Jesus was NOT the Messiah
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
26-10-2014, 01:51 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 01:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The gospel writers do seem to emplicate the jews as playing a role in Jesus's crucifixion. You can at the very least agree with this right?

It's Implicate dear, not "emplicate". And Jews is capitalized.
I doubt you COULD get into Patriot University.

I do get that you ARE a Road Scholar though.

Buh Bye.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
26-10-2014, 02:18 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 03:10 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, there was a Jewish mythical being called Jesus that was the high priest of god's temple in heaven. So an entirely spiritual and mythical being already existed in Jewish myths and predated the start of Christianity.

I'm guessing the evidence for the belief in a mythical Jesus being who's a high priest of God's temple in heaven, is the pauline epistles, and in particular the book of Hebrews?

Quote:Why does anyone 'need' to do any of these things?

Why would someone cover up a crime that never occurred? They don't.

When someone is covering up a crime, there likely was an actual crime that took place, or at least something that they had to cover up. This is kind of what takes place in the gospel narratives, many attributed aspects to Jesus's life, particularly those serving as fulfillment of OT prophecies, were done so after the fact, rather than merely being created solely by the prophecies themselves, and this was all done very sloppy, and reeked of desperation. In many instances the writers use OT passages that no one even took to be messianic prophecies. It's kind of hard to imagine they would be doing this to a fictional Jesus, whose story they could have edited to their hearts content.

In a court of law, intent is a crucial aspect to establish when making a case. In order to take the non-historicist position seriously, establish a reasonable case for this, is vital.

Quote:The Nazareth bit is probably a misinterpretation, as it was probably originally Nazirite (like Sampson, they didn't cut their hair and avoided alcohol and dead bodies, among other vows).

Misinterpretation of what exactly, and by whom? Clearly the writer of Mathew viewed Jesus as from Nazareth of Galilee, "And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee (Mathew 21)."

If the writer of Matthew misinterpreted, then what exactly did he misinterpret? A vague passage from Isaiah, that no one other than christians take to be messianic prophecy (because of Mathew)? In your view the original writer read this passage first, understood it to be a messianic prophecy, and then attributed it the Jesus story he was inventing? This aspect was proved to be pretty problematic, but you believe it was derived from scripture, rather than read back into it?

And you think this is more likely, than the view, that Jesus was already known at the time to have been from Nazareth, and the original writer had to go back into scripture and find whatever passage he could use to vaguely support this as part of messianic prophecies?

Quote:Also, just how well informed and skeptic did you think people were in first century Judea and Palastine?

They likely weren't well informed at all! And that's kind of my point.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 02:35 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 01:36 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Your sarcasm is indistinguishable form your idiocy, so there is that. Drinking Beverage

Now, this is where you troll, when you move from jesting into remarks that are a bit more personal. I understand that when two people who don't really know each other, are communicating online, these sorts of lines get crossed all the time, and I would like to not go there. I'm hoping that in good faith, that we can have a discussion without having to cross this line again.

Thank you
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 03:03 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 01:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Had someone attempted to do what Jesus is described as doing in the Gospels, he would have been killed on the spot; none of this cloak and dagger bullshit with a trail before the Sanhedrin on Passover (which would never happen, and even then, they'd have waited until after Passover to execute him).

If someone believed himself to be the messiah, as the son of God, and amassed a small following who believed this as well, he would just as likely have been killed by the Romans for this, not to mention that he would have pissed off a bunch of Jews, who would have wanted to kill him as well.

If you believe Jesus wasn't actually killed by the Romans, you'd have a hard time arguing that they would have killed him for one particular reason alone, because there are all sorts of aspects of the Jesus story that would have been just as problematic for the Romans. The accusations mentioned by Mathew hold up just as well: " "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king." The likelihood that Jesus was killed at the instigation of the Jewish authorities who brought these allegations to light to the Romans, is just as likely, if not more so because it takes into account all the other problematic aspects, than a claim that he was likely killed solely for the incident in the Temple.

Quote:That's funny, I don't remember mobs in the Passion of Romulus or Mythras (and yes, it is the exact same word in Greek across the board).

I never said all similar myths do.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 03:23 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 03:29 AM by Tomasia.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 01:05 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Guess you'll have to TRY to get in to find out. Do you also doubt Dr. Carrier's credentials ?

No, I don't doubt Carrier's credentials, but he's more an anomaly than a norm among proponents of mythicism. In fact the credentials of an actual professor at Harvard Divinity who supported the Christ myth, would have far better credentials than Carrier. As far as anyone can survey no such persons seem to exist.

