Sheshbazzar

Eusebius and the early Christian church thought there was. And even recorded the complete correspondence between Jebus and Agabar. And the Eastern Orthodox and Armenian Apostolic Church still hold this belief.

Grog

Or that the final redactor of gLuke is the author of Acts, which is what I think.

Clearly, this "author" did not think things through clearly when he ends his Gospel with the immediate Ascension to heaven whereas Acts begins immediately with Jesus staying 40 days amongst his disciples. A hard contradiction to reconcile if these works are by the same author.

angelo

This has been an almost life long quest for me. Since I was a young whipper-snapper I have searched for the historical Jesus without finding one scrap of credible evidence for his existence. He is just like the myriad of other god-men of ancient history, just mythical claptrap. Only this one was successful in starting up a religion that's still today followed by over 2 billion people. Had it not been for Paul, perhaps they would be worshipping Zoroaster instead. Don't give me the claptrap about Josephus, Tacitus, etc. They are all writing decades after the first christian writings, therefore, hearsay if not outright lies interloped by early christians.

angelo

These writings didn't surface until well into the 3-4th century. They have no credibility whatsoever. One may as well believe the writings of the Brothers Grimm if one takes any notice of Eusebius or the early christian church.

angelo

All these writings/gospels are copies of copies of copies. Each scribe would add or subtract according to their beliefs. One reason they are not credible, none of them.

Sheshbazzar

'LYING' is a strong word, and is likely not at all appropriate in this context.
Writers wrote down what they believed to be the truth, although by modern standards, their beliefs and religious claims must be rejected by Rational individuals.

It seems difficult for modern skeptical minds to fully grasp the concept that back then, the content of religious 'visions' and 'dreams' and their 'interpretation' was equated with being factual 'revelations' from one's God, to be accepted and acted upon as any other real fact of daily life.
Various men presented the religious 'visions' or 'interpretations' they had experienced, or had heard from others TRADITIONS as being true and factual accounts.
Often these accounts would vary in some details between the various individuals relating them, but is not correct to assume that anyone originally involved ever intended to present a LIE.
With regards to the practice of the Jewish form of religion, any communication with ha' Elohim was to be through 'visions' and 'dreams', and it was a requirement;
Various modern Fundamentalist religious sects still engage in this practice when relating their 'spiritual' 'visions', 'dreams', 'tongues' and their 'interpretations' and consequent 'testimonies' thereof.
They (mostly) are NOT engaged in any willful lying but in a spiritual ecstasy of conviction that what comes out of their mouths really is God's truth, and that the Holy Spirit has moved upon them, and has impelled them to be spokespersons (mouth-pieces- 'ambassadors') for their God's words and will.
I have been around such persons for most of my life. NO, I don't 'buy' their religious ravings, but it has been made quite apparent to me on many occasions that they do, and do so strongly enough to place themselves in life-threatening situations based upon their personal convictions that such visions, dreams, and their interpretations constitute a real and valid communication with their imagined God, one worthy of dying in the defense of.

Sheshbazzar

A skeptic eh?

sotto voce

It's odd, then, that Muslims are sure that historical Jesus was a prophet; that Hindus and Buddhists celebrate his 'birthday'; that Catholics even reckon to eat his body; that guarantors of atheism sing lustily of his earthly birth. It's so darn hard to find anyone who doesn't believe; unless one is a mountaineer in Mongolia!

So why are so many convinced without finding 'one scrap of credible evidence'?

But maybe Paul was all part of the plan?

I don't think many believers have read either.

Why 'therefore'?

Duvduv

Of course the author of "Paul's" letters forgot to call him God's PROPHET under the book of Deuteronomy.

angelo

Certainly they were just writing headway them! There is little else that makes sense. Church members after Joseph Smith kicked the bucket claimed to have received messages from him. Although there is enough evidence to convince the most sceptic among anyone of his existence.