels. Thank you for proving my point for me.

Also, there were many different Gospels and other Christian "scripture" being written well into that time and later.

None of which were historically reliable. Thanks again.

Finally, there would be no need for the Council of Nicea, or any of the other councils if what you're saying is true. Basically, no.

Perhaps they succeeded in weeding out all the other Jesus Christs.

 

[fallingblood]

So, Augustus was a dying and rising Son of God that was sacrificed.

So you can't thoroughly read. Wonderful, the explains why you have such a hard time understanding.

Really, though, I am nearly convinced you're a Christian playing some sick game.

 

[fallingblood]

Right Sherlock, because the author of Mark says it goes back further, none of which you can prove.

Does he need to? Or are you saying Mark wrote before Paul? The fact that we have Paul before Mark shows that there was in fact a tradition preceding him. Thus, we know it goes back further than Mark. And since Paul also states it goes on before him, and that he was able to persecute the early movement, it is only logical that neither one could be the founder of a movement already in existence.

Paul said people were preaching a different Jesus. Ater the second century people started paying attention to the gospels. Thank you for proving my point for me.

Proving your point? So since there was a vast diversity, one that continued to grow for some time, everyone started paying attention to Gospels that did not actually exist during the time of Paul. There is no logic in what you stated.

None of which were historically reliable. Thanks again.

Historically reliable for what and by who's standards? The fact is that there were many people who believed other Gospels were reliable. What we know of them today is besides the point. Maybe you would like to argue the point I made, in the context that I stated it.

Perhaps they succeeded in weeding out all the other Jesus Christs.

Except they didn't. That is why different ideas still exist to this day.

 

[ellenjanuary]

So, Augustus was a dying and rising Son of God that was sacrificed.

Nah. It was Titus the Flavian, son of Vespatian, whose acts are mirrored in the gospel. See what happens when you fall asleep in history class?

Kidding. Funny though, that back in the day, Julius Caesar could trace his house back to Aphrodite - being descended from a god wasn't no big - and still, if itweren't for a single act of Sulla (a personal fave), the world as we know it would exist. Yet, we're all "kinder and gentler" now... forget the historical record - "follow Jesus or burn in hell for eternity!" I guess...

 

[dogsgod]

Does he need to? Or are you saying Mark wrote before Paul? The fact that we have Paul before Mark shows that there was in fact a tradition preceding him. Thus, we know it goes back further than Mark. And since Paul also states it goes on before him, and that he was able to persecute the early movement, it is only logical that neither one could be the founder of a movement already in existence.
Proving your point? So since there was a vast diversity, one that continued to grow for some time, everyone started paying attention to Gospels that did not actually exist during the time of Paul. There is no logic in what you stated.
Historically reliable for what and by who's standards? The fact is that there were many people who believed other Gospels were reliable. What we know of them today is besides the point. Maybe you would like to argue the point I made, in the context that I stated it.
Except they didn't. That is why different ideas still exist to this day.

If the epistle writers and the gospel writers didn't take pen to paper, no one would have ever heard of Christianity. No religion lasts without writings. It is the epistle writers that are the founders of Christianity and the gospel writers by the very act of putting pen to paper. There need not be a Jesus, all that is required is a belief that Jesus Christ was sacrificed and rose from the dead, and that his spirit resides in the flesh of those that believe, that's all Paul ever cared about, it worked for him. If Paul's Christ lived on earth, no one knows when, well except for Oberon, he knows everything.

 

[outhouse]

Lunatics were common back then, one came up with a good story, the story spread and the myth was born.

it would not be that hard to believe some orally translated fables told 10 years later and spun into a new movement

 

[fallingblood]

Lunatics were common back then, one came up with a good story, the story spread and the myth was born.

it would not be that hard to believe some orally translated fables told 10 years later and spun into a new movement

Lunatics were common? Based on what? And why does it have to be a lunatic who came up with the story?

Actually, it is hard to believe that some orally translated fables created an entire man, who still had brothers living in the time of Paul, and are mentioned in Josephus, as well as a complete religion. Especially when no evidence is being presented to support your position.

 

[fallingblood]

If the epistle writers and the gospel writers didn't take pen to paper, no one would have ever heard of Christianity. No religion lasts without writings. It is the epistle writers that are the founders of Christianity and the gospel writers by the very act of putting pen to paper. There need not be a Jesus, all that is required is a belief that Jesus Christ was sacrificed and rose from the dead, and that his spirit resides in the flesh of those that believe, that's all Paul ever cared about, it worked for him. If Paul's Christ lived on earth, no one knows when, well except for Oberon, he knows everything.

You don't understand what a founder is do you?

Who is the founder of Socrates philosophical view points? By your logic, it must have been his students, as they are the ones who put it down on paper. It simply doesn't work like that. You can't be the founder of something that already exists. To state the such would be nonsensical.

As for when's Paul's Jesus lived, we can say that it was not too long before he wrote. We can know this because Paul states that Jesus still had a brother living. So obviously, it wasn't the distant past.

 

[dogsgod]

You don't understand what a founder is do you?

Who is the founder of Socrates philosophical view points? By your logic, it must have been his students, as they are the ones who put it down on paper. It simply doesn't work like that. You can't be the founder of something that already exists. To state the such would be nonsensical.

As for when's Paul's Jesus lived, we can say that it was not too long before he wrote. We can know this because Paul states that Jesus still had a brother living. So obviously, it wasn't the distant past.

Paul referred to a brother of the Lord, you must be reading about a different Paul.

 

[outhouse]

Lunatics were common?

absolutely! they were having trouble with their HMO and they prescibed the wrong meds.

Oh i forgot jesus healed all the mentaly ill back then by laying his hand on the heads of the sick

 

[dogsgod]

You don't understand what a founder is do you?

Who is the founder of Socrates philosophical view points? By your logic, it must have been his students, as they are the ones who put it down on paper. It simply doesn't work like that. You can't be the founder of something that already exists. To state the such would be nonsensical.

The probability of Socrates existing rather than being an invention of Plato stands or fails on the assessment of the information available, the same for a Jesus of the gospels or a Christ figure from the epistles.