Proof that jesus walked the earth???

Nerin · 21-11-2007 09:41PM

well,i tried to make my point yesterday,but once again a comment belong to me disappeared, i suspect alien abduction of my words!

ok,just because different people wrote about jesus, doesnt mean that he existed. im not saying a man named jesus didnt exist, but how can one believe what are technically his "groupies".
just because the 4 gospels tell his story such a way (and remember they were picked much later in history to be the "official" bible.) doesnt mean they are accurate.

gillyfromlyre · 21-11-2007 11:26PM

The romans had a census around the time of christ and a jesus was accounted for in it,fact

PDN · 21-11-2007 11:28PM

gillyfromlyre wrote: »

The romans had a census around the time of christ and a jesus was accounted for in it,fact

And a Seamus was accounted for in the last Irish census, fact.

Jesus, or to be more accurate Yeshua (Joshua) was one of the commonest names among Jewish boys.

PDN · 22-11-2007 09:29AM

interestinguser wrote: »

So hypothetically you'd have no problem with people finding evidence that suggested that their was in fact no historical Jesus? Or that the historical Jesus did not resemble the biblical figure? If that is the case, I'd find it very interesting.

If someone produced conclusive proof that Jesus never existed then I would have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact I would be eternally grateful to that person for delivering me from a false belief.

If someone produced evidence that suggested that there was, in fact, no historical Jesus? Or that the historical Jesus did not resemble the biblical figure? Again that would not offend me at all. Most historical questions have evidence suggesting different conclusions and the historians have to weigh up that evidence in order to decide what is the most probable conclusion.

If the majority of historians, or the people who make up the Jesus Project, decided that the weight of the evidence against Jesus' existence (I'm presuming this would be new discoveries since I've never heard of any such evidence nor have any posters in this thread mentioned any) led them to pronounce that Jesus did not exist, would that offend me? No, not in the slightest. After all, I already believe in events (the turning of water into wine etc) that most historians assert probably never happened. Unlike some other posters on these boards I don't get offended because someone holds a different opinion to me.

What does offend me is dishonesty. I loathe liars and hypocrites. I believe that many of those who argue against the historicity of Jesus, despite not being able to produce a single piece of evidence, are doing so purely out of ideological reasons - because they feel a need to attack almost every position held by the enemy (Christians). You see, I have already mentioned that I am happy to believe things that are contradicted by the majority of historians. This, unless I were to consider myself an expert in the subject of history (and I'm not - just a very keen amateur) would be an insupportable position solely on intellectual or logical grounds. However, I am happy to admit that I hold to certain positions on the grounds of faith. What offends me is that many (most?) of those who argue against the physical existence of Jesus, in the face of the vast majority of historians and without a single shred of evidence, are doing so for ideological reasons yet lack the basic integrity to admit that they are maintaining a faith position that is insupportable on the grounds of intellect and logic alone. Instead they pretend to be rational and logical.

I agree with Scofflaw that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is adequate (I would go so far as sufficient), rather than overwhelming. That is all any historian would expect for any figure from 2000 years ago unless they were part of the Empire's government, a celebrity in Rome, or a member of the aristocracy. And that, if we were discussing anyone other than Jesus, would be deemed enough by most of us. It is only those with an axe to grind who want to argue an opposing view that has inadequate (in fact, zero) evidence.

BTW, the reason this topic keeps recurring is not because Christians keep raising it, but because trolls or atheists keep making wild statements that fly in the face of historical opinion and are deliberately provocative. This thread was resurrected from 2006 by a fly-by-night troll who was then supported by a trollish atheist. Then the whole thing kicked off again.

Scofflaw · 22-11-2007 10:23AM

PDN wrote: »

If someone produced conclusive proof that Jesus never existed then I would have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact I would be eternally grateful to that person for delivering me from a false belief.

Short of an absolutely unequivocally identifiable set of minutes from a meeting in which the apostles made up "a bloke we'll pretend was the Messiah, right?", or a time machine, I cannot imagine what on earth such conclusive proof of Jesus' non-existence could possibly consist of.

PDN wrote: »

Unlike some other posters on these boards I don't get offended because someone holds a different opinion to me.

Indeed - more sinned against than sinning, I'd say.

