Was Jesus a real person?

[Moontanman]

If no more evidence existed for the reality of alien abduction as exists for the reality of Jesus would you believe aliens were abducting people?

[Robittybob1]

 

He [Erhman] is very clear that this is his subjective view, and that many other historian might not agree. But it has not much to do with your [Robittybob's] dogmatic view.

I don't recall my views ever being called "dogmatic". In fact I'll have to consult the Google dictionary to even see what that means!

Dogmatic : expressing personal opinions or beliefs as if they are certainly correct and cannot be doubted (merriam webster dictionary)

Well yes it became like dealing with a set of simultaneous equations to solve the Jesus story and one was left with only the "one" set of numbers that solved them completely.

If you call the answers to a simultaneous equation problem "dogmatic answers" I will live with the criticism.

If no more evidence existed for the reality of alien abduction as exists for the reality of Jesus would you believe aliens were abducting people?

That felt like a stealthful attempt of an alien trying to abduct the thread. Yes if there was as much evidence for alien abduction as there is for Jesus being a "real person" you would be a believer.

Edited October 15, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

That felt like a stealthful attempt of an alien trying to abduct the thread. Yes if there was as much evidence for alien abduction as there is for Jesus being a "real person" you would be a believer.

 

No, this is not an attempt to inject aliens into the conversation. I am attempting to show how thin the evidence for a historical Jesus really is.

 

I can talk to someone who was abducted by aliens, millions of people can attest to alien abduction, there are no first hand accounts of Jesus, all accounts of Jesus are second hand at best and all significant second hand accounts are many hundreds of years old at least, in fact virtually all of the evidence for the existence of Jesus is seen no place but the bible.

 

While other lesser people of that time and well before are well documented in multiple sources none of the evidence for a historical Jesus is documented any place but the bible and what there is would not hold up in court or even in a casual conversation...

Edited October 15, 2014 by Moontanman

[Robittybob1]

No, this is not an attempt to inject aliens into the conversation. I am attempting to show how thin the evidence for a historical Jesus really is.

 

I can talk to someone who was abducted by aliens, millions of people can attest to alien abduction, there are no first hand accounts of Jesus, all accounts of Jesus are second hand at best and all significant second hand accounts are many hundreds of years old at least, in fact virtually all of the evidence for the existence of Jesus is seen no place but the bible.

 

While other lesser people of that time and well before are well documented in multiple sources none of the evidence for a historical Jesus is documented any place but the bible and what there is would not hold up in court or even in a casual conversation...

Are you saying you believe these stories of alien abductions? There is no point in telling me how many thousands attest to alien abductions unless you accept their word as factual. If there was nothing in the historical record for jesus being a twin I wasn't going to believe the story but to my surprise there was. The Bible is a collection of books it isn't just one book.

Listen to or read Erhman "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" and you might change your mind.

 

How many alien abduction stories are about 2000 years old? So how can you compare one to the other?

Edited October 16, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Moontanman]

Are you saying you believe these stories of alien abductions? There is no point in telling me how many thousands attest to alien abductions unless you accept their word as factual. If there was nothing in the historical record for jesus being a twin I wasn't going to believe the story but to my surprise there was. The Bible is a collection of books it isn't just one book.

Listen to or read Erhman "Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth" and you might change your mind.

 

How many alien abduction stories are about 2000 years old? So how can you compare one to the other?

 

 

The evidence that Jesus existed is far less than the evidence for alien abduction and being 2000 years old makes it even less believable.

 

I am well aware that Christian theologians think Christ existed, but they, like Erhman, start out to prove an agenda and many scholars without an agenda come to the conclusion Jesus never existed. I can point you to such scholars and the idea that not many people of that age were recorded is nonsense. People of importance were well documented and anyone who performed miracles would have been known and documented at the time. Jesus didn't begin to exist in literature before 200 ace.

 

My belief is as important as yours, in other words believe does not equal knowledge. Many people truly believe they have been abducted by aliens, you can talk to them personally, they are not separated from us by thousands of years yet no credence is given to their accounts. No significant mention of Jesus comes until decades after his supposed existence and then only from a handful of men.

 

If you want to establish that Jesus was real don't you think the evidence should at least equal that of those who claim to be abducted by aliens?

 

Near the beginning of this thread evidence contrary to Jesus being real was given, why do you dismiss this evidence but think your evidence is real?

