The conspiracy of the historical Jesus

Gday,

Originally posted by Monger
After his death, and as people who had first-hand contact with him themselves died away, the myth of Christ began. Immaculate conception,

Actually, the Immaculate Conception was not declared until the 1800s.
It refers to the conception of Mary by Anne.

But many many Christians confuse the virgin birth with the immaculate conception.

Completely different things.

Originally posted by Monger
resurrection, assention to heaven, etc.

No.

Paul STARTED with a resurrected God-man acting in heaven.
The historical Jesus myth started decades later.

For instance -
NO CHRISTIAN shows knowledge of the empty tomb until 2nd century.


K.

reply to post by autowrench


Never make assumptions man, because they only make fools out of people. For one, Jesus and God are one in the same. Might me a complex thing for you to grasp, but you've heard of the trinity right? Father, son, holy spirit? Jesus is God, in human skin basically, and the beauty of his life is that Himself in the flesh lived 100% dependantly on Himself in the spirit, as we all aim to but fail. The purpose of his life was to give it so that all of us would have a chance after this one.

If you try to grasp the concept of eternity you have to realize there is no thing as time, and without time there is nothing to seperate Life with is God and sin which is death - and just as every decision you make in your life molds you into the individual you are today. Just as well to that every sin you've committed has stained your heart and lets be blank, if you can't keep yourself from breaking it - you can't fix it, and that sin has to go somewhere. So when you die that sin is still a part of you so it has to goto Hell and your attached to it so you will as well..... Unless there is a substitute, and thats where Jesus comes in. He paid that price so none of us would have to. Ever hear that blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is the only sin that is unpunishable? Thats not something as simple as "bah F God blablabla", but rather understanding the magnitude of the gift He gave to us for everlasting life, but still rejecting that gift and sacrifice to us - and without his sacrifice - we are left to ourselves to pay the price.

Earth has a living spirit of a sort, yes, but do you not realize what your doing here? You are committing idolatry. You are worshipping the creation rather than the CREATOR of said creation. The gifts of which we recieve are given through this earth, but it COMES from God. Ever hear about Noah's flood? Just saying, geology (study of rocks) records back up there being a flood appx. 4400 years ago, and do you know why (biblically) that flood occurred? Because man had become so wicked, angels had come to earth having sex with humans creating corrupt peoples (think Goliath - the giants), as well as taught human sciences of the stars (in terms of that, yes there may or may not be truth to astrology and the likes, but to use and look to them as a source is idolatry) that weren't needed to be known and the people became drunken on pagan gods and idols, so he saved the last good people who had a pure blood line dating back to Adam as well as they were the only people of the land who didn't fall into the mix.

So then,
we all agree -

there is no historical evidence for Jesus,
he was a mythical, spiritual being.

Not historical.


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
So then,
we all agree -

No we don't. I had guests over this weekend, apologies I hadn't the time to thoroughly dissect the wall of text. I appreciate you taking the time to cite the opinions that helped formed your own and will take the time to review, if permitted, but please don't assume silence is compliance, that's quite foolhardy.

Originally posted by Kapyong
there is no historical evidence for Jesus,
he was a mythical, spiritual being.

Not historical.

Your assertion is false and will likely take more than anything I type for you to see this, hence my hesitation to bother unravelling the strings of the thread. I appreciate resolve, you see, as I had it myself until proof was gotten. This second resolve, founded upon proof this time, is immobile.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Well, I have done so numerous times before,
but here it is again :

As I have, but in fairness we should treat each other as "new" in order to be progressive in our discussion.

Originally posted by Kapyong
"Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4):

Supposing it wasn't Peter. Does this matter? It still states eyewitness account, does it not? Who do you propose wrote it if it was not Peter? Let's discuss before moving forward.

64 A.D.:
The apostle Peter writes the book of 1 Peter.

www.layhands.com...

From the beginning, 1 Peter was recognized as authoritative and as the work of the apostle Peter. The earliest reference to it may be 2Pe 3:1 (see note there), where Peter himself refers to a former letter he had written. 1 Clement (a.d. 95) seems to indicate acquaintance with 1 Peter. Polycarp, a disciple of the apostle John, makes use of 1 Peter in his letter to the Philippians. The author of the Gospel of Truth (140–150) was acquainted with 1 Peter. Eusebius (fourth century) indicated that it was universally received.

biblica.com...

According to 2 Pet 1:1, who was the author of 2 Peter?

The author of 2 Peter was "Simon Peter, servant and apostle of Jesus Christ."

