Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Does evidence of the existance of Jesus = evidence of the existance of God?

  • 11-11-2008 3:28pm
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭


    I was quite surprised when reading in the "Are Atheists Evil" thread that some people were sighting historical evidence that Jesus existed as evidence that God exists.

    I would have never made that leap personally but I'm interested in hearing the arguments (and the other thread is going wayyyy of topic so I thought this might help bring that thread back on topic!)

    So, if someone tomorrow was able to somehow conclusively and finally give unarguable evidence that Jesus was a real person and existed 2000 years ago does that automatically mean that there is a God?
    Tagged:


«1

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 588 ✭✭✭andrewh5


    Can you or any other christian actually prove that Jesus existed? To the best of my knowledge there is no empirical evidence to prove he did. Please don't try and use the Gospels as evidence - they were written decades after he was alleged to have been crucified etc.

    Any ideas anyone?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Gambler


    Heh, I'm an Atheist but I am willing to accept that a man called Jesus who did and said great things (but until evidence backs up the stories not actual miracles) existed, I just never thought that was a good enough reason to believe there is a God. I'm more interested in what other peoples thinking on this particular subject are :)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 5,096 ✭✭✭--amadeus--


    At somepoint in the madness that this thread will become someone somewhere will bring up CS Lewis and say something to the effect that Jesus was either "Lord, Liar or Lunatic". The quote generally runs:
    “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: “I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.” That is the one thing we must not say. A man who said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.”

    Obvioulsy this is a flase dilemma (or trilema). He is pitching one option as valid and the others as weak and implausible and so "winning the argument.

    Which is a bit of a cack handed debating tactic TBH. The obvious rebuttal is to ask why are the Liar and Lunatic options dismissed so readily? Or what about option D - Deluded?

    So no, proof of Jesus is not proof of god. Now proof of the resurection (a very different argument) would be a lot closer to proof of god, but that's not this debate ;)


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,353 ✭✭✭Goduznt Xzst


    Christians like to make illogical leaps like that though. Like the leap they make that if a God had to of caused the big bang, it was naturally the Christian God.

    Trying to prove that an entity created the Universe does not instantly equate to this entity being the one worshiped in the Christian faith.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,091 ✭✭✭Biro


    Christians like to make illogical leaps like that though. Like the leap they make that if a God had to of caused the big bang, it was naturally the Christian God.

    Trying to prove that an entity created the Universe does not instantly equate to this entity being the one worshiped in the Christian faith.

    Assuming there is only One, that is the Christian way. Your statement isn't technically correct. What does "the wrong god" mean? If God created the universe, and you claim that He is different to the one that Christians worship, that would mean that there is more than one, which in itself demotes the idea of a god. If there's more than one beings at that level, then where did they come from? What's above those beings? It's the top level of the hierarchy that we concern ourselves with, which we believe is God, only one "entity", so to speak. If you take this as a given, then it's impossible to worship the "wrong god", as there is only one. It is entirely possible to worship Him in the wrong way, but not the wrong God.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    Gambler wrote: »
    I was quite surprised when reading in the "Are Atheists Evil" thread that some people were sighting historical evidence that Jesus existed as evidence that God exists.

    I would have never made that leap personally but I'm interested in hearing the arguments (and the other thread is going wayyyy of topic so I thought this might help bring that thread back on topic!)

    So, if someone tomorrow was able to somehow conclusively and finally give unarguable evidence that Jesus was a real person and existed 2000 years ago does that automatically mean that there is a God?

    It does not matter whether or not proof of the existance of Jesus or God is available to true Christians for when you know you know. The power of the Holy Spirit is overwhelming and thats all the evidence that is needed.

    If there was proof of God then scripture would be wrong and could not be fulfilled.

    So to answer the question it does not matter whether or not any evidence exist for only those of feable faith will raise these questions.