But since you claim to be a student there, and claim to hold the non-historical view, I figured you might have some firsthand knowledge of such a person, that likely no one else has heard of yet. I ask, because it would be interesting to hear the perspective of a well esteemed professor. Also because I often level the charge against mythicist, that no Historians/or NT Scholars who teach at any reputable university endorse their views. And if there is one, I would like to know he who is.

I'm not too sure as to why you this would be something you wanted to keep secret.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 03:51 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 04:48 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yes, there was a Jewish mythical being called Jesus that was the high priest of god's temple in heaven. So an entirely spiritual and mythical being already existed in Jewish myths and predated the start of Christianity.
I'm guessing the evidence for the belief in a mythical Jesus being who's a high priest of God's temple in heaven, is the pauline epistles, and in particular the book of Hebrews?

Nope, try Philo of Alexandia, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and historian. If anything Paul was one of the people who merely hallucinated or had vision of a celestial Jesus (his authentic letters make no mention of an earthly Jesus), not at all dissimilar to other mystery cults at the time; or the parallels with Joseph Smith and Moroni or Muhammad and Gabriel.



(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Why does anyone 'need' to do any of these things?
Why would someone cover up a crime that never occurred? They don't.

When someone is covering up a crime, there likely was an actual crime that took place.

Unless of course it is all fiction. Do you think that every murder mystery book in Barnes and Nobles is non-fiction? Nonexistent people do nonexistent things all the time! There's no evidence, outside of the Gosples, that the actions described therein actually happened (ProTip: Gospels are not evidence for the Gospels). So stop that circle logic right now before you get yourself hurt. Assuming it is true is not constructive, unless you're looking to do nothing but reaffirm preconceptions rather than challenge them.



(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  This is kind of what takes place in the gospel narratives, many attributed aspects to Jesus's life, particularly those serving as fulfillment of OT prophecies, were done so after the fact, rather than merely being created solely by the prophecies themselves, and this was all done very sloppy, and reeked of desperation. In many instances the writers use OT passages that no one even took to be messianic prophecies. It's kind of hard to imagine they would be doing this to a fictional Jesus, whose story they could have edited to their hearts content.

Right, so why didn't they? Evidence indicates that the authors were fluent in Greek rhetoric, so they were well educated. However a lot of their errors can be traced to the Greek Septuagint, leading to the conclusion that the authors themselves were not fluent in Hebrew and were not working from original sources; which would also explain their lack of both religious and geographical context. Clearly whoever created the fiction of Jesus' travel on foot had no concept of Galilee's actual geography, nor did someone trying to inadvertently shoehorn his Nazareth origin get the context of passages describing someone as a 'Nazirite'.



(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  In a court of law, intent is a crucial aspect to establish when making a case. In order to take the non-historicist position seriously, establish a reasonable case for this, is vital.

What makes you think that historicity is the default position? You've yet to provide evidence he really existed. Your case for his historicity is as strong as a case for the historicity of a flesh and blood Bacchus or Mythras; and just like them, Jesus is not historically dependent.

The default position is 'we don't know', and from there, mythicisim answer a lot of questions far better with far less jumps in logic and probability.



(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The Nazareth bit is probably a misinterpretation, as it was probably originally Nazirite (like Sampson, they didn't cut their hair and avoided alcohol and dead bodies, among other vows).
Misinterpretation of what exactly, and by whom? Clearly the writer of Mathew viewed Jesus as from Nazareth of Galilee, "And the multitude said, This is Jesus the prophet of Nazareth of Galilee (Mathew 21)."

Right, the author who made up the story botched the Jewish context because they likely weren't Jewish or understood Hebrew. Why is this so hard to fathom?



(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If the writer of Matthew misinterpreted, then what exactly did he misinterpret? A vague passage from Isaiah, that no one other than christians take to be messianic prophecy (because of Mathew)? In your view the original writer read this passage first, understood it to be a messianic prophecy, and then attributed it the Jesus story he was inventing? This aspect was proved to be pretty problematic, but you believe it was derived from scripture, rather than read back into it?

Which is more probable?

That a real historical Jesus actually made the zig-zag journey across Galilee on foot and was born under the most unusual of circumstances so that he could be from Nazareth and born in Bethlehem?

Or that someone later, with little to no first hand knowledge or context, created a story which they later attempted to pigeonhole Jesus into history? Thus explaining the schizophrenic path of Jesus's journey, along with most other historical inconsistencies; because the Gospels weren't created or even intended to be historically accurate. The point was the story, the narrative, the parables, the message; not the actual places and dates.

So yes, fiction explains the facts and evidence better than historicity.