It should be noted that Peter refers to himself in 2 Peter by both his name, Simon (or Simeon) and his "nickname," Peter" (Petros) unlike 1 Pet 1:1.

1.1.2. How does what the author says in 2 Pet 1:14 and 1:16-18 confirm that Peter was the author of 2 Peter? (See Matt 17:1; Mark 9:2 = Luke 9:28 and John 21:18-19.)

The author of 2 Peter claims to be a witness of Jesus' transfiguration (1:16-18); according to the synoptic gospels, Peter was one of three disciples who accompanied Jesus (the other two being James and John). The author of 2 Peter also refers to the fact that he is destined to die what seems to be a martyr's death (1:14); in John 21:18-19, Jesus foretells that Peter will be martyred after what appears to be a period of incarceration.

1.1.3. It is often argued that, although there are some commonalties between them, 1 & 2 Peter are so different with respect to vocabulary and style that they could not have been written by the same author.

A. Vocabulary

1. 2 Peter contains fifty-seven hapaxlegomena the largest percentage of any writing in the New Testament. Thirty-two words of the fifty-eight do not occur in the LXX, so that 2 Peter has many non-biblical words. The presence of so many non-biblical hapaxlegomena has been interpreted as meaning that the author of 1 Peter could not also have written 2 Peter, on the assumption that an author would not have used so many hapaxlegomena in one of his letters.

2. 2 Peter has 100 words in common with 1 Peter, but there are 599 words found in one but not the other. The vocabulary of any letter will depend largely on its subject matter, so it should comes as no surprise that two letters with different subject matters have little vocabulary in common. Nevertheless, it is argued that there are words that one would expect to find in 1 Peter that occur in 2 Peter, but are not found, and words that one would expect to find in 2 Peter that occur in 1 Peter, but are not found. Unlike 2 Peter, 1 Peter, never uses words such as entolê ("commandment") (2 Pet 2:21; 3:2), eusebês ("pious") (2 Pet 2:9) and eusebeia ("piety") (2 Pet 1:3, 6, 7; 3:11) theios ("divine") (2 Pet 1:3, 4) or sôtêr ("savior") (2 Pet 1:1, 11; 2:20; 3:2, 18). Likewise, unlike 1 Peter, in 2 Peter one does not find words such as apeitheô ("to disobey") (1 Pet 2:8; 3:1, 20; 4:17), elpis ("hope") (1 Pet 1:3, 21; 3:15), klêronomeô ("to inherit") (1 Pet 3:9) and klêromomia ("inheritance") (1 Pet 1:4) or zaô ("to live") (1 Pet 1:3, 23; 2:4, 5, 24; 4:5, 6). It is especially peculiar that compound words using "good" (agathos) and "evil" (kakos), common in 1 Peter, are entirely absent in 2 Peter (agathopoieô in 1 Pet 2:15, 20; 3:6, 17; agathopoios in 1 Pet 2:14; agathopoiia in 1 Pet 4:19 / kakopoieô in 1 Pet 3:16; kakoô in 1 Pet 3:13; kakopoios in 1 Pet 2:12, 14; 4:15). These data are interpreted to mean that the same author did not write 1 & 2 Peter.

3. Another peculiarity with respect to the vocabularies of 1 & 2 Peter is the fact that 1 Peter has a predilection for compounds using the preposition sun ("with"). Whereas 1 Peter has sumpathês, suneidêsis, suneklektos, sunklêronomos, sunoikein, sunschêmatisthai, sunpresbuteros and suntrchein, 2 Peter has only three such sun-compounds: sunapagein, suneuôchesthai and sunistêmi. This has been interpreted as supporting the view that one and the same author could not have written both letters.

4. There are several examples of synonyms in 2 Peter for words that occur in 1 Peter. Some scholars argue that an author would use the same word to express the same idea in all or most of his letters, so that there should not be so many synonyms in 2 Peter for words in 1 Peter if the same author wrote both letters.


2 Peter 1 Peter
Lawless or unlawful athesmos (2:7; 3:17) athemitos (1Pet 4:3)
To follow exakolouthein (1:16; 2:2, 15) epakolouthein (2:21)
To furnish or provide epichorêgein (1:5, 11) chorêgeô (4:11)
To think or consider hêgeomai (1:13; 2:13; 3:9, 15) logizomai (1 Pet 5:12)
Witness epoptês (1:16) martus (5:1)
Example or model hupodeigma (2:6) hupogrammos (1 Pet 2:21)
Of what kind potapos (3:11) poios (1:11; 2:20)

In addition, 2 Peter has two synonymous phrases: "From the beginning of creation" (ap' archês ktiseôs) (2 Pet (3:4) instead of "from the foundation of the world" (pro katabolês kosmou) (1Pet 1:20) and "the former sins" hai palai hamartiai (2 Pet 1:9) instead of "the previous desires" hai proteron epithumiai (1 Pet 1:14).