    One thing that must be said is that I do think that there are many priests and preachers that simply use lip action and don't feel the Holy Spirit. I have gotten this impression from some priests. The power of the Holy Spirit is supposed to give both wisdom and faith but some who claim to have this in words fail to display this in action.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Gambler


    I suppose it was this post in particular that got me curious about christians opinion:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57848817&postcount=46

    When a comparison between the evidence for fairies and god came up as an argument the response was that there wasn't a correlation because there is more evidence for Jesus than for fairies.

    My thought to that was it's like arguing that apples exist because there's evidence for oranges but there seems to be a real feeling that if you accept that Jesus was a real person then you must also accept that God exists which I have trouble wrapping my head around as an argument..


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    It does not matter whether or not proof of the existance of Jesus or God is available to true Christians for when you know you know. The power of the Holy Spirit is overwhelming and thats all the evidence that is needed.

    What about all the believers in other faiths who 'know' just as clearly as you know that they are correct in their beliefs.

    You don't know, you just believe so deeply that you think you know, which is an entirely different thing.

    In any other context this behaviour is termed delusional.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    rockbeer wrote: »
    You don't know, you just believe so deeply that you think you know, which is an entirely different thing.

    The power of the Holy Spirit and God is unmistakable. Its not about believing deeply, its about feeling the Holy Spirit and having that guidance than is more powerful that anything worldly.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    Gambler wrote: »
    When a comparison between the evidence for fairies and God came up as an argument the response was that there wasn't a correlation because there is more evidence for Jesus than for fairies.

    My thought to that was it's like arguing that apples exist because there's evidence for oranges but there seems to be a real feeling that if you accept that Jesus was a real person then you must also accept that God exists which I have trouble wrapping my head around as an argument..

    If any evidence was available I would have to assume that it was a man made act of "blasphemy". The pysical evidence that you seek is not mentioned in the Bible but the evidence is available in life.

    Seek and you shall find.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 697 ✭✭✭oobydooby


    Gambler wrote: »
    So, if someone tomorrow was able to somehow conclusively and finally give unarguable evidence that Jesus was a real person and existed 2000 years ago does that automatically mean that there is a God?

    No. I trust the historians and they seem reasonably certain that there is adequate evidence for Jesus' existence. As to his divinity there is no historical evidence except the faith of believers. The CS Lewis quote given by amadeus is provocative but not conclusive. My inference from the historians' testimony is that it's likely that Jesus exists and it's plausible that he is the son of God.

    It is a massive leap in perspective though from accepting the philosophical possibility of an all powerful abstract Creator which set the universe in motion and whose will is manifest in the very details of the physical laws of the universe to accepting the philophical possibility of this divine being making Himself human and relating to each of us in a personal capacity.

    The acceptance of a historical Jesus existing does not even nearly imply the acceptance of a divine being.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 697 ✭✭✭oobydooby


    Christians like to make illogical leaps like that though.

    Some Christians also make illogical (ie trivially falsifiable) generalisations too. But good Christians should be humble enough to repent if inadvertantly spreading falsehoods...


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,497 ✭✭✭Nick_oliveri


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    Seek and you shall find.

    So seek faith and redemption then yes?
    Excuse me if i think that equating "the power of the holy spirit and god" to any kind of evidence, is laughable.

    Im having a strong faith in my tea, so strong in fact that i think it created all life. And lo, it was all the evidence they needed.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 697 ✭✭✭oobydooby


    rockbeer wrote: »
    You don't know, you just believe so deeply that you think you know, which is an entirely different thing.

    In any other context this behaviour is termed delusional.

    That reads a little bit nasty... but there are probably examples of fundamental uncertainties in anyone's life. Are you sure your parents love you or do you just believe it deeply? Are you sure you exist? (This is fiendishly difficult to prove by pure logic) Have you ever checked the scientific evidence for a particular theory (eg relativity, aeronautics, medicine etc.) or are you happy to trust a physicist, engineer, doctor?

