Elijah

No, there is obviously an oral tradition now that isn't debatable and it's also obvious that the oral tradition isn't reliable but that isn't what we are discussing.

Tracking means do you understand what I'm saying.

Can you admit now that Jesus told his followers to sacrifice their lives as he did? Or since you're agnostic towards his existence that the narrative illustrates him as doing that?

Toto

Why isn't it debateable that there is an oral tradition? Why do you think that there is an oral tradition?

You found some quotes that can support the idea that Jesus called for his followers to be willing to sacrifice their lives for others (not that anything Jesus is quoted as saying is ever clear) so you do understand something about using sources.

I could argue about whether Jesus told his followers to sacrifice themselves the way he did, but that is debateable. There is no debate about any oral tradition - there is just no evidence for it.

Elijah

That’s how I heard about Jesus. Right now we are part of the ever evolving oral tradition that surrounds Jesus that goes back to when it all began. It’s existence is not debatable.
Debate it then. If you see some reason that it couldn’t have happened that way or see some other reason to believe that another more likely scenario caused the spread of his religion then put it forward.
You have completely misunderstood what I am trying to say.

Toto

No, you heard about Jesus from people who read the gospels. The issue is whether there was any oral tradition before the gospels.

If you claim that there was an "ever evolving oral tradition that surrounds Jesus that goes back to when it all began" you are assuming what you are trying to prove - that there was a time when it all began with a historical Jesus.

Elijah

Nope, probably not and if I did the first time I heard about him, there were plenty of times from people who had obviously not read the Gospels. Not too many people actually read the books, that’s why they don’t know basic stuff like Jesus told his followers to sacrifice their lives like himself.

The issue of where the oral tradition begins isn’t the issue at all.
It doesn’t matter if you want to go with it was a mythical origin. Even before the hypothetical author of the story finishes the work he’s going to tell someone what it’s about and that begins the oral tradition. Regardless or origin the oral tradition exists and stretches back to the beginning. Like I said you are missing the point I am trying to make.

So you had no argument against the self-sacrifice origin and no other theories you thought would explain it better?

Toto

If you aren't trying to prove that there was an oral tradition going back to Jesus, what is the point of bringing it up? It doesn't prove anything. It might as well be an urban legend.

I think that any argument is better than the self-sacrificing theory. You can see a lot of suicidal cults that don't get anywhere. Why should Jesus' self-sacrifice have meant anything to anyone, whether or not he expected his followers to sacrifice themselves in a similar manner?

aa5874

And you heard from those people whose understanding is not in the bible?

Explain how did you hear about the oral tradion of your suicide man?

You simply do not have any evidence for your absurd SUICIDE MAN theory and that is exactly what I told you long ago. People who claim the offspring of the Holy Ghost was just a man cannot produce one single piece of information to support their position.

How can I just accept your word that you have some kind of oral tradition of your suicide man?

And who did your man get to imitate his sacrifice? What happens to your theory if they did not exist at all?

But, according to Justin Martyr, Marcion's imaginary Jesus worked very well and Marcion's Jesus did not imitate your suicide man. Marcion's no-sacrifice imaginary Jesus made Justin's Jesus a laugingstock.

Marcion proved without doubt that the self-sacrifice suicidal man was a waste of time.

Well, as you say, oral tradition is no-good biased evidence. No-good biased evidence is not credible.

But, there is no credible evidence whatsoever, except no-good biased evidence, that anyone ever was crucified with the name Jesus who had twelve disciples. Suicide man has no history anywhere that can be found.

You just make stuff up and want people to believe your story. You have already admitted that all you have is no-good biased evidence for anything you say about your suicide man.

You are really just wasting time.

Elijah

It wasn’t meant to prove anything I was just saying there was evidence to Aa.
Well put one of them forward. The name of this thread is competing hypothesis, where is yours?
What suicide cult that didn’t get anywhere are you comparing to early Christianity?
It don’t think it meant (symbolically?)anything clearly to anyone. It was convincing. The meaning behind the story of Jesus didn’t create any believers it was the martyrs that got the world’s attention.

Like the sign of Jonah. Conviction is contagious. What convinces a man isn’t usually reason or facts it’s another person’s conviction. When you’re willing to give your life up then you probably believe what you’re preaching and that belief spread with the imitation of one man’s original sacrifice. Like Jonah saying repent convinces a few people to start falling to their knees and repent which convinces some other people and soon there is a snowball effect that spreads the kingdom.

Elijah

Yea lets stop.

aa5874

I won't stop until suicide man is destroyed, I want to shred him to bits.

You have not provided one single piece of credible information whatsoever to support your theory.

If the Jesus stories, as written in the NT, were found to be complete fiction, then your theory would go up in smoke. Your historical Jesus would vaporise.

You cannot show with any reasonable certainty that Jesus was crucified at all, you cannot show that there was some-one called Stephen, Peter or Paul in the 1st century as written in the NT, yet you claim there was oral tradition.

You have no idea whatsoever of any oral tradition, the Jesus stories may have been complete legendaty fables.

You have no way of knowning with any reasonable certainty when the Jesus stories were written, and how they originated, yet you claim that there was oral tradition.

You have nothing for your Jesus except your imagination and the futile hope that there is some truth in the Jesus story.

I won't stop until suicide man vaporises.