Hmm… i clearly answered it in my other posts. If you read it.
Please do your research instead of giving out your guesses… there is more academic fallacious claims you gave in this new post, mainly in the last sentence. I already covered the “what if the stories where made up” part… it’s clearly your choice if you want to believe what the gospels wrote about him; if his followers where deceived or being figurative. Now the existence of his followers are being questioned by you? It’s like you are just throwing out guesses here. You really need to start doing your research because you’ve been giving me allot of non-academic hypothesis’. Jesus’ contemporaries have never been questioned or debated against at all, by any historian.
This is my only and last post towards you, I don’t think i need to pay attention to you, because you are stupid. The fact you can’t spell Filipinos and are actually confusing Filipinos with Chinese culture is enough to show me that some uneducated kid is trying to get my attention to look cool. I do expect you to reply with some post to insult me further, because that’s what you are baiting against. You pathetic and stupid bitch.
Thread kinda got derailed… You’ve got to be a complete idiot if you think Jesus the human being never existed. So how did the Jesus-myth start? 12 random-ass Jews from different walks of life (uneducated fishermen to tax-collectors) made up some son-of-god story and duped everyone? The much more logical explanation is that some charismatic human being named Jesus started proclaiming himself as the Son of God. (Perhaps misled into believing it by his psycho-mom, Mary, who got knocked up pre-wedding and had to think on her feet to avoid getting stoned to death.) Now whether he WAS the Son of God or not depends on your own personal belief (I personally think he was full of shit) but with the overwhelming evidence on the contrary, you can’t say Jesus the person never existed.
Atheists who claim Jesus never existed are as blind as fundies who claim there’s no such thing as Evolution.
Son, I don’t need to bait you or insult you. It fills me with great joy to know that no matter what you do, no matter how hard you pray or believe, there’s no place in heaven for a chinaman like yourself.
You in heaven is as awkward and out of place as me in a Jamaican restaurant ordering oxtail and getting mad cut eyes and teeth sucking, i.e., you out of place homie.
Imma see yo ass in Confucious heaven, my yellow brothah.
Confucianism isnt even a religion potnah.:tdown: I have a deluxe apartment in the sky AND government cheese in my heaven nigga you need to get wit it fuck confucious.
Jesus returns to earth every hundred years to remind motherfuckers just exactly who He is. I mean, wouldn’t kill him to turn up to his birthday every once in a while would it.
the Bible is not just another book you can pick up at your local Barnes and Noble. No, instead it is one-of-a-kind book which can be found on a pedestal in the Jerusalem. Oh, and it happens to be 100% physically indestructible, cannot be removed from its pedestal, and is seen in whatever language the reader understands.
That kind of thing. We’re talking about evidence for GOD here, so it needs to be pretty damn convincing.
… and there is your problem.
Whether or not there was “deception” from an outside source involved, I’m afraid to tell you that human beings are incredibly good at self-deception. And the big problem for you is that there are countless other examples of the kind of phenomenon that you are claiming is the One True Religion.
And so we go back to evidence, because for a non-believer to choose between all these competing theologies that is what’s required. And yet there isn’t any (of the kind I mentioned earlier).
Well look at the Mormon faith. Now sure, it is harder in this age of technology to get a faith started, compared to the days when standards of proof were much lower, but some guy just came up with some bonkers book and has followers. Or scientology. People really believe that shit.
So I think it is a combination of the leaders and of people’s imagination. Like, modern day Christians have no direct access to jesus the person, and yet they still become Christians. So it is coming from themselves, mostly.
This argument and answering this will get the thread locked. All i can say here is what you gave to be right evidence is just fuckin immature. Go to a different forum if you want a debate concerning that.
Ah ya, the argument of the followers (if that is what you are saying here) being deceived is a religion debate. Next, i’m not claiming a true religion. You seem confused as to what is being argued here.
hmm… it wasn’t easy to create a religion in early AD either. It was actually harder because if you did, it is considered a crime worthy of execution. You are aware of the martyrdom of the apostles right? So yes, saying that it is much harder now just makes you look ignorant. Do your research.
Next, Mormonism - it’s teachings and it’s theology- didn’t come out of thin air, it all came from John Smith. Jhn’s Smith’s teachings where an altered Christian Doctrine… still having a bit of elements yet contradictory to the original Christian doctrine concerning Jesus Christ. The Mormon doctrine - it’s book and it’s church is factually from John Smith. While the Christian Doctrine (the theology) is only from the founder of Christianity himself, Jesus. There are documentations from Lucian, that the Christians lived after the teachings of their leader, worshiped him, and said he was God. The point of the argument is that the doctrine about him being God wasn’t a teaching made up by the followers, but those teachings are from Jesus himself and his followers believed it and wrote about it.
I do know Aristotle wrote a letter to Alexander, i don’t recall him writing a documentation about him though.
Fishjiz’s argument was that the books that talk about Jesus - his life, the teachings- (the gospels) are questionable due to dating decades after. Alexanders most reliable documentation that is about his life and all that date 400 years after. So it would be unfair to say the gospels are not historically credible due to their time line.
Been there, done it a thousand times. And there’s nothing immature about it: if that were the kind of evidence available you wouldn’t be complaining. But it isn’t. It’s immature to accept a ridiculous truth-claim on anything less than outrageous evidence.
You’re saying that the claims of Christianity are true (eg, that Jesus is God). And I was arguing that the followers deceive themselves.
No. What I was saying is that it was easier back then to make up some bullshit and have hundreds of people believe you.
This is because a) the standards of education were on the whole much worse than they are now, and b) there were not such things as cameras, video recorders, the internet, and other tools of communication which make the burden of proof that much higher.
Rar, makes me laugh that a religious person calls me immature and ignorant.
my reply on this part of the quote isn’t about Jesus being God, but just to show how flawed your argument for this demand of this type of evidence is. Yes, that was immature and stupid. It just shows your lack of knowledge concerning the belief of the Christian God because the so called evidential requirements is contradictory to the Christian god’s personality and what you listed as to what God should do for evidence is similar to the test given by Jesus from satan in the desert which was about the physical proving of his divinity.
So google some bible study sites on that and stfu about this before you get this locked.
No. I clearly said that, believing what the gospels write about Jesus in the theology part is up for the person to decide. What i have been arguing about is that it is academically fallacious to suggest that the followers of Jesus just creatively made up attributes for him.
There was a reason they believed in him so strongly.
And this statement is academically ridiculous. You only say this because of what you, being an Atheist, learned in school about the ancient world and read about the many religions that existed therefore you make some hypothesis that religion was much more easier because you think people where that gullible back then. Your hypothesis is ridiculous and baseless. You probably think that if you traveled back to that time with just drags on and started saying you or who ever is God that you probably could bag about 15 + followers and have a religion centered on you.
It was just as hard to create a new religion or cult during that time, more likely harder, because you can get killed for it. Jews and other countries during that time where very devout into their religion, it was everything in their culture/heritage. Same thing goes for other localities during that time so you saying it was easier to get hundreds of followers is just an uneducated guess of yours. If a person during early AD went around town and started preaching in front of random Jews about something religiously diverse, that person would get rebuked and then followed up by a possible stoning. This same thing would go in other localities with in that ancient world.
I think someone stated this earlier, but yeah… most historians do believe historically that Jesus existed. There is so much stuff floating around about him that does match historically with what happened.
It’s also highly suspected that he was influenced by a group of people called the Essene, a sub group of Jewish faith practitioners who lived in the caves near the Dead Sea. A lot of their rituals are similar to what carried on to Christianity. (baptism etc)
Essene were the same people who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls i think…
Anyway, believing he is the Son of God etc is up to your personal beliefs… but to just simply and ignorantly just say “psh jesus never existed” is dumb >_>
