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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Perhaps but I wouldn't say he's in that category.Yes. Sometimes scholars come up with some really weird stuff that can only be construed as conspiracy theories.
He's an expert in hebrew and near-eastern culture. And there he's published some respected work. But his popular work? That's not scholarship, nor is it respected by scholars.
Perhaps but I wouldn't say he's in that category.
can you stop with your assertions maybe add some links with synopsisIf you read what he wrote on James, Paul and the Dead Sea Scrolls you would perhaps change your mind.
can you stop with your assertions maybe add some links with synopsis
The Illuminati; conspiracy theory. Nibiru and the Annunaki combing back to take us over; conspiracy theory. JFK was shot and killed by the mob/mafia/CIA; conspiracy theory. Denying the existence of Jesus hardly falls into this category. It's legitimate skepticism. But I won't say anymore on it.
To assume that a few 1st century Jews plotted to create a mythological figure and then build up an elaborate religion around this person they made up smacks of conspiracy theory.
To assume that a few 1st century Jews plotted to create a mythological figure and then build up an elaborate religion around this person they made up smacks of conspiracy theory.
Judaism wasn't crumbling at all. If it was crumbling, there is no reason to think that it would have survived the Temple destruction.No it doesnt
judaism was crumbling at that time due to corruption, without jesus a new religion could have cropped up, no problem at all.
Why? And how? It's a little out there to consider it a conspiracy theory, especially compared to those I listed. But we do it with other religions all the time: i.e., the Greeks, the Romans, the Egyptians, NRM's, etc., etc. No one is saying people plotted to do this, with the goal of purposely deceiving people. It could have been nothing more than myths added on top of one another over time, and the stories grew and grew. No deception, no conspiracies, just the way history works sometimes. And, these myths could have been based on an actual rabbai or teacher from that time period who happened to have had the same name, Yeshua. Or they just could have been created over time. Without first hand knowledge or material evidence, all anyone can really do is speculate. And, whether he existed or not, if it doesn't change anyone's religious perspectives, it's even more of a pointless debate. And to say he did exist, even if that's true, doesn't make the Bible accounts of him any more truthful.
Judaism wasn't crumbling at all. If it was crumbling, there is no reason to think that it would have survived the Temple destruction.
More so, a new religion wasn't created until long after Jesus died.
So yes, maybe a new religion could have cropped up without Jesus
but it would not have been Christianity, or something similar
So please with sources give me the hows and whys this Jesus myth developed. Shouldn't be to hard if Jesus was just a myth, but take into account every detail the sources give us. Was James a myth too? How about Capernaum or Pilate and etc. and etc.
I am Missouri, now show me.
So please with sources give me the hows and whys this Jesus myth developed. Shouldn't be to hard if Jesus was just a myth, but take into account every detail the sources give us. Was James a myth too? How about Capernaum or Pilate and etc. and etc.
I am Missouri, now show me.
So please with sources give me the hows and whys this Jesus myth developed.
First, I've already posted my sources here. I've discussed the topic. I have no intention of changing my mind. I don't believe he existed. I don't believe there is enough evidence. This is a personal belief of mine, and one that I've discussed here, and elsewhere, and have grown weary of doing so. I don't really care one way or another if a person believes in him or not. Like I stated in my last post, if he did exist, this doesn't vindicate the Bible. If he did exist, he was nothing more than a Jewish teacher, of whom myths, gathered as the gospels, have been built around him. Whether he existed or not, doesn't change my religious views. Even if he existed, I'm still remaining a Buddhist. So, like I've said before, in this post and others, I'm done debating the topic. It's getting me, and my debate partners, no where, except headaches.
As for your other assumption, that the existence of Pilate, and James, and cities and towns and other things mentioned in the Bible, seems to prove Jesus' existence, is just speculation, at best. Many religious texts mention historical persons and places, and yet their gods and religious peoples are given no more than mythological status. I see no difference between Jesus, Krishna, Horus, Mithra, Herucles, Apollonius, etc ad infinitum. The historical existence of Jesus does not vindicate the Bible. The only thing proving the historical existence of Jesus does is prove he existed. This doesn't say anything about him as a person. But like I said, I believe what I believe, and that's not likely to change, and I'm not likely to change the minds of those who do believe, and since I could care less either way, I'm done debating the topic.
EDIT: and this doesn't excuse your labeling of those who do not believe he existed as conspiracy theorists. It's absurd. Leave the ranting for fundamentalists.