Resurrection, hallucinations or lies?

[leroy]

Are you kidding me?

Paul's "knowledge" of Jesus is a dream. A freaking dream! Literally, he had a dream while on the road to Damascus. This is not a secret, this is the official version of the church.
The fact Paul "saw him in a dream", pretty much disqualifies him as a witness to anything.
The fact that he dreamed it up should have been a dead give away!
What the hell is wrong with you?

....

Here is another alternative, he (Paul) was not talking about fact or something someone told him, he was talking about conviction. Lying is intentional, and he couldn't be lying if he believed it, even tough what he was saying was not true

And what difference would it make if we substitute Paul for Pilate? you said that you would accept a testimony form Pilate as evidence, why is Pilate better than Paul?

Paul is hardly an unbiased source. Not to mention the problem I just described above. Paul's relationship to Jesus is trough "Visions", not Jesus a "real person".

....


Nobody knows who James was, or what was his relationship to Jesus, not even if he was a real person

we know that James is the brother of Jesus because multiple independent sources confirms this.

We don't know if Paul knew Jesus, but Paul did knew some of the close relatives and disciples of Christ, he had access to primary sources.

Alexander was a real person. The king of a Kingdom. Founded a city that bared his name. Is face has been minted into coins. Son of the king of Macedonia, his childhood is described in great detail and explicitly mentions being raised in the court at Pella (Macedonia), had Aristotle as tutor who also mentions him.
Sure you don't have a scribe peering into his mother womb as he gives his first breath. But the mountain of evidence surrounding it is incontestable, and the claim in uncontroversial. For all I know maybe the mother was on a trip right outside the outskirts of Macedonia, it's a very trivial an uncontroversial claim that he was born in Macedonia.

the point that I was making is that a source can be reliable even if the author was not there to witness the event.

agree? yes or no?

leroy wrote:
If a journalists decides to interview war veterans, and write a historical book based about what happened in Vietnam, would you consider the book unreliable because it was written 50 years after the events? Would you reject the source because the journalist wasn’t there?

You have no comparison here. The earliest texts on Christianity are not related to anyone who was even supposedly there. None who claim to have seen Jesus as a person. And unless they figured away to time travel, or live for really long long, the texts that relate to people who had the opportunity of having a first hand account must necessarily (the texts) be second hand accounts.
You need to track the source of knowledge, paper isn't magic, a statements aren't automatically true just because it is written down. Someone had to physically grab an inscription tool an write the stuff down, so how did they know? Where is the information coming from the moment the "pen meets the paper"?

Paul went to see close relatives and disciples of Jesus, he knew the Eye Witnesses and wrote the letters based on what he learned.

Here is another alternative, he was not talking about fact or something someone told him, he was talking about conviction. Lying is intentional, and he couldn't be lying if he believed it, even tough what he was saying was not true

what do you mean by conviction?

Paul reported for example that Peter (Cefas) saw the risen Jesus.

So ether>
-Paul Lied and invented the story

-Peter lied to Paul

- Peter saw Jesus in dream - hallucination - illusion

- Peter saw someone who looked like Jesus

- or Jesus was really risen.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

And what difference would it make if we substitute Paul for Pilate? you said that you would accept a testimony form Pilate as evidence, why is Pilate better than Paul?

Well. Pilate wasn't trying to start a cult, was he? And Pilate was in a much better position to have his words preserved since he was a ruler. But most importantly, if he had talked about a Jesus that he himself dished the death sentence, saw it trough, and then acknowledge the re-emergence of this person, he couldn't be talking of a fictitious Jesus, could he? Besides, this would have been the sort of event that you couldn't have failed to notice if it happened.
But what we find is quite the opposite. If there is one thing that we do know for sure, is that the events as described in the gospel when it comes to the Pilate's affair in the matter, couldn't have happened.

Paul on the other hand, has "visions". That my friend automatically disqualifies you as a reliable source of any kind.
Paul is as credible a source for the historicity of Jesus, as Edgar Cayce is for the historicity of Atlantis.

we know that James is the brother of Jesus because multiple independent sources confirms this.

Oh really? So what exactly was the blood relation of this "brother James"? Was he son of Mary with Joseph? Was he son of Joseph with some other wife? Was he an adopted?
Was he a spiritual metaphorical brother?
Perhaps you can undo us this riddle then.

We don't know if Paul knew Jesus,

According to the official line of the church, he didn't. Paul has only ever claimed to have seen Jesus in "Visions".
How is it that now all of a sudden Paul is no longer a "reliable source" on this matter?

but Paul did knew some of the close relatives and disciples of Christ, he had access to primary sources.