[Robittybob1]

 

 

The evidence that Jesus existed is far less than the evidence for alien abduction and being 2000 years old makes it even less believable.

 

I am well aware that Christian theologians think Christ existed, but they, like Erhman, start out to prove an agenda and many scholars without an agenda come to the conclusion Jesus never existed. I can point you to such scholars and the idea that not many people of that age were recorded is nonsense. People of importance were well documented and anyone who performed miracles would have been known and documented at the time. Jesus didn't begin to exist in literature before 200 ace.

 

My belief is as important as yours, in other words believe does not equal knowledge. Many people truly believe they have been abducted by aliens, you can talk to them personally, they are not separated from us by thousands of years yet no credence is given to their accounts. No significant mention of Jesus comes until decades after his supposed existence and then only from a handful of men.

 

If you want to establish that Jesus was real don't you think the evidence should at least equal that of those who claim to be abducted by aliens?

 

Near the beginning of this thread evidence contrary to Jesus being real was given, why do you dismiss this evidence but think your evidence is real?

I don't claim to have been abducted by aliens, do you?

I know, I went through a period when I thought "I was going to be abducted by aliens" and I took evasive action. It is a bit hard to recollect all the events but there were 3 times, twice when other people reported UFO activity in my vicinity and once I was on my own, but each time I went into "hiding", so I didn't actually see anything myself, close up, but I could hear it when I was in the tunnel, and it affected the TV reception another time, and I did see lights at a distance on a third time (I'm not sure what it was).

One time I buried myself in a tunnel and remained there to the point where I was dying from the lack of oxygen, I only got out of that just in time as my muscles were going into spasms and my mind was flashing on and off (a pulsating feeling) and I still had to clear the entrance in this state.

I struggle to remember the order of all three "abduction escapes", but since then (1991) I have had no further problems.

 

It seems possible that people believe they are abducted, and I'm glad to have missed out on that experience.

It was odd that the search for truth was complicated by this alien aspect. Are the ones who experience alien abductions also those who are seeking truth?

Is there some correlation? I haven't heard of it, have you?

The final aspect of Christ's ascension into heaven sounds a bit "alien abduction like" too, with a cloud coming and taking him off the mountain top. Not much is ever said about that today.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RybZpoEza5s

 

Nothing about the Jesus story is easy.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Eise]

If no more evidence existed for the reality of alien abduction as exists for the reality of Jesus would you believe aliens were abducting people?

 

That is an unfair comparison. Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary proof. To proof alien abduction much more is needed than just some vague feelings of people seeing lights and fear during their half sleep.

 

It would also need extraordinary evidence for a Son of God walking on earth doing miracles and resurrect 3 days after his death.

 

But for the proposition that somebody called Jesus existed, who was a charismatic apocalyptic preacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate in the restless time of the Roman occupation of Palestine is not that extraordinary. If we apply historical criteria to such historical events, then we can safely assume (not be 100% sure!) that such a person existed.

 

On the other side, there is no proof at all that it all is just a conspiracy to ground a new religion. Supposed lack of proof for Jesus' existence is not automatically proof of a Christ Conspiracy: it is lack of proof.

 

I am well aware that Christian theologians think Christ existed, but they, like Erhman, start out to prove an agenda and many scholars without an agenda come to the conclusion Jesus never existed.

 

What agenda? If I see an agenda it is with people like Carrier and Acharya S. These are military anti-theists, that will use every rumour as proof that Christianity is wrong. It explains also their anger against opponents, which is reflected in this thread. (OK, one point less again...)

 

Near the beginning of this thread evidence contrary to Jesus being real was given, why do you dismiss this evidence but think your evidence is real?

 

Evidence? Please repeat it here, because I haven't seen any evidence of Jesus' none-existence.

 

People of importance were well documented and anyone who performed miracles would have been known and documented at the time. Jesus didn't begin to exist in literature before 200 ace.

 

This is a straw man: Ehrman does not think that Jesus performed miracles. As apocalyptic preacher Jesus might also not be very special in the eyes of Pilate. Just another rebel. Pilate was known for executing people without much process. Why should Jesus' crucifixion be documented? And Jesus is mentioned in the Pauline epistles, written only 20 years after his death, and the earliest gospel (Mark) is written only 40 years after Jesus' execution.

[Robittybob1]

.... It would also need extraordinary evidence for a Son of God walking on earth doing miracles and resurrect 3 days after his death.