5. A significant divergence in theological vocabulary occurs with respect to the Second Coming of Christ. In 2 Peter, the term used for this is parousia ("presence") (1:16; 3:4, 12), but in 1 Peter the preferred word used is apokalupsis ("revelation") (1:7, 13; 4:13). It is argued that an author a would demonstrate consistency of theological terminology from one letter to the next.

B. Style

1. Jerome correctly notices that the two letters attributed to Peter in the New Testament differ significantly with respect to their styles: "He [Peter] wrote two letters, which are called general, the second of which, on account of its difference from the first in style, is considered by many not to be by him" (De vir. ill. 1; see Ep. Hedib. 120 Quaest. 11). In general, the style of 2 Peter is effusive and somewhat grandiose, unlike 1 Peter. It is common to find complicated and repetitive phrases in 2 Peter such as:

2 Pet 1:3-4 "Through the knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and goodness, through which his precious and great promises are given." (dia tês epignôseôs tou kalesantos hêmas idia doxa kai aretê, di hôn ta timia kai megista hêmin epaggelmata dedôrêtai)

2 Pet 2:7 "He rescued righteous Lot distressed by the debauched lifestyle of wicked men." (kai dikaion Lôt kataponoumenon hupo tê tôn athesmôn en aselgeia anastrophês errusato)
2 Pet 2:11 "Angels being greater in might and power" (aggeloi ischui kai dunamei meizones ontes)
2 Pet 2:12 "As brute beasts by nature born to be caught and killed" (hôs aloga zôa gegennêmena phusika eis halôsin kai phthoran)
2 Pet 2:14 "Having eyes filled with adultery and unceasing sins" (ophhalmous echontes mestous moichalidos kai akatapaustous hamartias)
2 Pet 2:18 "They utter haughty and empty words" (huperogka...mataiotêtos phtheggomenoi)
The style of 2 Pet 1:3-11 in fact resembles the style of public inscriptions in the Hellenistic world that detail the virtues and acts of benefactors and saviors.

The differences of vocabulary and style between 1 and 2 Peter are significant, but do not require the conclusion that the same author could not have written both letters.

There are, in fact, verbal parallels between 1 & 2 Peter that suggest a common author for both.

a. 1 & 2 Peter have 100 words in common and, more significantly, there are several words and phrases in 1 & 2 Peter that either occur only in these two letters or are relatively rare elsewhere in the New Testament: "virtue" (aretê) (2 Pet 1:3, 5; 1 Pet 2:9); "manner of life" (anastrophê) (2 Pet 2:7; 3:11; 1 Pet 1:15, 18; 2:12; 3:1, 2, 16); "to live in a certain manner" (anastrephomai) (2 Pet 2:18; 1 Pet 1:17); "without blemish or defect" (aspilos kai amômos [or amômêtos]) (2 Pet 3:14; 1 Pet 1:19 [in reverse order]); "putting off" (apothesis) (2 Pet 1:14; 1 Pet 3:21); "eyewitness" or "to be an eyewitness" (epoptês or epopteuô) (2 Pet 1:16; 1 Pet 2:12; 3:2); "support" (stêrigmos) (2 Pet 3:17) and "unstable" (astêriktos) (1 Pet 2:14; 3:16); "never ceasing from sin" (akatapaustos hamartias) (2 Pet 2:14) and "He has ceased from sin" (pepautai hamartias) (1 Pet 4:1); "indecency" (aselgeia) (2 Pet 2:2, 7, 18; 1 Pet 4:3); "soul" (to designate persons) (psuchê) (2 Pet 2:8, 14; 1 Pet 1:9, 22; 2:11, 25; 3:20; 4:19); use of the metaphor "growth" to describe spiritual progress (auxanein) (1 Pet 2:2; 2 Pet 3:18).

b. Both letters have the same greeting: "Grace and peace be to you abundantly" (charis humin kai eirênê plêthuneiê) (1 Pet 1:2; 2 Pet 1:2).

c. Both letters identify the number of those saved in the ark as eight, even though no such number is provided in Gen 6:18; 7:7, 13; 8:16 (1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 2:5).

d. In both letters, "patience" (makrothumia) is said to be the basis for God's postponement of judgment (1 Pet 3:20; 2 Pet 3:9).