Oh, really? Here is a definitive claim. So who were these people that he knew? And how do you know that he knew them? And how do you know (as other people have mentioned) that Paul wasn't just name dropping for some street cred?

Alexander was a real person. The king of a Kingdom. Founded a city that bared his name. Is face has been minted into coins. Son of the king of Macedonia, his childhood is described in great detail and explicitly mentions being raised in the court at Pella (Macedonia), had Aristotle as tutor who also mentions him.
Sure you don't have a scribe peering into his mother womb as he gives his first breath. But the mountain of evidence surrounding it is incontestable, and the claim in uncontroversial. For all I know maybe the mother was on a trip right outside the outskirts of Macedonia, it's a very trivial an uncontroversial claim that he was born in Macedonia.

the point that I was making is that a source can be reliable even if the author was not there to witness the event.

True, but the author is not exempt from the necessary chain of knowledge, there must be an answer to the question "How did they know?"
And the answer to that must be something reasonable. You have none of that for Jesus, and that is your problem, that has been the problem for the church for over a millennia, RW Christ divinity must be taken on faith not on evidence.

what do you mean by conviction?

Toughts in his mind that he believed where true.

Paul reported for example that Peter (Cefas) saw the risen Jesus.

Paul himself has claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, in "Visions". And we know how that story goes.
And you are starting to just drop claims without proper context.
If you want me to address an "how do you explain this", then you must present a "this" to be explain. I.e. In this case, give me an exact passage or text where Paul talks about this, so that we both can read and talk about the same thing, so that we can better explain to you why you are mistaken.
However if you did do that exercise, I bet that 90% of time you would be able to answer your own questions.

 

[leroy]

Well. Pilate wasn't trying to start a cult, was he?

.

nether did Paul, he was a Christian persecutor, his main interest was to destroy the Christian movement,

my point is that if Pilate (instead of Paul) would have had an experience where he saw the risen Jesus, and if he would have become a Christian on the basis of this experience, and if he would have written letters describing this event, would you have accepted those letters as evidence for the resurrection?

Oh really? So what exactly was the blood relation of this "brother James"? Was he son of Mary with Joseph? Was he son of Joseph with some other wife? Was he an adopted?
Was he a spiritual metaphorical brother?
Perhaps you can undo us this riddle then

probably sun of Marry and Joseph, but why is this relevant? the point is that James knew Jesus (regardless on what type of brother he was) which implies that he knew something about Jesus, which means that he would have been a good source of information for anyone (like Paul)
who was intending to wrote about Jesus, his life and his teachings.

Oh, really? Here is a definitive claim. So who were these people that he knew? And how do you know that he knew them? And how do you know (as other people have mentioned) that Paul wasn't just name dropping for some street cred

because multiple independent sources confirm this, we know that Paul went to Jerusalem where he knew James, Peter and John (and presumible many other relatives and followers of Christ)

True, but the author is not exempt from the necessary chain of knowledge, there must be an answer to the question "How did they know?"[

well then question has been answered, Paul knew, because he asked relatives and disciples of Jesus,

leroy wrote:
Paul reported for example that Peter (Cefas) saw the risen Jesus.

Paul himself has claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, in "Visions". And we know how that story goes.
And you are starting to just drop claims without proper context.
If you want me to address an "how do you explain this", then you must present a "this" to be explain. I.e. In this case, give me an exact passage or text where Paul talks about this, so that we both can read and talk about the same thing, so that we can better explain to you why you are mistaken.
However if you did do that exercise, I bet that 90% of time you would be able to answer your own questions.

that is exactly what I did.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raisedon the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

we know that Paul wrote this text,

and just to select a specific example, Paul reported that the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter)


so

Did Paul lied and invented those lines? did peter lied to Paul? Did Peter saw a guy that looked like Jesus? what do you think happened?

and what about the other people mentioned in the list? which do you consider lies invented by paul, which where lies invented by the supposed witnesses, which are mistakes where supposed witnesses saw a guy that looked like jesus? which where hallucinations?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Well. Pilate wasn't trying to start a cult, was he?

nether did Paul,

This is a bald face lie. Peter was very much trying to start a cult, and founded himself many churches.

my point is that if Pilate (instead of Paul) would have had an experience where he saw the risen Jesus,

No, it is not enough to have had "an experience" (which is a christian metaphor for not actually having seen shit), he needed to have seen it himself with his own 2 eyes.

and if he would have become a Christian on the basis of this experience, and if he would have written letters describing this event, would you have accepted those letters as evidence for the resurrection?