PDN wrote: »

What does offend me is dishonesty. I loathe liars and hypocrites. I believe that many of those who argue against the historicity of Jesus, despite not being able to produce a single piece of evidence, are doing so purely out of ideological reasons - because they feel a need to attack almost every position held by the enemy (Christians). You see, I have already mentioned that I am happy to believe things that are contradicted by the majority of historians. This, unless I were to consider myself an expert in the subject of history (and I'm not - just a very keen amateur) would be an insupportable position solely on intellectual or logical grounds. However, I am happy to admit that I hold to certain positions on the grounds of faith. What offends me is that many (most?) of those who argue against the physical existence of Jesus, in the face of the vast majority of historians and without a single shred of evidence, are doing so for ideological reasons yet lack the basic integrity to admit that they are maintaining a faith position that is insupportable on the grounds of intellect and logic alone. Instead they pretend to be rational and logical.

I agree with Scofflaw that the evidence for the existence of Jesus is adequate (I would go so far as sufficient), rather than overwhelming. That is all any historian would expect for any figure from 2000 years ago unless they were part of the Empire's government, a celebrity in Rome, or a member of the aristocracy. And that, if we were discussing anyone other than Jesus, would be deemed enough by most of us. It is only those with an axe to grind who want to argue an opposing view that has inadequate (in fact, zero) evidence.

BTW, the reason this topic keeps recurring is not because Christians keep raising it, but because trolls or atheists keep making wild statements that fly in the face of historical opinion and are deliberately provocative. This thread was resurrected from 2006 by a fly-by-night troll who was then supported by a trollish atheist. Then the whole thing kicked off again.

Well, hmm, that's not quite comprehensive. The topic also arises from time to time because quite a few of our posters claim that there is unequivocal proof of the historicity of both Jesus and the events recorded in the Bible - and equally such claims are not stated as faith-based positions, but as supported by logic and intellect alone. What's sauce from an atheist is sauce from a theist too.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 22-11-2007 11:20AM

PDN wrote: »

If someone produced conclusive proof that Jesus never existed then I would have no problem with that whatsoever. In fact I would be eternally grateful to that person for delivering me from a false belief.

Why do you believe something until you have "conclusive proof" (as Scofflaw asks what exactly would that be) that it isn't true?

Surely the opposite would be a more rational position, you don't believe something until you have convincing evidence that it is true

PDN wrote: »

What does offend me is dishonesty. I loathe liars and hypocrites. I believe that many of those who argue against the historicity of Jesus, despite not being able to produce a single piece of evidence, are doing so purely out of ideological reasons

Yes but PDN, this attitude is what we are talking about.

As far as I can see they aren't arguing this to attack your religion, but for some reason you believe that they must be because you view it as an attack.

They are arguing this because it is a serious historical possibility.

I understand that you don't accept that because of your religious beliefs, but to say that anyone who claims Jesus might not have existed is a liar and hypocrite simply demonstrates your bias in this area.

PDN wrote: »

What offends me is that many (most?) of those who argue against the physical existence of Jesus, in the face of the vast majority of historians and without a single shred of evidence

Again "single shred of evidence" simply highlights your bias attitude.

Have you read Doherty's book? He sums up his arguments here

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

You certainly won't find "conclusive proof" that Jesus didn't exist, but then I don't think he is claiming it is conclusive proof. It is an historical argument and he explains it quite well.

You appear to be starting off from the conclusion that there cannot be evidence Jesus didn't exist because you know he did exist, and then attacking anyone who puts forward arguments that he didn't exist as being completely devoid of evidence.

PDN wrote: »

And that, if we were discussing anyone other than Jesus, would be deemed enough by most of us.

No it wouldn't, PDN. You keep stating this over and over and you keep having to be corrected.

Just because there isn't much evidence of Jesus' existence doesn't mean we assume he existed unless told otherwise.

zarathustra · 22-11-2007 12:01PM

Hivemind187 wrote: »

There is a difference here.

There is archaeological evidence that a war and a siege occured which resembles some of the details (e.g. the less fanciful ones) given in the Illiad. The Illiad was a heroic epic so you cant take it as a true account (which no one in their right mind would).

On the other hand, where is the archaeological evidence for the Jesus of the bible? Where is the historic accounts of this individual that do not come from the source expounding on his miracles as a basis for their theological position (an un-biased account of his miracles and deeds from a source that has nothing to lose or gain from the story would be a good start)?

The problem, I feel, is that theist try to shift the onus onto us to prove he didnt exist whereas in the ligth of objectivity it is you, who claim that he did and performed miracles, that should be in the position of justifying your claims with the evidence.