- Please see more at www.abu.nb.ca...


[edit on 26-4-2010 by saint4God]

Excellent thread Kapyong!

AND Christains: SHAMEFULLY POOR defenses in regards to your super-hero!

This figure is such an ENORMOUS part of the faith, but NOBODY can provide a CONVINCING DEFENSE. Very sad!!



[edit on 26-4-2010 by Captain_Sense]

Aggie here. I think there needs to be a division of the question.

Was she also claimed as the son of God who pre-existed before time and who came to earth to do great miracles and attract thousands?

Those aren't historical questions. Those would be interpretations, personal to the believer.

If Jesus was ANYTHING like claimed, then he would have left much evidence.

Really? The bare facts claimed are not so marvelous.

There are some private visionary experiences (at the baptism, transfiguration, the resurrection that nobody witnessed, ...), some healings apparently typical of what passed in the First Century as medical care for the poor, and a good talker talking.

Here and now, India is full of people with similar resumes. The local term for them is "god men." How many of them can you name? India was also full of these guys in the 20th Century. How many of them can you name?

This is a good place to point out that some elements of the contemporary Christian faith might not have been understood as "fact claims" in the First Century. Virgin birth, for example, is a trite figure of speech for having been a holy man from birth, a man of destiny.

Apparently, destiny was an issue for people like Jesus or Paul who had their first public "religious experience" in adulthood. Better to say that you have been marked for great things from the beginning.

Also, the claimed basis for inferring a physical resurrection, as opposed to a sense of return visits of the recently departed to loved ones, is slender and largely private. It would be one thing if Jesus waltzed into Pilate's HQ on Easter Monday and flipped off the governor. That would have gotten some ink. But nothing comparable with that is claimed.

Ultimately, then, there is little evidence, and little reason to expect much evidence, regardless of the truth of the matter. So, the bare existence question gets resolved prioristically, maybe differently by different people. What potentially verifiable (at least at the time) body of facts am I asked to believe, how far-fetched would that be?

A follower of John the Baptist (John is a lively candidate for real-personhood, based on Josephus) had a religious experience. The follower formed his own group, partly from John's circle, and took the message from the hinterlands to the belly of the beast. Sometime later, John is executed, and the splinter group takes up the slack, until its leader is also executed. The splinter survivors initially scatter, but later regroup, and think highly of their departed comrade.

Sounds good to me. Other views are possible.

The problem with this line of thinking is; either you believe and any evidence no matter how small seems like it is concrete; or you don't believe and you could have a guy standing in front of you saying "I am Jesus" and you thinking, "Nope, I don't believe you." The only thing i can add is something I saw on a T-shirt once. It said "I believe in Jesus, but he ain't too sure about me."

The problem with this line of thinking is; either you believe and any evidence no matter how small seems like it is concrete; or you don't believe and you could have a guy standing in front of you saying "I am Jesus" and you thinking, "Nope, I don't believe you." The only thing i can add is something I saw on a T-shirt once. It said "I believe in Jesus, but he ain't too sure about me."

Of course. Any human inference about the facts of the past, regardless of the amount of evidence, could be mistaken.

And we are discussing the prospects for a historical Jesus. That hypothetical "guy standing in front of you" today, claiming to be Jesus, would present questions of a non-historical nature. Evidence isn't going to help you decide his claim, either way. You're on your own.

For what it's worth, Jesus himself is quoted as saying that you WILL be convinced when he comes back. So, maybe we'll see. In the meantime, maybe that gives you some traction with your hypothetical. If your guy were the Jesus of lore, then you wouldn't be wondering whether or not that was true, or so the story goes.

Love the tee.

Gday,

Originally posted by saint4God

Originally posted by Kapyong
Well, I have done so numerous times before,
but here it is again :

As I have, but in fairness we should treat each other as "new" in order to be progressive in our discussion.

What on earth does that even mean?
How can you "progress" if you always start anew ?

This has been going on for YEARS, Saint4God -
* I point out there are no (genuine) eye-witness claims to have met Jesus
* you say "2 Peter is!"
* I say 2 Peter is a forgery
* you say "where's the proof?"
* I post the EVIDENCE.
* you ignore it.

6 YEARS ago you started playing this game :
www.abovetopsecret.com...
It's happened many times since then.

You never address the evidence, after having many YEARS to investigate it - all you do is preach the same faithful claims every time, and completely ignore the actual facts.