 

But for the proposition that somebody called Jesus existed, who was a charismatic apocalyptic preacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate in the restless time of the Roman occupation of Palestine is not that extraordinary. If we apply historical criteria to such historical events, then we can safely assume (not be 100% sure!) that such a person existed.

....

So do you think the Christians are just following a "charismatic apocalyptic preacher"? No, there was something much more extraordinary going on.

OK it is extremely difficult to get into that space but somehow Jesus did it. It is the difference between atheism and theism. If you can believe you have to go the whole hog. Imagine believing that the way forward is via a crucifixion. It would be like the ISIS hostages saying to their captors "please cut my throat". Jesus could have put up a decent defense in front of Pontius Pilate. Nah, he just stood there like a lamb to the slaughter. Why would anyone do that?

[Eise]

So do you think the Christians are just following a "charismatic apocalyptic preacher"?

 

 

Not quite. I think the direct followers of Jesus followed a charismatic apocalyptic preacher. I don't know what Jesus let them belief exactly concerning his 'miracles', but after people telling that they heard that people told that somebody who has seen as apostle was telling that ... stories might be greatly exaggerated.

 

You, and my mythicist discussion partners, make the same error: why should all the gospels be completely true or complete fantasy? Couldn't there be a historical core, with a lot of fantasy around it?

[Robittybob1]

 

Not quite. I think the direct followers of Jesus followed a charismatic apocalyptic preacher. I don't know what Jesus let them belief exactly concerning his 'miracles', but after people telling that they heard that people told that somebody who has seen as apostle was telling that ... stories might be greatly exaggerated.

 

You, and my mythicist discussion partners, make the same error: why should all the gospels be completely true or complete fantasy? Couldn't there be a historical core, with a lot of fantasy around it?

Well that is of course possible, but what would happen if someone could rediscover faith? Just a little bit of faith was supposed to go a long way. I spent time looking for it, I heard of the odd miracle had happened etc but I never got to see it myself, not an instantaneous healing miracle anyhow.

I haven't written it off as fantasy yet.

[Ten oz]

That is an unfair comparison. Extraordinary claims must have extraordinary proof. To proof alien abduction much more is needed than just some vague feelings of people seeing lights and fear during their half sleep.

 

It would also need extraordinary evidence for a Son of God walking on earth doing miracles and resurrect 3 days after his death.

 

But for the proposition that somebody called Jesus existed, who was a charismatic apocalyptic preacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate in the restless time of the Roman occupation of Palestine is not that extraordinary. If we apply historical criteria to such historical events, then we can safely assume (not be 100% sure!) that such a person existed.

 

 

The historical criteria being what exactly? The Jesus Seminar is hundreds of scholars who challange the criteria. Only one source describes who Jesus was, the bible. It describes him as the son of god born from a virgin who was resurrected from the dead. The modification of his story to a "charismatic apocalyptic preacher and was crucified by Pontius Pilate in the restless time of the Roman occupation of Palestine is not that extraordinary" is a change in context which is made to allow for him to have been real. It is people say assuming the stories were exaggerations rather than total works of fiction. I still do not see how that can be distinguished from the bible alone?

 

IMO Moontanman made an excellent point. There have been many first had accounts of aliens. Very reputable people have come forward claiming to have seen aliens like Former U.S. President Jimmy Carter and former Gov. of Arizona Fife Symington. We have pilot audio recording of sightings as they happen, recorded radar information showing anomilous things, and an understand that both life elsewhere in the universe is possible and that space travel is possible. The historical evidence is huge as well. People throughout history have claimed to have seen UFOs. Christopher Columbus recorded a UFO in his voyage log Oct 11th 1492. Despite all the "evidence" neither of us are sold on aliens. We don't believe the accounts. To Moontanman's point; people choose to believe Jesus was real. They choose to accept the "evidence". However there is no more logical reason for doing so than there would be to accept all the evidence of Aliens. Difference being that we aren't raised to to believe in aliens as a matter of cultural history and self identification. If it were important to who we were as people that aliens in fact were real most people in my opinion would believe in them.

 

There could be aliens. There could've be a charismatic apocalyptic preacher named Jesus. I am not claiming to be able to disprove or prove either. I am saying that I don't know. You are saying that you don't know either but then hedging it by implying that you most likely do know. I think that is a contradiction.

[Eise]

The historical criteria being what exactly?