    Have you never at any time in your life felt that there were too many coincidences occuring for it just to be a coincidence? It happens many people. Some dismiss it as coincidence or freak occurence and some look for an underlying cause. Some find physical or psychological explanations and some don't.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭joenailface


    In my opinion whether jesus exists is immaterial, if he did exist clearly he was a drugged out jobless, loafer, magician type person who hung round with thieves and hookers and told everyone how much better things were going to be when they met the invisible man that's inside them, as far as im aware, these days they call that a case for being sectioned... Catholisism is a corporation, if god does exist im sure he's not impressed by the child molesting, materialism, brainwashing, murdering, raping, abuse of ignorant people, lying, stealing and greed that embodies the catholic church and the overwhelming banality that is catholic life, i was going to mass for 12 years before i realised '**** this' and god has been around however many billions of years (or 8000 if you're a ****ing moron) if god really is a super intellegent being im fairly confident he's bored of it at this stage.

    Im sure there was some insane person called jesus about 2000 years ago, much like i can assure you that there is a crazy person called john right now (it's more than probable that one person in the world named john is crazy) the evidence of barbaric logic structures is hardly an arguement for the existance of god

    To oobydooby, relitivity was proven by flying atomic clocks around the world....


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    In my opinion whether jesus exists is immaterial, if he did exist clearly he was a drugged out jobless, loafer, magician type person who hung round with thieves and hookers and told everyone how much better things were going to be when they met the invisible man that's inside them, as far as im aware, these days they call that a case for being sectioned...


    This is called "mocking", it is not the tool of a spiritual person nor is it the tool of a wise person.
    Catholisism is a corporation, if god does exist im sure he's not impressed by the child molesting, materialism, brainwashing, murdering, raping, abuse of ignorant people, lying, stealing and greed that embodies the catholic church and the overwhelming banality that is catholic life, i was going to mass for 12 years before i realised '**** this'

    Did you come to this thinking during Mass or outside Mass in manufactured society? Don't answer that for I know the answer. The hypocritical evil that exists in the church in the past and present is irrelevant to Christianity. But this evil is a method to excuse oneself from practising compliance to the 10 commandments.

    and god has been around however many billions of years (or 8000 if you're a ****ing moron) if god really is a super intellegent being im fairly confident he's bored of it at this stage.

    Since when has the Bible or scripture suggested that God is a being. God is without sin. You are equating creation to material feelings.


    Im sure there was some insane person called jesus about 2000 years ago, much like i can assure you that there is a crazy person called john right now (it's more than probable that one person in the world named john is crazy) the evidence of barbaric logic structures is hardly an arguement for the existance of god

    Stop making excuses and convert to God before its too late.


  • Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 10,076 Mod ✭✭✭✭marco_polo


    Gareth37 wrote: »

    But this evil is a method to excuse oneself from practising compliance to the 12 commandments.

    What are the extra two?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Gambler


    Stop making excuses and convert to God before its too late.
    Too Late?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,809 ✭✭✭CerebralCortex


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    .....Stop making excuses and convert to God before its too late.

    I'd love to convert into God transformer style that would be so cool.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    marco_polo wrote: »
    What are the extra two?

    Sorry, its fixed now.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 909 ✭✭✭Gareth37


    Gambler wrote: »
    Too Late?

    We don't know the hour of your death from this world. We must repent before its too late.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 287 ✭✭joenailface


    Just to clarify, you're calling me stupid for mocking illogical thinking...you have to see that saying that means that logically you deserve to be mocked. Last i checked though conciousness = a being, higher conciousness (which ive heard god is claimed to be) = higher being. http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/higher_being check out number two.

    As for the reverence of the 'twelve commandments' christians covet, i cant count the amount of christians i've heard say 'god sake' or 'jesus christ' in vain, shops open on sundays, im sure some of them are christians, ive heard people say 'i hate my parents' that were christian, divorce, liars in abundance within christianity, we already covered coveting, id like you to look at the amount of prosecuted offenses in the vatican for theft which say 600 people were prosecuted, the population of the vatican is 800 so you work that out and as for the killing, the crusades, the inquisition, the papal wars, the genocide of 'pagans' and most christians have broken all of these 'you shall not kill' is a joke in terms of christianity and if the past sins of the church dont matter then surely christians should i dont know maybe 'forgive' the jews for 'killing' jesus, i've heard a lot about forgiveness in the bible.