Originally posted by Kapyong
"Kummel presents the arguments that make all critical scholars recognize that II Peter is a pseudepigraph (Introduction to the New Testament, pp. 430-4):

Originally posted by saint4God
Supposing it wasn't Peter. Does this matter?

Does it matter ?
DOES IT MATTER?!

That's the WHOLE argument - whether we have a genuine claim to have met Jesus.

This writer LIED he was Peter, he LIED and FORGED this book.

And you REALLY still pretend this is actually an eye-witness claim?
A FORGED LIE?

How completely ridiculous.

Like I said :
we do not have even ONE genuine claim to have met Jesus.

Now do we have even ONE genuine claim to have met anyone else who ever met Jesus.


The alleged Jesus went completely UN-NOTICED, even by CHRISTIANS.



K.


[edit on 29-4-2010 by Kapyong]

Gday,

Originally posted by eight bits
Here and now, India is full of people with similar resumes. The local term for them is "god men." How many of them can you name? India was also full of these guys in the 20th Century. How many of them can you name?

Several.
So what?

Do you think modern India with a BILLION people really compares with tiny ancient Judea?


K.

Originally posted by Kapyong
How can you "progress" if you always start anew ?

In your message you'd stated you'll have to repeat yourself, which of course is true because I have not read all your threads. I am repeating myself as well, as I'm confident you haven't read all my threads. We don't have to cover every base, a summary should suffice.

Originally posted by Kapyong
This has been going on for YEARS, Saint4God -

About 2,000 years, yes and will continue long after we're gone.

Originally posted by Kapyong
* I point out there are no (genuine) eye-witness claims to have met Jesus
* you say "2 Peter is!"
* I say 2 Peter is a forgery
* you say "where's the proof?"
* I post the EVIDENCE.
* you ignore it.

Negative my friend, I posted a response that equated your evidence, did you not see it?

Originally posted by Kapyong
6 YEARS ago you started playing this game :
It's happened many times since then.

This post was 3 years ago, not 6 and this is not a game to me. I see you've highlighted my retort towards the criticism of my spelling. I apologize as I responded then inappropriately. The thread does say from myself as I feel again in this instance:

"Dude, did you bother to read my post? Care to address it? Or do you think insisting something makes it true? "

Originally posted by Kapyong
You never address the evidence,

It appears I have at least twice. Here and the thread you've linked.

Originally posted by Kapyong
after having many YEARS to investigate it

I have not been investigating this for years. You think too highly of yourself to think I would do such a thing based on your posts.

Originally posted by Kapyong
Does it matter ?
DOES IT MATTER?!

That's the WHOLE argument - whether we have a genuine claim to have met Jesus.

One argument (not all) is indeed whether we have a genuine claim from a person who has met Christ. So who is Peter? Simon bar-Jonah, referenced both in the Bible and here in a rather interesting discussion of where his remains are today: www.uhl.ac...

Originally posted by Kapyong
This writer LIED he was Peter, he LIED and FORGED this book.

The writer says the letter is from Simon Peter. I do not know whether he penned it or dictated it. I would think he penned it, but could not say for certain. Lying and forgery yet to be established, as well as why Peter would not have written to the churches.

Originally posted by Kapyong
And you REALLY still pretend this is actually an eye-witness claim?

I pretend nothing.

Originally posted by Kapyong
A FORGED LIE?

Ah, there are the ole caps of Iason, I was beginning to miss them. Why did you change names?

Originally posted by Kapyong
The alleged Jesus went completely UN-NOTICED, even by CHRISTIANS.

There were no "Christians" when Jesus was around. There were those who believed he was the messiah and those who did not. They were not called Christians until later.

[edit on 29-4-2010 by saint4God]

Thank you for your reply.

So what?

You claimed that there is less evidence than would be expected if Christians' historical assertions were accurate. Contemporary and recent Indian experience provides a benchmark for how much evidence is left by wandering miracle workers claiming divinity.

Bupkis is how much. Bupkis is what we have about Jesus.

I conclude that contrary to your claim, we have precisely the amount of evidence we would expect if Christian historical assertions about events in "tiny ancient Judea" were factually accurate.

While that doesn't mean the Christian claims are accurate, it does mean that your chosen avenue to impeach those claims didn't pan out. That's my view, other views are possible, thanks for reading.