(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  And you think this is more likely, than the view, that Jesus was already known at the time to have been from Nazareth, and the original writer had to go back into scripture and find whatever passage he could use to vaguely support this as part of messianic prophecies?

Do I think it's more likely that somebody made up a badly connected story then that somebody actually jumped through all of those nonsensical hoops, especially in light of no evidence to say otherwise? Yes. Even if there was an actual person this was later attached to, the Gospels themselves are almost entirely mythical. If there was an actual person or persons at the core ro somehow tangentially connected to this myth, is is still clearly mythic now.



(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Also, just how well informed and skeptic did you think people were in first century Judea and Palastine?
They likely weren't well informed at all! And that's kind of my point.

Right, so what makes you think that making up the whole story wasn't a distinct possibility? You know, just like the dozens of other dying and rising gods at that time? Because remember, if there was an actual historical Jesus, that would make him the highly improbable exception to a strong historical trend. Again I have to ask what evidence is there to support a historical Jesus over a historical Mythras or Bacchus? And if there isn't, do you also ascribe to the view that Bacchus and Mythras also existed? And if not, then why not?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
26-10-2014, 04:20 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 04:56 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 03:03 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 01:35 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Had someone attempted to do what Jesus is described as doing in the Gospels, he would have been killed on the spot; none of this cloak and dagger bullshit with a trail before the Sanhedrin on Passover (which would never happen, and even then, they'd have waited until after Passover to execute him).
If someone believed himself to be the messiah, as the son of God, and amassed a small following who believed this as well, he would just as likely have been killed by the Romans for this, not to mention that he would have pissed off a bunch of Jews, who would have wanted to kill him as well.

Uh, no?

The Romans dealt with many different faiths, and so long as you yourself didn't claim to be god and king (which was treason), the Romans would have left well enough alone. Look at the trials in Acts, assuming that there is even a shred of truth in them, the Romans can't seem to be bothered at all with Paul. The trials are ultimately Jewish ones held over religious disputes, and even then Paul was initially let go. Stephen was convicted and killed because he was stupid enough to insult the judge and prosecutor of blasphemy for killing his imaginary friend Jesus, or in other words, the worst trial defense ever.

So the Sanhedrin and the Romans were pissed enough to collude with one another to cloak-and-dagger a special holiday trial and execution for a religious zealot? Something so out of left field, it's incredible that nobody else mentioned it?

Or that the story was part of a narrative created by the author who cared more about his story and the message he was trying to convey, over correct historical accuracy or context?

Option two makes far less egregious jumps in logic and probability.



(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  If you believe Jesus wasn't actually killed by the Romans, you'd have a hard time arguing that they would have killed him for one particular reason alone, because there are all sorts of aspects of the Jesus story that would have been just as problematic for the Romans.

Except, in context, they didn't care so long as you didn't cross the line into either disruption (getting yourself an instant execution) or treason (also most likely an instant execution). Disrupting the Temple grounds, had it actually happened, would have warranted a summary execution on the spot; not a secret Passover trial and execution. Also the Romans weren't terribly fond of the Sanhedrin, so you'd need a good reason for their collusion instead of the Romans leaving Jesus to the Jews just like they supposedly did to Paul.



(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  The accusations mentioned by Mathew hold up just as well: " "We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar and claims to be Christ/Messiah, a king." The likelihood that Jesus was killed at the instigation of the Jewish authorities who brought these allegations to light to the Romans, is just as likely, if not more so because it takes into account all the other problematic aspects, than a claim that he was likely killed solely for the incident in the Temple.

Except that his claims were a matter of a minor religious dispute, which once again, the Romans had a history of not giving a shit about. The Romans didn't care if someone was giving the Sanhedrin a hard time, once again, where is the evidence to support their collusion in light of their historical animosity? It makes little sense if it actually happened, but is rather easily explained if it is simple fiction. Once again, the myhticist position makes far less grand leaps of faith, logic, and probability.



(26-10-2014 02:18 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(26-10-2014 01:13 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  That's funny, I don't remember mobs in the Passion of Romulus or Mythras (and yes, it is the exact same word in Greek across the board).

I never said all similar myths do.

Uh, come again?


(26-10-2014 01:25 AM)Tomasia Wrote:  But as far as supposedly fictional Jesus of the gospels, do you agree that he was killed in these narratives by a mob, in the same way that nearly all myths regarding dying and rising god-figures, involve an angry mob that at least serves as a catalyst to their eventual deaths?

Please be more careful with your phrasing in the future then. So then do please be more specific. Stories of suffering, dying, and rising god or the sons and daughters of god were very common. So which other passion stories also included protagonists killed by mobs? Surely if "nearly all" contain this thematic staple they should be easy to cite, list, and quote; correct?

