Christianity and its non-historical Jesus

[ForgedinHell]

There is nothing that could be presented to you as proof that you would accept. Whether it be scientific or theology.

Your mind is closed.

You are the expert on all topics on this Forum a man of vast knowledge, who am I to argue with you.

That's a big cop-out. I accept evidence. It's not my fault you have none.

[ForgedinHell]

The earliest Gospel, Mark, was not written until about 70 A.D.

Mark's gospel isa non-gospel, probably an early concoction only.

Mark's Gospel was the first. Before that there is absolutely no mention of an historical Jesus. Since there is nothing that the writer or writers of that gospel could have relied upon in coming up with their story, since they had no documents to cite to, the story has to be fiction. It's really that simple. A story cannot appear out of the blue decades after the alleged events and be accurate. This is the case because the author(s) cannot be witnesses to the events, and the author(s) had no sources to rely upon. That's all that is necessary to show no historical Jesus existed.

[Bernard]

Dear Hell Bent,

We are talking a cult here of which there were numerous at the time. Meetings and documents would have been secreted away from authorities. Threats toward these cults were not idle. There would have been far more discipline and structure in oral transmission under such circumstances, especially in ages well before the printing press. How much was there to record in those days? The Romans for sure needed military records, but all trades and agriculture in the middle East were still passed on from generation to generation without the requirement of manuals. Those who were writing were certainly not writing for the general public, thinking all the time that there is a mass audience to target. They were writing largely among themselves, within cults or institutions. Exoteria was basically only found as an occasional bit of graffiti in the lavs. You need to fast-forward through the renaissance, when the 'individual' with its modern equivalent in the celebrity began to emerge. It was a different mind set, mate - slower, not as concerned with historicity and archival pursuit. The Arab language was, and still is very poetic, this should give any half thinker a clue to how they preferred to communicate, and what: Dates, times, biographical details; these are all minor.

That a man communicated with great beauty ideas that were central to the psyche - serenity of heart, love of neighbour, moderation, simple living, non-resistance to evil - was not unimaginably a thing of great appeal and comfort to many around him in those times. That he did that with great simplicity, yet potency, for their hearts and minds was a thing of great tact and generosity of spirit; he was obviously a talented orator and knew that with his skills he could clutch at a level where written words fail.

Gibran was more similar to him than any man since. Gibran is the second most read poet after Shakespeare, but who writes about him? He was so frugal yet to the point in his works that there is little to add or subtract, and it lacks the modern character, so who would bother?. Its just there to enjoy or not. It was the same with Jesus, but Jesus had more the gift of speech... a rather lost art now. Perhaps he would have written were he around today, but I somehow doubt it.

[mickthinks]

You seriously think that you are making an intelligent argument for anyone to believe in an historical Jesus?

No, Forgy, of course I don't!

What I am pointing out to you is that you don"t have any evidence that Jesus didn"t exist—you just have a lot of half-baked ideas that you keep repeating as if you thought repetition would somehow turn them into proof. And a lot of playground insults for your fellow members each time one of us points out your error.

[ForgedinHell]

Dear Hell Bent,

We are talking a cult here of which there were numerous at the time. Meetings and documents would have been secreted away from authorities. Threats toward these cults were not idle. There would have been far more discipline and structure in oral transmission under such circumstances, especially in ages well before the printing press. How much was there to record in those days? The Romans for sure needed military records, but all trades and agriculture in the middle East were still passed on from generation to generation without the requirement of manuals. Those who were writing were certainly not writing for the general public, thinking all the time that there is a mass audience to target. They were writing largely among themselves, within cults or institutions. Exoteria was basically only found as an occasional bit of graffiti in the lavs. You need to fast-forward through the renaissance, when the 'individual' with its modern equivalent in the celebrity began to emerge. It was a different mind set, mate - slower, not as concerned with historicity and archival pursuit. The Arab language was, and still is very poetic, this should give any half thinker a clue to how they preferred to communicate, and what: Dates, times, biographical details; these are all minor.

That a man communicated with great beauty ideas that were central to the psyche - serenity of heart, love of neighbour, moderation, simple living, non-resistance to evil - was not unimaginably a thing of great appeal and comfort to many around him in those times. That he did that with great simplicity, yet potency, for their hearts and minds was a thing of great tact and generosity of spirit; he was obviously a talented orator and knew that with his skills he could clutch at a level where written words fail.

Gibran was more similar to him than any man since. Gibran is the second most read poet after Shakespeare, but who writes about him? He was so frugal yet to the point in his works that there is little to add or subtract, and it lacks the modern character, so who would bother?. Its just there to enjoy or not. It was the same with Jesus, but Jesus had more the gift of speech... a rather lost art now. Perhaps he would have written were he around today, but I somehow doubt it.

That argument still doesn't get you any where. The claim was that Jesus was famous. So, even if he wrote everything in secret, which would be a strange way to deliver a message to the people of the globe, it does not explain why no one else wrote anything. No historians mentioned him. None of his enemies wrote anything about him, and surely they would have not wanted to keep their criticisms secret. Jesus never existed. Get over it.

[Bernard]

[reasonvemotion]

To CW


Did you believe before you were stricken with cancer?