Jesus Christ of the Gospels Never Existed. He's a Myth and I Can Prove It (Part 1). (contradiction, evolution)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jesus wasn't remotely famous in that primitive era, Thrill. There was no widespread general awareness of anything back then! Stop thinking like a modern human in a mass media environment! There is no reason any historian of the era would have paid any attention to Him or His followers, period!
What you think about their recorded BELIEFS about Him is your business, but the lack of serious historian attention is NOT probative! It would not have been of any interest to them. There would have been no reason for serious historians to even contemplate whatever was claimed about Him since He was of no importance to them or their society. Look at all the angst you are exhibiting because YOU were so gullible that you took it all in without question!
Okay, Mystic. I can see I am not going to convince you on this point. By the way, what subject are you a professor emeritus of?
Last edited by thrillobyte; 10-21-2022 at 08:05 AM..
They weren't looking for him...probably didn't believe the rumors he was still hanging around.
Actually, Miss Hepburn you got to the question before I could withdraw it. I decided to throw it away because I knew I wouldn't get a logical response from Mystic. But since i was too slow I will say that the common feeling is that after Jesus rose the Romans simply didn't care that a man they had killed was still walking among them. Sounds a bit goofy because wouldn't they have wanted a man who could come back from the dead to bring all their dead soldiers back from the dead as well? I mean why waste good meat? But then the whole story of Christianity is goofy so whatareyagonnado?
If believing in Jesus is necessary to a person's salvation, then why did Jesus wait until John to tell us? Why didn't Jesus say so right from the start in Mark?
If believing in Jesus is necessary to a person's salvation, then why did Jesus wait until John to tell us? Why didn't Jesus say so right from the start in Mark?
Jesus didn't write the Gospel of John or the Gospel of Mark.
Lots of things are necessary to a person's salvation. Belief is only the most basic, fundamental first step. If you don't even believe Jesus is who He said He is, then why would you give your entire life to Him?
Here's a question: If believing in Jesus is necessary to a person's salvation, then why did Jesus wait until John to tell us? Why didn't Jesus say so right from the start in Mark?
Because He wanted us to believe Him about God, NOT believe IN Him. He did not come to replace God. They completely misunderstood God as wrathful and vengeful toward us for our disobedience. Jesus came to correct their beliefs ABOUT God by showing them firsthand what God is actually like - agape love and forgiveness - even when dealing with our ignorant, savage, and brutal treatment and loss of this physical life.
We don't agree on that at all. However, we can all agree that it is inaccurate to categorize the Bible as "fiction".
The bottom line is that what we have is an unreliable document. And here's why I say that:
It seems to me you are saying that some things in the bible are historically accurate. Okay. I believe that.
But you also seem to be saying that somethings in the bible are not historically accurate. I certainly believe that.
That means we're left guessing what's historically accurate. So...fiction...no...not really. But reliable...no...not really, either.
Years ago I think it was "Reader's Digest" that occasionally had articles that, as I recall, were articles entitled "My Most Unforgettable Character". One of my most unforgettable characters was a teacher I'll call Mariah Black. Mariah was a very intelligent woman. On a few topics -- such as flying kites (yes, really) and English grammar and composition -- Mariah was considered to be an expert. But she had a very bad habit; if you were in a conversation with her she always felt the need to top you. For example, one day one of the teachers said that over the summer they had flown on one of the very new style jets (not the Concorde, but some other very new airplane model at the time) to Europe that summer. Mariah said, "I used to be an Air Force test pilot and tested the F-15s". The problem with that was that I had her personnel file and knew exactly what jobs she had had since graduating from high school, and she had always been an English teacher. It was ludicrous. Another time a teacher mentioned that somewhere back in his ancestry there was some "Indian" heritage. Mariah spoke up and said that her husband was a "full-blooded Cherokee Indian". We knew it was a lie, and the next time I saw him at a faculty party I said, "Someone told me you were of Indian heritage". He told me that was "ridiculous", that he was of Irish ancestry. What Mariah didn't seem to understand was that because she often told such outlandish stories, pretty much no one believed anything she said.
That is sort of how I look at the bible. It's got some great stories. Cecil B. DeMille level stories. But if you listen to neutral historians (for example, an excellent article here https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/bible/...20stay%20there) it's pretty clear the bible was a lot like Mariah. And so, the very fair question is -- if we know it's unreliable, why should we believe it?
And the answer from some of you people seems to be (and notice this is not in quotation marks) 'Well, you have to believe it because it's the bible'. Well, no, we don't have to believe it, just like we didn't have to believe Mariah.
Now, one might say, 'Victor, you're Buddhist. So you believe the stories in the Tipitaka'. No, actually I don't believe many (or perhaps maybe even most) of the stories in the Tipitaka. I believe that the Tipitaka is mostly moral stories. So I don't get bogged down with trying to prove what Victor, sitting in his house in the desert of Arizona can't prove. Instead, if I read some part of the Tipitaka I will ask myself if the moral lesson being taught is valid; I debate it with myself or with others.
And how do we worship God? By offering ourselves as a sacrifice. Dying to self.
You do. You have done that? Then how are you posting?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sounds a bit goofy because wouldn't they have wanted a man who could come back from the dead to bring all their dead soldiers back from the dead as well? I mean why waste good meat? But then the whole story of Christianity is goofy so whatareyagonnado? 