    BUT finally and most importantly, stop trolling, i gave my opinion on what was said, you are clearly just looking for attention...because no one is special to say a person is evil (implying blasphemy i assume) with the 12 commandments

    *edit* no one knows when they're going to die, i dont know if a god exists, i cant prove it either way, but im sure if such a being exists it has long since tired of our pettyness and pointlessness


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    oobydooby wrote: »
    That reads a little bit nasty...

    Not intended to be nasty, just a factual observation that people who exhibit behaviour identical to religious belief without the support of a large number of other people who share the same belief are labelled delusional.
    oobydooby wrote: »
    but there are probably examples of fundamental uncertainties in anyone's life. Are you sure your parents love you or do you just believe it deeply? Are you sure you exist? (This is fiendishly difficult to prove by pure logic) Have you ever checked the scientific evidence for a particular theory (eg relativity, aeronautics, medicine etc.) or are you happy to trust a physicist, engineer, doctor?

    Of course all this is true and we all take many things on trust which may or not be true. However this brings us no closer to establishing the objective truth of our beliefs. Also most of us non-religious folk don't do the following as a result of them:

    - label other people as evil for not sharing them
    - Threaten them with eternal punishment for not sharing them
    - Attempt to mould society according to them
    - Commit acts of murder and violence
    - Carry out acts of repeated and degrading worship
    - sacrifice the evidence of our senses and reason

    oobydooby wrote: »
    Have you never at any time in your life felt that there were too many coincidences occuring for it just to be a coincidence? It happens many people. Some dismiss it as coincidence or freak occurence and some look for an underlying cause. Some find physical or psychological explanations and some don't.

    Well of course, everyone feels this at times, but again our incredulity bears no relation to the objective truth. Besides, it's well documented that we're predisposed to only pick out the things that happen to fit our preconceptions and expectations.

    This is how most occult-type systems work. People only notice or pay attention to the coincidences. It's no different with religion. Do you notice the prayers that don't get answered or just seize on the ones that do?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    Gareth37 wrote: »
    The power of the Holy Spirit and God is unmistakable. Its not about believing deeply, its about feeling the Holy Spirit and having that guidance than is more powerful that anything worldly.

    And of course I have spoken to many adherents to other faiths who say exactly the same things about their pet beliefs. They all believe they're telling the truth too and you can't all be right.

    It's just words.

    Why should I give any more credence to your words than anyone else's when they don't square with either the evidence or my own experience? Much more likely that you're mistaken.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Gambler wrote: »
    I was quite surprised when reading in the "Are Atheists Evil" thread that some people were sighting historical evidence that Jesus existed as evidence that God exists.

    So, if someone tomorrow was able to somehow conclusively and finally give unarguable evidence that Jesus was a real person and existed 2000 years ago does that automatically mean that there is a God?

    I may be somewhat cutting the rug from under you here - no, I don't believe that the evidence for a historical Jesus is reason alone to believe in God, but it may start you on the path to belief. I see three option open to people.

    1) If you don't believe there was a Jesus the conversation ends here.
    2) If you believe that there was a historical Jesus, but was not who he claimed to be, then his existence doesn't have any great impact on the overall existence of a God other than the Christian God.
    3) If you believe that Jesus was who he claimed... boom! you're probably a Christian.
    Gambler wrote: »
    I suppose it was this post in particular that got me curious about christians opinion:
    http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=57848817&postcount=46

    When a comparison between the evidence for fairies and god came up as an argument the response was that there wasn't a correlation because there is more evidence for Jesus than for fairies.

    My thought to that was it's like arguing that apples exist because there's evidence for oranges but there seems to be a real feeling that if you accept that Jesus was a real person then you must also accept that God exists which I have trouble wrapping my head around as an argument..

