funinspace

Well he must have invented the tape recorder, since you think he had something recorded…

aa5874

Again, you contradict yourself. You NOW admit that it is you who is engaged in Theology and Gossip.

1. "I choose to call the supernatural aspect theology.

2. "And the story I call gossip.

You constantly accuse others of the very same thing you do.

Now, would you like to DENY your own theology and gossip??

Go right ahead. Deny everything you said.

MrMacSon

If there was conclusive evidence the "myther cottage-industry" would not exist

That is true, of course, because we have had the Christian religion, and its influence, because of the supernatural stories and regardless of the lack of proof for a single historical character.

You see, a historical non-supernatural Jesus is a heresy. A supernatural largely non-human Jesus has been the basis of Christianity, and the basis of the hopes of its followers for a similar personal resurrection into a proposed afterlife.

Of course the historical Jesus is unimportant to most Christians, as most adherents hope for the supernatural. Those that don't mostly like the humanistic aspects. Or social or community aspects of the local church community.

aa5874

The claim that Jesus existed is EXTREMELY important to Christians. A lot of the posters on this forum who claimed Jesus existed are indeed Christians or have claimed that they are.

If Jesus can be shown to have NOT existed, was NEVER in Galilee, had NO disciples, most significantly was NOT crucified and resurrected then many people who call themselves Christians would be greatly dis-appointed and devastated.

The very name Christian is linked to Jesus Christ in the Jesus cult so if there was NO Jesus and No Christ then we have NO Christians.

As an investigator of the matter, I CANNOT ALLOW the emotional religous beliefs of Christians to hamper my findings.

There was NO Jesus, No disciples and NO Paul so Christians ought to get used to the facts based on the evidence.

Logical

One important aspect of this issue is that the lack of contemporary records that would prove a historical Jesus does not DISPROVE the historical Jesus. It could only mean that while he was alive, he wasn't really that important, and the importance of the movement he founded became big enough to be detected by historical record keepers long after he died.

I guarantee that even in this day of YouTube and Facebook, a few hundred years from now, people will have almost no evidence that I ever existed. But we will have evidence that Obama existed. He's a bigger figure in history.

I think the Jesus movement simply happened to gain a few stubborn, charismatic, and influential leaders after Jesus died and that's when historians began paying attention, when the movement spread all over the region, but it was too late to get any disinterested accounts from contemporary witnesses. Everything we have originated from folklore and tales.

Logical

By the way, the lack of contemporary historical records should be a total embarrassment to Christians. Not because it necessarily disproves that Jesus existed, but because it proves that he was so freaking unimportant, no one noticed him!

If he did all the amazing miracles attributed to him, you'd think SOMEONE would have written SOMETHING about it.

aa5874

Logical Fallacy, Logical fallacy...... It is NOT logical that it could ONLY mean Jesus was NOT important, you very well know that it could mean that there was NO Jesus.

You don't know the future but let us do some logics.

Logically, 2000 years from now you can guarantee that there will be NO evidence of people who did NOT exist.

Right!!!!

Jesus was the Son of a Ghost and God the Creator so I would NOT expect any evidence a Billion years from now.

Right!!!

Everybody knows billions of people think Jesus existed WITHOUT a shred of evidence. Blind Faith is rampant in the West and all over the world.

Grog

So you are proposing a hypothesis.

There was a man "Jesus" who founded the religion Christianity.

you have some additional corollaries:

This man was not important enough while alive to be noticed by contemporaries.

The movement he founded was not big enough to be recorded until much later.

So what evidence could we imagine to falsify this proposal?

You are probably correct about that. I predict also that there won't be a worldwide religion based on your teachings 2000 years from now. (Mark this one down, it might be prophetic.)

It seemed to be all over the region by the time of Paul, though.

I don't see anywhere here that this couldn't be compatible with the idea that the Jesus myth evolved out of ideas already permeating hellenistic judaism in the first century.

But my main point here is that I think you have constructed an unfalsifiable hypothesis. You are acknowledging the weakness of the proposal by developing an ad hoc explanation for why the evidence does not match what you want to be true: That Christianity was founded by the man Jesus.

Grog

aa will probably beat me to the punch again You are conflating the Jesus of the Gospels with the "historical Jesus," the man who founded Christianity with his teachings.

Here is another problem for the Jesus to Christ hypothesis that Gospel Jesus folks are happy to point out: How do we get from this unimportant failed (possibly suicidal if I am reading this hypothesis correctly--suicide by crucifixion) messiah to a burgeoning movement within 3 years, where Paul is persecuting "the church?" This really is the "impossible faith" that Holding argues for. A Jesus who rose from the dead could inspire such a dramatic growth, but it is a little hard to picture it coming from this obscure, itinerant, apocalyptic preacher/messiah. Don't you think? I don't mean to say that it couldn't have happened, I am asking you to consider the plausibility and then the probability that it happened. Versus the alternative point that there was no historic big bang in 30 AD and that the Jesus story evolved out of motifs already in evidence in Judaism of the first century.

outhouse

this is only due to lack of education on the subject.


there is no reason at all to use a zealot type charactor who uses non violence to fight taxation through his teachings.

A failed messiah is not divinity material, yet this tax dodger and perverter of the nation is deified.

A poor peasant jew who hates the roman oppression and roman infection in the temple, is not what one would create mythology about.


With known history we see the authors fighting the reality trying to cover up for a real poor peasant traveling teacher.





Only through a shallow view and lack of education do most ascribe complete mythology. Of the hundreds of scholars you only have a small handful that have found a mythical core VS one that follows a mortal man.