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 06:08 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  The default position is 'we don't know', and from there, mythicisim answer a lot of questions far better with far less jumps in logic and probability.

Perhaps this would be a good point of reference for us. Rather than settling on “we don’t know”, let’s see if we can settle on a view, that answers a lot of questions better and involves far less jumps in logic and probability. I’d like to summarize this, as that we are seeking the view the holds the greater explanatory capacity.

My rejection of mythicism is exactly for the reasons you claim to reject historicity, that it requires me to take the sort of leaps in logic, that certain Christians require me to take to accept inerrancy. That it raises far more questions than answers, and is such as unadulterated violation of Occam’s Razor.

The view i’m arguing is not a Christian one, but a purely secular one, like the sort argued by Bart Ehrman. I’m just going to copy and paste what I mean by a historical Jesus, that i posted somewhere else:

“For brevity, a Jesus who had at least four greco-roman biographies, written about him, of what we traditionally refer to as the Gospels, who existed in the first century, as a jewish preacher, who may have believed he was the messiah, or at least someone who his followers believed was; who preached a message of the kingdom of God, and was later crucified by the Romans. Who preached with a style that incorporated irony, reversal, and frustration of expectations, and at the bare minimum the source of the sayings and teachings that are multiply attested, or at least the ones the Jesus seminar, marked with pink and red beans, indicating they the very likely, or probably were things he said. The Jesus who spoke of non-violent resistance in the Jewish context in the Sermon of the Mount, such as the going the extra mile and Roman Law of Angaria, and parables such as the Good Samaritan, Dishonest Steward, Mustard Seed etc.

A Jesus who had possible delusions of grandeur. A Jesus who had at least 4 greco-roman biographies written of him, that incorporated both fact and fictions just like every other first century bio, to not only convey events in his life, but more importantly the meaning and purpose of it. Who had a mother that that was referred to as Mary, and a brother named James. A Jesus who his followers after his humiliating death, attempted to come to terms with it by reading the events of his life back into the jewish scriptures, trying to convey the unexpected death of their messiah as the God’s ultimate will and plan. “


Now, you believe this portrait of a historical Jesus, raises far more questions, involves far greater leaps in logic, than the mythicist position?

Correct? I didn’t want to continue with this part, until we can at least agree on this starting point.

(26-10-2014 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Which is more probable?

That a real historical Jesus actually made the zig-zag journey across Galilee on foot and was born under the most unusual of circumstances so that he could be from Nazareth and born in Bethlehem?

Or that someone later, with little to no first hand knowledge or context, created a story which they later attempted to pigeonhole Jesus into history? Thus explaining the schizophrenic path of Jesus's journey, along with most other historical inconsistencies; because the Gospels weren't created or even intended to be historically accurate. The point was the story, the narrative, the parables, the message; not the actual places and dates.

Both explanation are pretty convoluted. The most probable one, is that there was a historical Jesus believed to have been the messiah by his early followers, and who was known at the time to have been from Nazareth. And this created a dilemma for his early followers, because the messiah was supposed to be from Bethlehem. The writer of Luke attempted to resolve this, by making up a story of a census, tying Jesus to Bethlehem. While the writer of Mathew attempts to resolve this by claiming that it was prophesied from the beginning, that the Messiah would be from Nazareth, using a vague reference from Isaiah that stretched credulity on it’s own.

Mathew is the only one to claim Jesus being from Nazareth was prophesied. The absence of this in the other narratives, indicate that the notion of Jesus being from Nazareth, didn’t derive from any OT prophecies. If it did than the other writers likely would have mentioned this, to help support their purported Messiah. But rather this was Mathew’s attempt to resolve a dilemma that Jesus being from Nazareth raised.

Jesus being born in Nazareth created more problems than it raised. It lead to doubts about his messianic title, than support. Mathew and Luke resort to two different methods to get around this. If they you were attempting to create a purely fictional Jesus, to be sold as the Jewish Messiah, you would’t have him born in Nazareth, you would have just placed him in a less problematic region such as Bethlehem and left it at that.

It does appear quite evident that the writers were forced to confess Nazareth as Jesus’s birth place, rather than this attribute merely being a product of creative choice, or because they needed to address a supposed messianic prophecy.

I provided a concise, but thorough view here, addressing numerous aspects of the Nazareth question, that took into account the differences between the Gospel narratives, etc….

I showed exactly why this puzzle piece better fits a historical Jesus, than a mythicist one. And I don’t see how this particular point involves any leaps in logic, or convoluted reasoning, in fact I think it’s a very sound argument.

I think than any counter argument from Mythicists on this point, will sound like a great deal like verbal diarrhea, with little depth of substance, at least that’s been my experience.

