outhouse

he doesnt have the education


Oh! so thats all it takes to be a scholar [facepalm] LOL

outhouse

Oral tradition cannot be denied in a illiterate culture.



the same way romans deified mortal men in their times they deified a peaceful zealot peasant jew who fought for the hardworking jews oppressed to the point of starvation

Diogenes the Cynic

Correct. But they also thought they could infer things from the OT. Making pictures out of clouds to be sure, but something we can tell they did.
Sure. Nobody knows who Jack the Ripper was. There have been many fictional representations of him, all completely imaginary and derived from a few scant known facts about his effects but nothing of his identity. No one has the slightest idea who he was, what he looked like, where he was born and grew up up, how he died, etc. Yet we know he existed.

Likewise, a real Galilean preacher/healer could plausibly have been crucified and, for whatever reason, left a core following that thought he had gone to Heaven and would return as the Davidic Messiah (we have modern examples of exactly this phenomenon). Paul had no interest in (and probably little knowledge of) this person's actual life, and fixated on the death and "resurrection" which he associated with elements of Hellenistic cults. Once the original movement disappeared with the destruction of Jerusalem, taking with it any store of biographical knowledge about the object of its veneration (except arguable some sayings traditions), then Paul's satellite churches became "Christianity," but they were Hellenistic Gentiles with no access to the original movement or to any biographical information. So they made it up, just like modern writers make stuff up about Jack the Ripper.

Toto

We know he existed because of the dead bodies he left lying around.

This is a completely inapt analogy.

It's not plausible. It might be possible (and unfalsifiable), but there are too many implausible elements to a mere nobody being crucified and his followers staying together and promoting him into a god.

Is Schneerson the only example of this? Do you see the Lubavitch movement expanding on this basis, when everyone can see that he's still dead and the world is still the same corrupt place it always has been?

outhouse

not only is it plausable, its more then highly probable.


deification took a while, caesar was deified "son if god" and nothing but a mortal man.


they deified at will back then and you really should quit ignoring that.




when you can answer why the romans would deify a jewish teacher/healer peaceful poverty stricken zealot, then im all ears.

No Robots

All saints, many of them nobodies, must have miracles attributed to them. And this is still the case! Imagine how common was belief in miracles 200 centuries ago.

No Robots

One word: literature.

Let us not underestimate the power of literature: its power is unlimited. Greece and Rome thought nothing of the thirty thousand gods, and the mysteries, and all the art treasures and all the poets and philosophers of Greece and Rome; Greece and Rome, and all humanity, regarded the whole of civilization as nothing, and the poor hanged Jew as everything, as their Lord, to whose service they gave everything they had not thrown away. And all this came through the Jewish am haaretz literature.--Constantin Brunner / Our Christ

outhouse

only problem

we know the literature originated through oral traditions in a illiterate culture.


then its not just oral tradition, but cross cultural oral tradition from people who have a direct habit of calling mortal men "son of god" this is a fact that send all the sun god MJ's packing with their tales between their legs


we also have parrallels in scripture where we know for a fact they are competing with Caesar.

No Robots

True. "Son of God" is a Jewish term. It is the goyim who turned this into "God the Son." The mythicists are just taking this Gentile distortion to its ultimate absurd conclusion.

Logical

It's plausible because later copies and reinterpretations and re-telling of stories supplant earlier ones. No one had a reason to preserve them. I think the main reason the NT is relatively so well preserved is because it became "canon", and no one could modify it. Few writings by heretics and non-mainstream Christians were preserved, and mainly through sheer luck slipped through the cracks.

Look, history is based on eye-witnesses. If I tell you that my aunt drove to the park yesterday, you have no reason to doubt what I told you. If I told you that she grew wings on her shoulders and flew to the park, then you have no reason to believe me.

Likewise, when the early Christians claim that Jesus rose from the dead, we have no reason to believe them. But when they say he walked around preaching to people and then got arrested and killed, then we have no reason to doubt them.

It's a viable theory and historians do it all the time when they sift through all the BS that the ancients wrote. They keep the believable stuff and dispense with the crap.


Yes, that would be nice. But the lack of such evidence is explainable just like the lack of evidence for certain "missing links" in Evolution is explainable. The preservation of remains through fossilization is a rare phenomenon, and the preservation of records for a figure that no one thought was important at first (Jesus) is also rare.

And just like we can attempt to reconstruct earlier species through later remains and DNA analysis, we can do the same with Jesus, using later writings. And just like much of the original species is lost in later DNA records, much of what we could possibly know about Jesus is lost. But some basic things can still be known, such as the mere existence of a species (about which we know very little), and the mere existence of Jesus (about whom we know very little).