 

Read Ehrman. I will not make an outline for you. I read Acharia S and it was just bad history. Spoiled a few dollars under the Motto 'give them a chance'. I hoped she would be right, but she simply isn't. (Yes, it would really have been fun if one can convincingly argue that Jesus did not exist. She couldn't. Then I bought Ehrman. Et voila, here I am, and the better argument has won.)

 

people choose to believe Jesus was real. They choose to accept the "evidence".

 

That is a nice rhetorical argument, which can immediately turned in its opposite: people choose to believe he did not exist at all. And there is no evidence either way: but there are hints, that if you take them all together points to the fact that it is more probable that he existed the he did not.

 

I am still waiting for positive hints that it was all thought out by some Christian group. Where are the reliable hints that the 'Protocols of the Elders of Jerusalem/Rome' really existed to build up a new church? You forget that you must have an alternative theory, with historical hints. You have given none. Only an opinion that the hints pro Jesus' existence are all unreliable (also all taken together).

 

The comparison with alien abductions is just absurd. Historians don't state that there was a water-into-wine-and-walking-on-water-and-resurrected-son-of-God existed. The comparison between a highly improbable opinion that aliens are abducting people, to which better theoretical alternatives (sleep paralysis) exist, and the historical idea that a new sect around a preacher grew to a worldwide religion misses every ground.

Edited October 16, 2014 by Eise

[Robittybob1]

I'm still looking for the resurrected Jesus, not just a "charismatic apocalyptic preacher". It is his art of healing that really fascinates me. A Jesus incapable of doing the miracles would be just another "charismatic apocalyptic preacher"and they were a dime a dozen in those days.

[For Prose]

Before replying, first let me inform you that I do not normally subscribe to conspiracy theories. I say that only because my belief on whether or not he existed sounds somewhat like a conspiracy theory.

 

I do not think he existed. Period. I think that all possible records of him, including all religious texts, to be fictitious and created for the sole purpose of the power associated with it. I think there are people out there who would go to great lengths to keep the myth going.

[Robittybob1]

Before replying, first let me inform you that I do not normally subscribe to conspiracy theories. I say that only because my belief on whether or not he existed sounds somewhat like a conspiracy theory.

 

I do not think he existed. Period. I think that all possible records of him, including all religious texts, to be fictitious and created for the sole purpose of the power associated with it. I think there are people out there who would go to great lengths to keep the myth going.

So you are a full blood mythicist. I think of the story as a type of recipe book, and you could read the recipe and it will tell you how wonderful the cake will be. But to taste the recipe it will cost you (possibly everything). Now others will tell you don't have to pay anything. I don't think anyone can convince anyone unless someone returns with the "power" of Jesus. I have looked at televised evangelists, years ago, like Benny Hinn with his "healings", but I am less than convinced. Do you know of anyone who seems to be getting the results? With the modern technology we should be able to prove it one way one or the other.

I met a guy from Indonesia who once had a powerful ministry and his name was Mel Tari. and I visited LA and met Richard Shakarian (son of Demos Shakarian). Both Mel and Demos had wonderful testimonies (in the past tense) but I don't think I saw what I was looking for.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demos_Shakarian

http://heartaftergodministries.net/mel-tari/

 

Mel Tari seems to be called fraud lately but years ago??

[Eise]

I'm still looking for the resurrected Jesus, not just a "charismatic apocalyptic preacher". It is his art of healing that really fascinates me. A Jesus incapable of doing the miracles would be just another "charismatic apocalyptic preacher"and they were a dime a dozen in those days.

 

Well, good luck. Historians do not give you more than this 'charismatic apocalyptic preacher'. And in case the mythicists would be right even less. If you are a honest searcher for truth, then you should admit that we only have very unreliable sources, and you have to live with it. You can believe what you want, but personally, I would not build the house of my life on quicksand. Don't make the meaning of your life dependent on some assumed truths that might turn out wrong.

 

Yes, there were more apocalyptic preachers in those days. Jesus had a cultural background in which he grew up. But he might have been the most charismatic, or the one that was just at the wrong place at the wrong time (Jerusalem during Pesach, in political restless times) and got executed.

I do not think he existed. Period. I think that all possible records of him, including all religious texts, to be fictitious and created for the sole purpose of the power associated with it. I think there are people out there who would go to great lengths to keep the myth going.

 

Then they could have done a better job. It is obvious from the Gospels that many facts of Jesus' life did not fit the views of what the Messiah had to be, and the evangelists reacted with different ways on it. So the history was bent by one evangelist but not by the other.

