Mountain Man

With that reasoning you'd also have to believe in the FSM and all other gods invented by humans.Reality.How can anyone research something that does not exist? :huh:

Chris Weimer

Now you're just stretching it. What evidence have you that people fabricated Jesus entirely out of thin air? God? Yeah, that's likely. But Jesus? And no, "reality" is not a valid answer. I'm not even going to dignify the last response.:down:

Malachi151

You may also want to read this thread:

http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.p...=1#post3021201

Malachi151

There is actually a lot of evidence for this.

Here is a good website that coves most of it pretty well:

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Basically:

1) The story of Jesus mirrors the story of many other hero figures that were parts of other religions in the region at the time.

2) There are no verifiable extra-Biblical accounts of Jesus during his supposed lifetime.

3) There are conflicting stories about his life in extra-Biblical accounts.

4) There are other extra-Biblcal accounts of his life that further mirror other known hero figures of the time.

5) As I am discussing in another post, the crucifixion of Jesus does not appear to have been an apsect of early Christian worship.

Chris Weimer

A couple of things, Malachi - that some Christians didn't worship the cross as an association with Jesus does not mean that Jesus wasn't crucified. There's no sequential logic there. Besides, Tertullian and others are pretty late when compared to Paul and Mark.

Given, I'm not saying that the cross was historical, but I'm pointing out this flaw. Lots of sects diverge for many reasons, and they don't have to be historical. Mormons claim that Jesus is the archangel Michael, but that neither invalidates orthodoxy nor gives credence to heterodoxy. We have to get pass that.

And yes, I've been to that website plenty o' times. Very non-scholarly and very disengaging. I'll address your individual points.

Embellishments? Syncretism? All that is denying is the historical truth of the Biblical accounts, not if there or if there isn't a historical Jesus.

Irrelevant. He doesn't need extra-biblical accounts of his death during his lifetime. I still am not sure why this is continually brought up as evidence of his non-existence. There's hardly any accounts of any minor and insignificant during their lifetimes - if Jesus is among them, why is he singled out?

So? They do agree on one aspect - crucifiction.

Irrelevant.

Worship? What man needs worship? But the early Christian tradition is there. It doesn't needed to be worshipped to be historical.

mata leao

Chris, over time you will see that the "conspiracy" to make up the entire Bible out of whole cloth and get every single thing wrong, just about, requires far more of a "miracle" than to get it right! If you add up all the errors claimed by the atheistic revisionists you end up with the most masterful conspiracy imagineable, one which required hundreds of authors in 66 books over thousands of years to orchestrate and they were able to get almost the enitre thing wrong from ocver to cover! strange, most forgers and con artists try to get most things accurate and then slip in just a few key lies in order to further their cause....but hey, the gospel forgers, they made almost every line, every name, every refernce, every event a complete, and utterly complete lie! and they got away with it! except for just recently , and these atheists here on IIDB have discovered the hoax. I woulda thought there would be more publcicity about this by now dont you?

RUmike

Besides absolutely atrocious web design, this site makes little attempt to be scholarly and unbiased. It is clear that its author is an extremely bitter person with regard to religion and Christianity. How can he expect anyone, and especially Christians, to take it seriously?

Mountain Man

Complete lack of evidence any of it happened.Why not?That's all the question deserved.

Mountain Man

Where did anyone claim a conspiracy? :huh:

Mountain Man

In other words, you have nothing to refute anything he says so you have to revert to an ad hominem. Why is it that these christians always claim that someone that doesn't agree with their silly gods is "bitter" or had a "bad experience" with religion?