    Furthermore, in the post you link to, I didn't make a claim that a historical Jesus = evidence for the existence of God. The thrust of the linked post was to attempt to refute the notion that the evidence we have for the existence of fairies is the same as that for a historical Jesus. You are attempting to wrap your head around an argument that was not made.
    Obvioulsy this is a flase dilemma (or trilema). He is pitching one option as valid and the others as weak and implausible and so "winning the argument.

    Which is a bit of a cack handed debating tactic TBH. The obvious rebuttal is to ask why are the Liar and Lunatic options dismissed so readily? Or what about option D - Deluded?

    The way I see it is the following. If Jesus was either a liar or a madman then he had created one of the largest (if not the largest) and most persistent deceptions in history. In convincing his nearest and dearest about the truth of his claims he would have been responsible for their subsequent violent and meaningless deaths. Added to this, given that a number of people are of the opinion that religion is one of the nastiest and deleterious phenomenons knocking around our heads, to them this would make Jesus (inadvertently or otherwise) the equivalent of some sort of secular satan.

    Your option D (deluded) is interesting.

    Let me give you a scenario whereby you are at a party and a stranger taps you on the shoulder.

    Fred: Hey! It's amadeus, right? I'm Fred. You're friends with Rod and Tod?
    amadeus: Yeah! Correct on both counts. So who do you know here?
    Fred: Ah, no one really... By the way, I'm the Son of God and I alone have the power to forgive your sins. Got a smoke, btw?
    amadeus: ehhh...!

    If a person made that statement nowadays (firm in the belief of their own divinity) they would not simply be deluded (as in 'misleading' themselves or others), they would be mad. Now go back to the the 1st Cent., to a culture dominated by devout Jewish authorities who really, really didn't take too kingly to such blasphemy, and 'deluded' seems like and entirely inappropriate category.

    David Koresh was of the opinion that he was Jesus (whether he truly believed it is another thing) and I would think that we can all agree that the only categories open to him are lunatic or liar.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,422 ✭✭✭rockbeer


    The way I see it is the following. If Jesus was either a liar or a madman then he had created one of the largest (if not the largest) and most persistent deceptions in history.

    Yes and no. He had a foundation to build on - the established faith that still provides your old testament - so he didn't do it single handedly nor from scratch. On top of that, most of the credit must go to those who survived him (if you can survive someone who didn't really die, that is).
    In convincing his nearest and dearest about the truth of his claims he would have been responsible for their subsequent violent and meaningless deaths.

    Sure, but not deliberately. If he were a regular guy then he didn't know how things would turn out - he didn't knowingly send them off to their deaths. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing happened, nor the last.

    Think about it this way: Somebody has to have created the largest deception in history. Why should it not be jesus?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Gambler


    Furthermore, in the post you link to, I didn't make a claim that a historical Jesus = the existence of God. The thrust of the linked post and related posts was to attempt a refutation to the notion that the evidence we have for the existence of fairies is the same as that for a historical Jesus. You are attempting to wrap your head around an argument that was not made.
    Fair enough, I was just surprised that when the evidence for god was compared to the evidence for fairies (or the lack thereof) that evidence for Jesus was brought in as an argument (I thought) that there was more evidence for god than there was for fairies, that post was actually what prompted my initial reply to the thread.
    The way I see it is the following. If Jesus was either a liar or a madman then he had created one of the largest (if not the largest) and most persistent deceptions in history. In convincing his nearest and dearest about the truth of his claims he would have been responsible for their subsequent violent and meaningless deaths. Added to this, given that a number of people are of the opinion that religion is one of the nastiest and deleterious phenomenons knocking around our heads, to them this would make Jesus (inadvertently or otherwise) the equivalent of some sort of secular satan.

    Your option D (deluded) is interesting.

    Let me give you a scenario whereby you are at a party and a stranger taps you on the shoulder.

    Fred: Hey! It's amadeus, right? I'm Fred. You're friends with Rod and Tod?
    amadeus: Yeah! Correct on both counts. So who do you know here?
    Fred: Ah, no one really... By the way, I'm the Son of God and I alone have the power to forgive your sins. Got a smoke, btw?
    amadeus: ehhh...!

    If a person made that statement nowadays (firm in the belief of their own divinity) they would not simply be deluded (as in 'misleading' themselves or others), they would be mad. Now go back to the the 1st Cent., to a culture dominated by devout Jewish authorities who really, really didn't take too kingly to such blasphemy, and 'deluded' seems like and entirely inappropriate category.

    David Koresh was of the opinion that he was Jesus (whether he truly believed it is another thing) and I would think that we can all agree that the only categories open to him are lunatic or liar.
    If you accept that Jesus exists then yes, in the 1st century there was a devout Jewish authority but there was also a groundswell in place that expected that the Messiah was due to return to earth soon and Jesus was someone who fit the bill what with his family lineage and background.

    I amn't convinced that if there is a God and he turned up in the middle of New York today that people would treat him in the same way that they did back then. Then again you do have people who tried\try to say that Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ so I could be wrong there!


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    Gambler wrote: »
    If you accept that Jesus exists then yes, in the 1st century there was a devout Jewish authority but there was also a groundswell in place that expected that the Messiah was due to return to earth soon and Jesus was someone who fit the bill what with his family lineage and background.

    Jesus didn't fit the bill at all. The Jews had been patiently waiting for the messiah for years, and still do. To many of them, this Jesus character was probably so far from their expectations that he was dismissed as yet another nutjob. Also, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that at that particular time there was any more of a groundswell than say 50 years before.
    Gambler wrote: »
    Then again you do have people who tried\try to say that Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ so I could be wrong there!
    Crazies everywhere! What can you do?


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,825 ✭✭✭Gambler


    To many of them, this Jesus character was probably so far from their expectations that he was dismissed as yet another nutjob. Also, I don't believe there is any evidence to suggest that at that particular time there was any more of a groundswell than say 50 years before.
    and
    Crazies everywhere! What can you do?
    To me those two combine to make a strong argument for how Jesus managed to succeed to build a following in the first place :)

    I mean no disrespect by saying that but while a lot of Jewish people didn't believe he was the Messiah enough did to start what might today be called a Cult and 100\200 years later be called a religion.

    Look at recent history, my background was that I was raised as a Bahá'í (Click here for more on them) which is a religion that has been around since about 1850 or so. My parents are both as Irish as it gets and there are hundreds of Bahá'í's throughout the country and thousands throughout the world.

    When the Bahá'í faith first arose it was seen as a cult yet now it is seen as a religion most of the world over and I wouldn't be surprised if in 500 - 1000 years it has the same kind of recognition as Islam has today.

    Does that mean that Bahá'u'lláh was actually sent by God? Or is it possible that someone inspired the right people at the right time and a religion was born?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,245 ✭✭✭✭Fanny Cradock


    rockbeer wrote: »
    Yes and no. He had a foundation to build on - the established faith that still provides your old testament - so he didn't do it single handedly nor from scratch. On top of that, most of the credit must go to those who survived him (if you can survive someone who didn't really die, that is).

    You understand that don't particularly want to spend time arguing charges that I believe are fictitious.

    However, it was Jesus bucking this established tradition or the foundation that began it all. But seems as you either don't believe that there was a Jesus or that he only faked his death (I can't quite tell), then it's all rather pointless in you or me apportioning blame.
    rockbeer wrote: »
    Sure, but not deliberately. If he were a regular guy then he didn't know how things would turn out - he didn't knowingly send them off to their deaths. Besides, it wouldn't be the first time this sort of thing happened, nor the last.

    OK, if he was a regular guy then he wasn't mad. However, he did one heck of a job convincing people that he wasn't so regular after all.

    You state that he couldn't have known the fate of those closest to him. Well, given the Jewish culture at that time was devoutly and fiercely religious, I would think that there were few crimes that could be considered worse than calming you were The Messiah, you had the the power to forgive, began faluting the holy law and starting scenes at temples. One would imagine that Jesus (or any of his rabble raisers) would have been aware of the potential consequences if it all came tumbling down. If it was all a lie then his deception killed those who believed him as surely as the sword thrust into their side or the whip across their skin.


Advertisement