[edit on 30-4-2010 by eight bits]

Originally posted by Kapyong
Gday,

Originally posted by saint4God
Do you have proof that he did not exist? I have documentation by him that says he did. Specifically tell me, who wrote it?

In fact we have a book forged in the 2nd century.

It's actually the MOST SUSPECT book of all the NT - the most obviously forged.

A forged book that claims :
"oh no, we don't follow fantastic fables"

Right when critics were attacking Christians as believing fables and myths and superstition and invented (and when some Christians were still claiming Jesus never came in the flesh at all.)

It's obvious - this person forged this book to respond to claims that Christians believed in fables.


K.

Pure speculation. No proof whatsoever.

Neither side of this argument has a "proven beyond all doubt" factual leg to stand on. Both sides believe previous authors who claim fact. You just put your faith in different books.

For a website that is supposed to deny ignorance, you people are behaving very ignorantly.

Open your minds and consider the truth: ANYTHING is possible. EVERYTHING is doubtable. NOTHING is provable.

So quit picking and choosing your facts to back your useless claims that make you feel better about your useless little selves.

Believe in Jesus or not, if your stupid little ego is in the way, your life will always be hell. Let it go.

Truth will always trump fact. Ignore the finger and SEE the moon.

There is no spoon.

Buddha walked on water 500 years before Jesus, well alledgedly. Funny though, worth thinking about.

The Holy Bible declares that Jesus is the way the truth and the life. No man comes to the Father but by him.

I think there are some who try to discount the validity of Jesus being the Messiah is because Jesus is truthfully The Way, The Truth and The Life. And the only way to stand righteous before The Almighty is being in a right relationship with Him through The Son of God.

Some want to live their lives their own way without having to answer to an Almighty One. They themselves want to be Almighty in their own eyes. If there were a judgment at the end of their lives then to some that in itself might hinder them from really accomplishing all of the selfishness that the flesh desires to accomplish.

So the best way to accomplish all of the pleasure possible before the last breath is to discount the judgment and the one seated to judge, Jesus The Messiah.

So do what you want to do!

reply to post by Kapyong


One night after putting down the Colt and picking up a small green Gideons NT (that an American woman from the Plains had given me a few days earlier) I heard an AUDIBLE voice as if sitting on my left that said-my Name, I am Jesus I died for your sins believe in Me and you will never perish-AWESTRUCK (not being raised "churched" or knowing the scripts) I stood to my feet turned towrds the voice and said yes Lord and years later came across this-

I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.-John5.25

Gday,

Originally posted by josheboyxiii
Pure speculation. No proof whatsoever.

Yawn.

The old 'no proof' nonsense again.
I quote the EVIDENCE for why 2 Peter is widely considered a forgery - right HERE in this thread.

You ignored it.
Typical.

Originally posted by josheboyxiii
Open your minds and consider the truth: ANYTHING is possible.

Such as faeries, unicorns, leprechauns, aliens, Harry Potter, breatharians...

Jesus is just as real as these things.


Good argument there josh.



K.


[edit on 1-5-2010 by Kapyong]

[edit on 1-5-2010 by Kapyong]

Gday,

Originally posted by eight bits
You claimed that there is less evidence than would be expected if Christians' historical assertions were accurate.

WHICH historical assertions exactly?

Do you include Matthew historical claim that the saints all rose from the grave and walked the streets of Jerusalem?

No?

So you only accept a small list of what was claimed, THEN say that small list would not have been noticed.

But the stories say that Jesus attracted HUGE crowds, and made a big disturbance in Jerusalem, and performed many incredible acts, and came to the attention of the authorities, Jewish and Roman.

They are BIG things, which WOULD have attracted attention.

But you seem to be trimming all those big actions out and leaving only the small ones you personally believe in - in which case your "real Jesus" bears no relationship to the Gospel stories - thus Jesus did NOT exist at all.


Exactly what DO you think Jesus actually did ?

If he was a minor nobody who left NO mark on anybody at the time - how did he have such a huge influence LATER on people who never met him ?


K.

Gday,

Originally posted by No King but Jesus
reply to post by Kapyong

 

One night after putting down the Colt and picking up a small green Gideons NT (that an American woman from the Plains had given me a few days earlier) I heard an AUDIBLE voice as if sitting on my left that said-my Name, I am Jesus I died for your sins believe in Me and you will never perish-AWESTRUCK (not being raised "churched" or knowing the scripts) I stood to my feet turned towrds the voice and said yes Lord and years later came across this-

I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live.-John5.25

Do you think voices in your head is good evidence for a historical Jesus?


K.