 

E.g. Luke places Jesus' birth during the reign of Herodes (37 - 4 BCE) in Judea and of Quirinius in Syria (6 - 12 CE); but they did not reign in the same time! But Luke needed Quirinius census to explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem (which is according the prophesies in the old testament), even that he really was from Nazareth. People had to travel to the place where their family came from to register (also a stupid unbelievable idea). Why would intentional fictitious texts do this? Why not just say Jesus was from Bethlehem? Simple answer: because in fact Jesus was from Nazareth and this was a well known fact, and Luke hat to bend the truth to make it fit the prophesies.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Eise

[Robittybob1]

 

... Then they could have done a better job. It is obvious from the Gospels that many facts of Jesus' life did not fit the views of what the Messiah had to be, and the evangelists reacted with different ways on it. So the history was bent by one evangelist but not by the other.

 

E.g. Luke places Jesus' birth during the reign of Herodes (37 - 4 BCE) in Judea and of Quirinius in Syria (6 - 12 CE); but they did not reign in the same time! But Luke needed Quirinius census to explain why Jesus was born in Bethlehem (which is according the prophesies in the old testament), even that he really was from Nazareth. People had to travel to the place where their family came from to register (also a stupid unbelievable idea). Why would intentional fictitious texts do this? Why not just say Jesus was from Bethlehem? Simple answer: because in fact Jesus was from Nazareth and this was a well known fact, and Luke hat to bend the truth to make it fit the prophesies.

I do understand the correct translation about the census was that it was the first census before Quirinius was governor of Syria.

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2009/11/01/once-more-quiriniuss-census.aspx

 

 

More likely are those who suggest that Luke refers to the census before Quirinius’s (supposed) governorship following Varus (6–4 B.C.). On this reading, “Luke is…stating that just before Quirinius was governor of Syria in [4/]3–2 B.C.47 there was a census in Herod’s domain.”48 This would be a much more helpful comment.

In my history, Jesus is born in Bethlehem and then the family (minus "the other" baby John) flee to Egypt, and they return to Jerusalem after Herod's death, Jesus is 12 years old by this stage, but Joseph decided to live in Nazareth rather than stay in Jerusalem or Bethlehem because they didn't trust Archelaus either.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Ten oz]

That is a nice rhetorical argument, which can immediately turned in its opposite: people choose to believe he did not exist at all. And there is no evidence either way: but there are hints, that if you take them all together points to the fact that it is more probable that he existed the he did not.

Correct, no evidence either way! That is my point. I am not claiming that Jesus did not exist. I claiming it is unclear.

 

I am still waiting for positive hints that it was all thought out by some Christian group. Where are the reliable hints that the 'Protocols of the Elders of Jerusalem/Rome' really existed to build up a new church? You forget that you must have an alternative theory, with historical hints. You have given none. Only an opinion that the hints pro Jesus' existence are all unreliable (also all taken together).

 

Why would I need an alternative theory? You are the one insisting that Jesus' existence is more likely than not. I am simply saying that it is not clear; that I don't believe the answer to the question about historical Jesus' is known.

 

If you would like an Alternative theory Richard Carrier provides one in the clip I linked in the OP. Since you don't like YT links here a link you can read where Richard Carrier responds directly to Ehrman "Ehrman on Jesus: A failure of facts and logic"

http://freethoughtblogs.com/carrier/archives/1026

 

The comparison with alien abductions is just absurd. Historians don't state that there was a water-into-wine-and-walking-on-water-and-resurrected-son-of-God existed. The comparison between a highly improbable opinion that aliens are abducting people, to which better theoretical alternatives (sleep paralysis) exist, and the historical idea that a new sect around a preacher grew to a worldwide religion misses every ground.

Historians like Ehrman do not claim any of Jesus' miracles to have been true but accepts that truth can be derived from those fictions. A subject matter proved real by extracting what could be true within exaggerated and made up reports. It would be akin to saying that the abduction part of alien abduction is false but all the reports otherwise supports the existence of aliens. The logic just doesn't work. If the abduction part is to fantastic to be believed the interior account is in question. Same logic applies to Jesus'. If a apostle writes about resurrection, virgin birth, water to wine, or etc it puts the interior account into question. Other sources are neccessary yet none are currently known. Edited October 17, 2014 by Ten oz

[davidivad]

hey...

what if jesus was actually an astronaut?