That is a fair point.

The debate as to who was first Pope of the Roman Catholic church always amuses me. Many Roman Catholics are brainwashed that Peter was the first pope!!!

stevejazzx · 22-11-2007 12:18PM

Seeing as we're at a kind of stalemate I'd like to ask a quesion:

'Do you think it was Gods intention that evidence of his sons life be left on earth? I know it's moving away from the historical debate and onto a more philosophical debate but for me it's an intersting question becasue surely those claimng that there is strong evidence believe that he did.
I find it odd then that he left it so inconclusive.
This also ties in in with that other complicated question that I've asked christinas many times but have never got a satisfactory answer and it's the question about free will.
It seems that God at some point decided that humans beings were to be given free will, and that they could do as please on earth (which it apears we can) and that it would be up to us, through this free will, to come to a decision to either have faith in him or not. This has always left me confused becasue the idea of evidence seems to belie the idea of faith, in that the more evidence you give people the less faith they require.
Furthermore I have argued before that the people who were closest to the intial generation of Jesus found it much easier to believe in him becasue:

1. They were far more primitive than us and regardless of their religous belief, they all generally speaking, believed in Sky Gods so it was really just a matter of chosing which one.

2. The histories and writings of the bible and Jesus were fresh to them i.e they were only the next generation so they could relate to such far far easier than we can today.

If the above simple points are correct and I don't think anyone would have any reason to doubt them, then the only conclusion I can come to is that God has created a system where it is easier for the initial genations to believe in him, it is easier for people who've had direct contact with him (biblical characters for example) to believe in him. <Some posters on here have had, by their own accounts, some contact with him>.

So it appears to me that certain generations will believe in God merely as a result of the time they lived in. Others as a result of direct contact, others as a result of been born into a complete and unquestioning envoiroment. This can't be right can it?

Surely the only way that God would judge us would be if we all had exactly the same privileges?

We are after all talking about the slavation of our souls and our passageway to heaven yet we're to believe that some people have had first hand or almost first hand knowledge of his presence and existence whereas the rest of us, generations later have a much more difficult time in deciding about our belief - and the further we travel in time from the intial generation the harder it becomes. Why would God have decided that this was ok? Surely it makes no sense to give some poeple an unfair advantage over others particularly when dealing with something as serious as this?

I don't understand how any all knowing all powerful being can decide it's ok to Judge people by the same cirteria given that they all subject to competely different circumstances. But clearly God has a set of marked criteria by which we will all be judged.

If we decide that he judges us all individually and he takes into account our different backgrounds then why did he create a set of rules in the first place by which to judge poeple if he is not going to be able to carry through these rules with each person fairly.

If there is evidence of Jesus on earth then why is it so inconclusive and debatable? Why create further confusion as to his origin? Either he is giving us evidence or he is not. Given his complete perfection it is unthinkable is it not, that he allows these endless layers of confusion over his identity?

Either he is judging us all by the same criteria or he not and if he is then clearly certain generations have been favoured.

Steve

Run_to_da_hills · 22-11-2007 01:18PM

zarathustra wrote: »

That is a fair point.

The debate as to who was first Pope of the Roman Catholic church always amuses me. Many Roman Catholics are brainwashed that Peter was the first pope!!!

Peter certainly never had any of the characteristics of being any Pope. St Peter was a married man, he never wore a fish tailed hat and never claimed the blasphemous titles of "Pontifix Maximus" or "Holy Father"

"Pontifix Maximus" is a papal title meaning in Latin "chief bridge maker" between earth and heaven. However, Jesus Christ is the only One who can claim this title because "no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." John 14:6. This was a title of the Roman Caesars and of the Roman Emperors of paganism, thus showing us the origins of Roman Catholicism.

"Holy Father", is the title the Pope claims for himself, however this title occurs only ONCE in the Bible, and used when Jesus addresses his heavenly father in John 17.11, in his great prayer before his betrayal, arrest and crucifixion. It is blasphemous for any man to claim this title for himself because it belongs to God the Father alone, however the Roman Catholic Church dose not seem to have a problem with calling their leaders this.