If you think this puzzle piece fits the Mythicist perspective better, makes better sense, involves less leaps in logic, than the case I just proposed, I would seriously like to hear it.

(26-10-2014 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ProTip: Gospels are not evidence for the Gospels

Of course the Gospels are not evidence for the Gospels. They are four greco-roman biographies that serve as evidence for the existence of Jesus, or if the mythicist view turns up to be true, they would be evidence suggesting a purely fictional one. I can use the Gospels for a wide variety of things, such as beliefs in circulation around that period in time. And the text are often used to establish the existence of such figures like Pilate.

It’s important to realize there’s nothing unusual about the Gospels, as understand as a biography written in the 1st century, of a religious figure. It might be unusual for a biography written in our time, where we have a different purposes in mind when writing history. But for the greco-roman world, the Gospels being a biography and being written to convey a message, and moral, are not mutually exclusive.


(26-10-2014 03:51 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  What makes you think that historicity is the default position?

I don’t think it’s the default position, but it’s rather the position with the greater explanatory power, meaning it makes better sense of all the various puzzle pieces, than any competing non-historicity account.

I myself used to be a quasi-mythicist, when I knew very little about historical study. I used to hear all those pagan comparisons, and was completely taken away, before I even started to question these things. Then I started looking into it and I realized that a lot of the stuff out there was junk, and this was even noted as such by other mythicist.

I have explored the topic quite a bit, but purely as a hobbyist more so than an academic. I have sat through a few electives in college, some free courses, and read a good deal on this as well. And I’ve been discussing this topic online with non-believers for close to a decade now. The discussions have always interested me. It’s nice to study something, and a have an outlet to go back and forth with your own views with honest supporters and opponents, except of course when the dialogue turns ugly.

The reason I’m saying all this, is so that it’s understand that I’m not attempting to be dogmatic about any of the views I expressed here, and would like to actually have a reasonable discussion, more so than anything else, and I hope you can commit to the same.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 06:53 AM
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
(26-10-2014 04:20 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Or that the story was part of a narrative created by the author who cared more about his story and the message he was trying to convey, over correct historical accuracy or context?

This is kind of the problem when someone wants to argue for a position other than the one they hold, particularly when they want to go back and forth between these two, because it ends up muddying things up a bit.

Either you are arguing with me that Jesus was likely killed solely because of his actions in the temple, or you’re arguing that he didn’t exist at all, and that the whole temple story, and everything else was invented to convey a message.

My argument was directed at someone arguing, at least hypothetically, for the former, but not if you’re trying to argue that none of this took place.

If you’re merely arguing the mythicist, non-historicist position, then my comments here about the Temple and why Jesus was killed, were not addressed to you, and we can just let the remarks be, to be picked up by those who want to argue this alternative historicist argument.

Quote:Please be more careful with your phrasing in the future then. So then do please be more specific. Stories of suffering, dying, and rising god or the sons and daughters of god were very common. So which other passion stories also included protagonists killed by mobs? Surely if "nearly all" contain this thematic staple they should be easy to cite, list, and quote; correct?

Dionysius, Oedipus off the top of my head and I’d have to pull out my copy of Violence and Sacred to recall the names of others. But you’re right my phrasing was poor. I didn’t mean just deities figures who died, and rose, but were rather killed as a sort of sacrifice, as a scapegoat, as well. Either way, I don’t feel like digging through all the accounts, providing relevant passages and such for this, since it doesn’t have much to do with the argument for historicity. I rather devote my time to the historicity vs mythicism question for now than anything else.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
26-10-2014, 07:22 AM (This post was last modified: 26-10-2014 07:43 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Jesus was NOT the Messiah
The gospels are not "biographies". They are faith proclamations by believers who never met him, about what they they believed in him, for use in liturgical celebrations. The Synoptics are probably all based on the "Q" document, so they would make 2. There are many many errors and impossible events in them that were totally inconsistent and incorrect, and Mark's first version had no resurrection, so we know the earliest Christians did not actually think he physically rose from the dead.

Conclusion : The "evidence" is shit.

Thanks again for proving Tomasia, you are unable to think for yourself.
(And you can drop your fucking patronizing "let's see if we" shit anytime.)

"Either you are arguing with me that Jesus was likely killed solely because of his actions in the temple, or you’re arguing that he didn’t exist at all, and that the whole temple story, and everything else was invented to convey a message."

No dear. One can argue here for anything we want. You don't make the fucking rules. Unlike simple-minded fools, intelligent people can argue for more than two possibilities.
I do get that's difficult for people who can't even spell correctly to keep it all straight.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: