Why the Jesus Myth is illogical.

[MW0082]

there never was a Jesus, there never will be a Jesus, and religion is nothing more than propaganda.... SO HA

 

[angellous_evangellous]

there never was a Jesus, there never will be a Jesus, and religion is nothing more than propaganda.... SO HA

hahaha

 

[waitasec]

there never was a Jesus, there never will be a Jesus, and religion is nothing more than propaganda.... SO HA

i must ask you something
i understand that there is no evidence of a person to have existed by the name of jesus or whatever name he went by. the only evidence is hearsay. what interests me is why there are letters in the NT to claim to have been by jesus' peers. james his brother for example. paul never met jesus when he was alive and claims to have seen his resurrected body...and that to me is quite suspect. nonetheless, a person must have influenced these people. i don't think this myth was entirely based on myth but based on an actual person that was very charismatic.
so my question is,
with the evidence that there are people, josephus for example, that heard hearsay about this person, is their any doubt in your mind that maybe he could have been a real person that has turned into this mythical legend?
or are you 100 steps ahead of me and referring jesus as this mythical character that was based on a real person?

 

[dogsgod]

i must ask you something
i understand that there is no evidence of a person to have existed by the name of jesus or whatever name he went by. the only evidence is hearsay. what interests me is why there are letters in the NT to claim to have been by jesus' peers. james his brother for example. paul never met jesus when he was alive and claims to have seen his resurrected body...and that to me is quite suspect. nonetheless, a person must have influenced these people. i don't think this myth was entirely based on myth but based on an actual person that was very charismatic.
so my question is,
with the evidence that there are people, josephus for example, that heard hearsay about this person, is their any doubt in your mind that maybe he could have been a real person that has turned into this mythical legend?
or are you 100 steps ahead of me and referring jesus as this mythical character that was based on a real person?

The quest for an historical Jesus has been going on and off for centuries now, the historical Jesus appears to be difficult to nail down.

 

[Oberon]

The quest for an historical Jesus has been going on and off for centuries now, the historical Jesus appears to be difficult to nail down.

Unlike any other figure from history, even recent history. It's not like historians ever disagree when it comes to Alexander the great or lincoln or napolean... oh wait. they do.

 

[MW0082]

i must ask you something
i understand that there is no evidence of a person to have existed by the name of jesus or whatever name he went by. the only evidence is hearsay. what interests me is why there are letters in the NT to claim to have been by jesus' peers. james his brother for example. paul never met jesus when he was alive and claims to have seen his resurrected body...and that to me is quite suspect. nonetheless, a person must have influenced these people. i don't think this myth was entirely based on myth but based on an actual person that was very charismatic.
so my question is,
with the evidence that there are people, josephus for example, that heard hearsay about this person, is their any doubt in your mind that maybe he could have been a real person that has turned into this mythical legend?
or are you 100 steps ahead of me and referring jesus as this mythical character that was based on a real person?

I suppose this could be stretch of truth, someone who represented what they wanted ina m essiah and exaggeratted upon that. Yet it still seems suspicious. I just can't see how big of a person and influence he was while alive and there being no evidence. So either Jesus was a good guy they based Jesus Christ off of and that means it's a lie and a sham. Or Jesus never existed, which means it's a lie and a sham.... So am I missing something here? or is my logic all messed up?

 

[MW0082]

Unlike any other figure from history, even recent history. It's not like historians ever disagree when it comes to Alexander the great or lincoln or napolean... oh wait. they do.

Yeah but the disagreement is not whether they existed or not. They all agree they DID exist, except Jesus Christ....

 

[waitasec]

I suppose this could be stretch of truth, someone who represented what they wanted ina m essiah and exaggeratted upon that. Yet it still seems suspicious. I just can't see how big of a person and influence he was while alive and there being no evidence. So either Jesus was a good guy they based Jesus Christ off of and that means it's a lie and a sham. Or Jesus never existed, which means it's a lie and a sham.... So am I missing something here? or is my logic all messed up?

i think it was a perfect storm of sorts...
there was the destruction of the temple and it wasn't until after the destruction was the 1st gospel written as propaganda for the jesus movement.
another revolt ensued in a disaster for the jews. as a people, the jews faced the obvious...but were still bent on their belief.
a new jewish tradition began and the jesus movement came from this time.
of course they call jesus a lunatic liar or lord we know he isn't the lord in heaven above... and we can't call someone a liar or a lunatic if they didn't exist...

 

[waitasec]

The quest for an historical Jesus has been going on and off for centuries now, the historical Jesus appears to be difficult to nail down.

yeah, and who shot kennedy?

 

[McBell]

yeah, and who shot kennedy?

Colonel Mustard
in the observatory
with the candlestick

 

[McBell]

yeah, and who shot kennedy?

Oswald MIGHT have hit JFK, but the killing shot came from the front, not from behind.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Colonel Mustard
in the observatory
with the candlestick

I need a candle like that......

 

[javajo]

2 Peter 1:16, 3:3

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts...

Written by a simple fisherman who could never have "cunningly devised" and die proclaiming The Greatest Story Ever Told.

 

[dogsgod]

2 Peter 1:16, 3:3

For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts...

Written by a simple fisherman who could never have "cunningly devised" and die proclaiming The Greatest Story Ever Told.

You've taken half of one passage and combined it with another. Let's view them separately.

2 Peter 1:16-18

16It was not on tales artfully spun that we relied when we told (gnoridzo) you of the power of our Lord Jesus Christ and his coming (parousia); we saw him with our own eyes [literally, we became eyewitnesses] in majesty, 17when at the hands of God the Father he was invested with honor and glory, and there came to him from the sublime Presence a voice which said: 'This is my Son, my Beloved, on whom my favor rests.' 18This voice from heaven we ourselves heard; when it came we were with him on the sacred mountain. [NEB]​

OK, so they were the actual witnesses to a visionary experience with a booming voice from heaven, that ought to quiet the accusers of them relying on tales artfully spun.

 

[dogsgod]

2 Peter 3:3-4

3Note this first: in the last days there will come men who scoff at religion and live self-indulgent lives, 4and they will say: 'Where now is the promise of his coming? Our fathers have been laid to their rest, but still everything continues exactly as it has always been since the world began.' [NEB]

So, there were doubters then, what else is new?
​

 

[javajo]

Yeah, I threw the extra verse in. I put the reference. Main point is Peter said he was an eye-witness and that he as a simple fisherman didn't cleverly devise a fable, but was telling the truth and died proclaiming it. Peter, James and John saw him on the Mount of Transfiguration, that is a 3 fold cord not easily broken and 2 witnesses in a court of law is all it takes to confirm an event.

 

[dogsgod]

Yeah, I threw the extra verse in. I put the reference. Main point is Peter said he was an eye-witness and that he as a simple fisherman didn't cleverly devise a fable, but was telling the truth and died proclaiming it. Peter, James and John saw him on the Mount of Transfiguration, that is a 3 fold cord not easily broken and 2 witnesses in a court of law is all it takes to confirm an event.

Yeah, I heard the booming voice too your honor, I could recognize that voice any wheres, it was definitely God's voice, no two ways about it.

 

[javajo]

Yeah, I heard the booming voice too your honor, I could recognize that voice any wheres, it was definitely God's voice, no two ways about it.

and they saw the transfigured Christ and the two with him as well, truly EYE- witnesses.

 

[dogsgod]

No your honor, I can't speak for the others but I was not under the influence, I didn't inhale.

 

[javajo]

you sure about that?