Nerin · 22-11-2007 01:28PM

ah, the Pope being wrong, i love Papal infallibility.

the catholic church has copped itself on over many things in the past.
maybe they'll quit the holy father lingo and thats another mistake off their list.
although that Benidict quote bout being the one faith,that annoyed me.
why cant he just be nice and say,if you follow us,good,if you follow something else and are good,sorted.
i hate that we're right you're wrong na na na na naa crap, its very childish, and im sure jesus would agree.
i really like my jesus.
he's all liberal and stuff.

Fanny Cradock · 22-11-2007 06:55PM

PDN wrote: »

What does offend me is dishonesty. I loathe liars and hypocrites. I believe that many of those who argue against the historicity of Jesus, despite not being able to produce a single piece of evidence, are doing so purely out of ideological reasons - because they feel a need to attack almost every position held by the enemy (Christians)... It is only those with an axe to grind who want to argue an opposing view that has inadequate (in fact, zero) evidence.

I wholeheartedly agree. Well said, PDN.

PDN · 22-11-2007 11:18PM

Wicknight wrote: »

Why do you believe something until you have "conclusive proof" (as Scofflaw asks what exactly would that be) that it isn't true?

Surely the opposite would be a more rational position, you don't believe something until you have convincing evidence that it is true

So it would be more rational to not believe in a theory (that people invented a figure called Jesus) until you have convincing evidence that it is true? OK.

Again "single shred of evidence" simply highlights your bias attitude.

Have you read Doherty's book? He sums up his arguments here

http://jesuspuzzle.humanists.net/jhcjp.htm

You certainly won't find "conclusive proof" that Jesus didn't exist, but then I don't think he is claiming it is conclusive proof. It is an historical argument and he explains it quite well.

You appear to be starting off from the conclusion that there cannot be evidence Jesus didn't exist because you know he did exist, and then attacking anyone who puts forward arguments that he didn't exist as being completely devoid of evidence.

No, I haven't read Doherty's book. Have you? If so maybe you can name one piece of evidence to support the theory that Jesus never existed, because there sure isn't any in that link. Theorising and speculation in abundance, but not a shred of evidence.

I am starting off from the conclusion that to believe something based on zero evidence is a faith position not a genuine historical theory. I am honest enough to admit that I hold certain beliefs as a matter of faith, others are not so honest.

Intelligent design is a theory that has value as a philosophical concept, but to try to present it as science is junk-science & pseudoscience. The theory that Jesus never existed is a valid philosophical or ideological position, but to try to present it as history is junk-history and pseudohistory.

Scofflaw · 22-11-2007 11:28PM

PDN wrote: »

So it would be more rational to not believe in a theory (that people invented a figure called Jesus) until you have convincing evidence that it is true? OK.

Good point - a very good point. If there was no historical Jesus, one has to posit a conspiracy for which there is even less evidence than there is for Jesus...

cordially,
Scofflaw

PDN · 22-11-2007 11:32PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Indeed - more sinned against than sinning, I'd say.

Or more offensive than offended.

Scofflaw · 22-11-2007 11:43PM

PDN wrote: »

Or more offensive than offended.

Yes, that works. Have you offended me recently?

cordially,
Scofflaw

condra · 23-11-2007 06:22AM

Admittadly, I havent much looked into it, but I was under the impression that (The Bible aside) there was a wealth of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ.

confused,
Womoma

kelly1 · 23-11-2007 09:56AM

Indeed. People don't doubt the existence of people such as Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Nero etc so why doubt Christ. Surely the most famous man that ever walked the earth can't not have existed!

N.

Zombrex · 23-11-2007 10:29AM

PDN wrote: »

So it would be more rational to not believe in a theory (that people invented a figure called Jesus) until you have convincing evidence that it is true? OK.

Yes, obviously.

You seem to be (possibly on purpose) confusing the difference between a historian presenting a historical theory and saying "This is a possibility that seems to fit evidence and therefore should be considered and studied" and a historian presenting a historical theory and saying "This is what happened, and look I can prove it"

Again, just like with science, we run straight into the brick wall that theists on this forum seem to have the mistaken idea that history scholars are telling them what they should believe.

As I said we get this a lot in relation to science as well, this idea that some how scientists are making proclamations of absolute truth when they say something like "life evolved on Earth due to a natural Darwinian process" or "the Universe as we know it came into being 10 billion years ago was part of a process known as the Big Bang"

The fact of the matter is that very few areas of study of the natural world ever attempt to proclaim absolute truths for anything except for religion, which is one if its major failings in my humble opinion.

Scientists do not proclaim truths, historians do not proclaim truths. If you think they are attempting to do this then you are not understanding the field.

PDN wrote: »

No, I haven't read Doherty's book. Have you?

No.

But then that isn't really the point. I'm not proclaiming anything about his theory except that it exists and is evidence of historians who do not accept with certainty that Jesus was an actual historical figure.

I have read Doherty's articles on his website, and some of his points are good others not so good. A lot of his arguments are arguments from silence, that the early Christian writing does not refer to Jesus as an actual person.

I am instinctively cautious of historical theories that argue from the point of silence. For example theists often state on Boards.ie threads like this that the absence of Roman or Jewish writing denouncing Jesus' miracles as fake is some how evidence that they actually happened.

At the same time it is Doherty's point is a curious one, particular when put in context of the myths of the time.

What I find more puzzling though is your instance that Doherty must be putting forward this theory due to a religious desire to ridicule Christianity, not because of historical reasons. I find this puzzling because you haven't read his book, so on what grounds do you base this assertion.

You claim that his ideas doesn't offend you in the slightest, yet you dismiss off hand Doherty as a liar and a hypocrite motivated purely by a desire to ridicule Christianity, before you have read his book.

TBH PDN I don't find that very convincing.

Scofflaw · 23-11-2007 10:31AM

kelly1 wrote: »

Indeed. People don't doubt the existence of people such as Julius Caesar, Pontius Pilate, Nero etc so why doubt Christ. Surely the most famous man that ever walked the earth can't not have existed!

We have a wealth of sources which independently confirm the existence of Caesar and Nero. Pivotal public figures and Emperors are usually well-attested. Pontius Pilate is less well-attested, but once again we have several independent sources confirming his existence, and his procuratorship of Judea.

So, briefly, the answer to your question is that the historical sources for Jesus are nowhere near as good as those for the others you mention, and that Jesus' subsequent fame is utterly irrelevant.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex · 23-11-2007 10:32AM

womoma wrote: »

Admittadly, I havent much looked into it, but I was under the impression that (The Bible aside) there was a wealth of evidence supporting the existence of Jesus Christ.

Bible aside? No, hardly any.

But your impression shows part of the problem that modern historians are discussing, the fact that while almost completely unsupported historically, the default assumption has been for hundreds of years that Jesus must have existed.

Zombrex · 23-11-2007 10:48AM

Scofflaw wrote: »

Good point - a very good point. If there was no historical Jesus, one has to posit a conspiracy for which there is even less evidence than there is for Jesus...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Not quite sure a conspiracy is required?

A conspiracy would imply that the people who first recorded Jesus as a real person would have done so knowing that he wasn't. A more plausible theory is that they did so misunderstanding that he wasn't actually supposed to be real person.

If someone grabbed an average young Catholic man or woman on Grafton St and asked them to write down the doctrine of their religion I'm pretty sure you would get something rather different than official doctrine of the RCC. These people aren't lying, or being part of a conspiracy to subvert the doctrine, they are simply recording from a position of ignorance of the original doctrine.

A common historical theory is that 3 of the Gospels of the Bible (Mark, Matthew and Luke), recording the history of Jesus, were written based on a similar source or sources sources.

John, the gospel that doesn't follow similar patterns, was probably written around 100 AD, 30 years after the earliest estimate of Mark, at which time it would have been impossible to independently confirm the similar stories in the other 3 Gospels.

So you are looking at possibly a single source of the change of Jesus from a mystical figure into an actual human man.

It is certainly not implausible to see how such a philosophical change could have come about. Again using a real world example, most people I know believe that hell is a place to punish bad people. According to actual Christian doctrine it isn't, there are plenty of good people in hell (as parodied in South Park), hell is actually for non-believers, good and bad. But to a lot of people that isn't how they assume it should work, and therefore they end up with this idea of hell as a place to punish. The point is that these people don't do this on purpose as part of a conspiracy to subvert the original doctrine of Christianity.

To me based on this it is certainly possible that at some point in the history of early Christianity the concept of "Jesus" morphed from a mythical creature to a real man, without the need for a conscious decision on the part of the members of the religion to actually change this detail.

PDN · 23-11-2007 11:07AM

Wicknight wrote: »

It is certainly not implausible to see how such a philosophical change could have come about. Again using a real world example, most people I know believe that hell is a place to punish bad people. According to actual Christian doctrine it isn't, there are plenty of good people in hell (as parodied in South Park), hell is actually for non-believers, good and bad. But to a lot of people that isn't how they assume it should work, and therefore they end up with this idea of hell as a place to punish. The point is that these people don't do this on purpose as part of a conspiracy to subvert the original doctrine of Christianity.

Just as a point of accuracy, actual Christian doctrine does hold that hell is a place to punish bad people. The problem is that you are ignoring the doctrine of total depravity which teaches that all people are bad when compared to God's holiness and the standard of perfection as the entry qualification for heaven. So, the popular misunderstanding is more to do with what we mean by 'a good person' rather than the purpose of hell.

PDN · 23-11-2007 11:09AM

Wicknight wrote: »

I have read Doherty's articles on his website, and some of his points are good others not so good. A lot of his arguments are arguments from silence, that the early Christian writing does not refer to Jesus as an actual person.

And that is certainly not true. Do you want me to cite you a few bucketloads of examples from early Christian writing to demonstrate this?

Zombrex · 23-11-2007 11:40AM

PDN wrote: »

And that is certainly not true. Do you want me to cite you a few bucketloads of examples from early Christian writing to demonstrate this?

Well the earliest Christian writing that refers to Jesus as a man would do.

Zombrex · 23-11-2007 11:44AM

PDN wrote: »

Just as a point of accuracy, actual Christian doctrine does hold that hell is a place to punish bad people. The problem is that you are ignoring the doctrine of total depravity which teaches that all people are bad when compared to God's holiness and the standard of perfection as the entry qualification for heaven.

True, though I'm not ignoring it. Christianity teaches that due to the absence of God's grace because of Adam's disobediences we are all wicked by our nature, or at least tempted to be wicked by our nature.

The point I'm saying is that if you ask the average person on the street they will probably rather surprised by that. If they wrote their own version of Christian doctrine I would imagine "we are all wicked by simply existing" wouldn't appear, nor would "we all go to hell even the good people, unless we regain God's grace through faith"

The over all point is that it is easy to see how doctrine can change without the need for a conspiracy

robindch · 23-11-2007 12:03PM

Wicknight wrote:

I would imagine "we are all wicked by simply existing" wouldn't appear

On the contrary, I'd expect exactly that to be up towards the top of the list. The dogma of an inescapable problem (guilt-induced belief in original sin) is as fundamental to the appeal of christianty as the dogma of a simple solution (salvation through belief).

Psychologically, it also seems to tie in with the tacit belief that many religious people seem to have, that good things only happen because there's certain retaliation for bad actions. In game theoretical terms, that's pretty much equivalent to saying that life is a zero-sum game, which it's not.

Zombrex · 23-11-2007 12:18PM

robindch wrote: »

On the contrary, I'd expect exactly that to be up towards the top of the list. The dogma of an inescapable problem (guilt-induced belief in original sin) is as fundamental to the appeal of christianty as the dogma of a simple solution (salvation through belief).

I think you are talking about people like the theists here, people who are drawn to accepting and being a part of Christianity for specific reasons.

I'm more talking about what perhaps would be called the lapsed-Catholics. The average person on the street who goes to mass but who hasn't turned to the Bible since secondary school.

Certainly I explained some of the concepts discussed on this forum to my less serious Catholic friends and it was met with response like "Oh I'm sure thats not right"

robindch · 23-11-2007 12:33PM

Wicknight wrote:

I'm more talking about what perhaps would be called the lapsed-Catholics

Fair enough -- I was mumbling about how religion makes itself seem reasonable and appealing

Zombrex · 23-11-2007 12:41PM

robindch wrote: »

Fair enough -- I was mumbling about how religion makes itself seem reasonable and appealing

Indirectly that was kinda my point.

Religion has a tendency to morph into what the believer themselves feels make sense.

If Christianity as presented by Paul didn't make sense to those who heard about it 2nd hand it would have morphed into something more logical. Paul's Jesus, a mythological being who lived in heaven, would have morphed into a real person, and as such the early writers of the first works that lead to the Gospels would have drawn on this morphing to construct a history based around what they believed made sense.

pinksoir · 23-11-2007 12:45PM

Yes, but would the early Christians you posit not in fact have been much more knowledgable of doctrine than the watered down Catholics of today?

edit*In relation to you hell argument.*edit

Proof that jesus walked the earth???

Comments