[For Prose]

So you are a full blood mythicist.

 

Interesting. Never knew they had a term for me haha.

 

Then they could have done a better job.

 

Of course they could have done a better job. But in doing a better job, they may have created more possible holes in which it could be later refuted.

 

It is hard for me to swallow that records (human created) are always credible past a certain point in history. The same goes for the religious texts themselves (human made).

[Eise]

hey...

what if jesus was actually an astronaut?

 

No. He was a time traveller from the nearby future.

 

Late night edit: here is another account von Jesus as time traveller.

 

It is hard for me to swallow that records (human created) are always credible past a certain point in history. The same goes for the religious texts themselves (human made).

 

They are not very reliable. But they are the best we have. And as I said a few times before: you must compare two theories: in this case one that says he existed (based on what hints (we have no evidence for anything in the far past)), or he did not (based on what hints). Nobody here gave any historical hints that it would be a kind of conspiracy. Together with other things historians know about Judea and Galilee in those days and what happened afterwards, the most probable hypothesis is that Jesus existed. Not the magical son of God, but a charismatic apocalyptic preacher.It is the best possible explanation for the historical continuity. Read Ehrman.

Edited October 17, 2014 by Eise

[Robittybob1]

 

.... They are not very reliable. But they are the best we have. ....

But that wasn't what Jesus was depending on. Jesus to me believed in Heaven, for example, he said at his trial something like "My kingdom is not of this Earth" and he told his followers "not to store up riches here on Earth where they can get stolen but in Heaven".

Now don't you think Jesus would have said the same about his words and his deeds? I could imagine this conversation "Don't bother writing my deeds down in books where they are subject to fire and rot and worms. Where scribes will change the text to the point that in 2000 years no one will believe them anyway."

 

So what was Jesus depending on? In my study I found that Jesus was relying on the whole project going to plan. Not like the astronauts planning to go to Mars and then be lucky to survive little more than 60 days. No, he seems to be implying there is something more permanent being hoped for in his mission.

 

I can't say he was overly confident it would work, but that was his hope in any case. His last thoughts were particularly negative, hanging on the cross with nails in his hands, "My God My God why have you forsaken me? That doesn't sound like a confident player to me. Luck seemed to be against him at that moment. Were his plans evaporating? Was his mission even going to get off the ground?

 

Matthew 6:19-20 http://biblehub.com/matthew/6-19.htm

 

http://www.news.com.au/technology/science/humans-on-mars-one-mission-would-start-dying-in-68-days-study/story-fnjwlcze-1227093316270

 

http://biblehub.com/mark/15-34.htm

 

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John+18%3A36&version=KJV

 

 

Edited October 17, 2014 by Robittybob1

[Ten oz]

@ Eise, your implication that a counter narrative is neccessary feels like an extra requirement you are only applying to Jesus. If I were to say about Krishna what I am about Jesus, that it is not clear he was a real person, I seriously doubt you'd challange by asking for proof that Hinduism was was made up . I have stated several times in this thread that the Exodus and Moses are myths. Not once have you asked for a counter narrative regarding either. It seems that the counter narrative only applies to Jesus.

Btw, there is a counter narrative if you want one. I have already provided links. I don't argue it myself because I do not find it neccessary. Why the gospels were written the way they were is a seperate issue from whether or not Jesus was a real person. I only need to know whether or not Peter, Paul, Matthew, John, and etc are accurate. I do not need to understand their motives.

[Robittybob1]

@ Ten Oz - How do you define a counter narrative? Example please.

[Ten oz]

@ Ten Oz - How do you define a counter narrative? Example please.

In the context of this discussion I am using it to summarizing Eise's request for proof "it" (Jesus and a new religion) was made up by design.

I am still waiting for positive hints that it was all thought out by some Christian group. Where are the reliable hints that the 'Protocols of the Elders of Jerusalem/Rome' really existed to build up a new church? You forget that you must have an alternative theory, with historical hints. You have given none. Only an opinion that the hints pro Jesus' existence are all unreliable (also all taken together).

 

Again, I do not pretend to know/understand the motives behind any of the apostle. Just as I don't know the motives behind people who claim to have seen Bigfoot, aliens, Lochness monster, and so on. I don't think understanding those motives are neccessary. If I am to believe in Bigfoot, aliens, Lochness monster, or etc I need proof they exist. Lack of "positive hints" is not required for me to be doubtful.