I would have been more convinced if he hadn't become a christian, because then he would have been impartial. But if he had written letters about it, it would have established the historicity of Jesus regardless of either or not Pilate had converted. Accepting the historicity of Jesus witch such evidence would have only established that people taught Jesus was dead and then appeared very much alive. This would not however be evidence of resurrection.

probably [son] of Marry and Joseph, but why is this relevant?

It is relevant because you just assumed that the existence of "James brother of Jesus" was established. But if you were to look in close detail about this, you would found out that nobody seams to know who "James" was, much less being the brother of Jesus.

well then question has been answered, Paul knew, because he asked relatives and disciples of Jesus,

And, well, I'm putting in to question the claim that he did. That is why I'm asking. How do you know that?

Paul reported for example that Peter (Cefas) saw the risen Jesus.

Paul himself has claimed to have seen the risen Jesus, in "Visions". And we know how that story goes.
And you are starting to just drop claims without proper context.
If you want me to address an "how do you explain this", then you must present a "this" to be explain. I.e. In this case, give me an exact passage or text where Paul talks about this, so that we both can read and talk about the same thing, so that we can better explain to you why you are mistaken.
However if you did do that exercise, I bet that 90% of time you would be able to answer your own questions.

that is exactly what I did.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raisedon the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas,and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

we know that Paul wrote this text,
and just to select a specific example, Paul reported that the risen Jesus appeared to Cephas (Peter)
so
Did Paul lied and invented those lines? did peter lied to Paul? Did Peter saw a guy that looked like Jesus? what do you think happened?
and what about the other people mentioned in the list? which do you consider lies invented by paul, which where lies invented by the supposed witnesses, which are mistakes where supposed witnesses saw a guy that looked like jesus? which where hallucinations?

Oh good. Good thing we clarified that you were talking about this particular text. It wouldn't do me good to misrepresent you.
This 1 Corinthians 15. Right after the chapter about speaking unintelligibly in tongues.
Here is a link to read along: https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20Corinthians+15&version=NIV

Lets read it into context:

Now, brothers and sisters, I want to remind you of the gospel I preached to you, which you received and on which you have taken your stand. 2 By this gospel you are saved, if you hold firmly to the word I preached to you. Otherwise, you have believed in vain.

So he is talking about scripture, and "receiving the scripture" not in the sense of having been told by friends or family of Jesus, but by having scripture read to them.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

And here is clearly talking about scripture.
No where is it ever implied that he talked to Cephas and Cephas told them this, nor does it say that he talked to any of the twelve who reveled it to him, nor does it say that he has talked to James.
He is just stating what we usually call "Dogma", i.e. his personal conviction that this is what happened, and he does so according to scripture, not according to first hand accounts.
There is indeed one first hand account in this text. Namely that of himself. And we already know what he meant by that. His "visions" on the road to Damascus.

So to answer your question.

Q: Did Paul lied and invented those lines?
A: Technically he wrote it. But Paul isn't talking about facts, he never claimed to have talked to any of those people. He is talking about conviction. He is talking about what he believes to be true. So your question is misses the point of what is happening, because you don't understand what the text is telling you.

Q: Did peter lied to Paul?
A: Peter didn't lied to Paul, because Peter didn't talk to Paul.

Q: Did Peter saw a guy that looked like Jesus?
A: But we don't get Peters account of the story. We get Paul's account, and that Paul believes Peter saw something. But for all we know Peter didn't see anything, because you are getting an account from Paul, not from Peter.

Q: what do you think happened?
A: I think Paul was trying to get recognition as a figure of the church. And I think he was trying to convince other people to do things his way, and part of that is a statement of belief. Nothing special here. And I also think you misinterpreted the text to make it read something that wasn't there. That is what happened.

Q: and what about the other people mentioned in the list?
A: It's the same thing. Those other people didn't lie to Paul, because they have never talked to Paul.

Q: which do you consider lies invented by paul, which where lies invented by the supposed witnesses, which are mistakes where supposed witnesses saw a guy that looked like jesus?
A: Paul didn't had to invent a lie because it was not his claim. He was passing his statement of conviction the same way it has been passed to him. If it was lie, it was a lie already passed on to Paul, Paul himself didn't needed to make it up.
You also don't get the "lies" or "mistakes" passed by the "supposed witnesses", because you don't get their accounts. Paul never talked to them, he doesn't claim to be re-iterating what he heard from witnesses. I don't have to justify what the witnesses saw or didn't see, because you are never told what they saw, or the circumstances in which they saw them. If it was dark, or if it was from afar or close range, if they talk to him or just saw him at a glance, or even if they were dreaming. You are not told any of that.

Q: which where hallucinations?
A: Paul's "Vision" could possibly be classified as an hallucination. However it could be considered just a vivid dream, depending on how you classify it.

 

[leroy]

This is a bald face lie. paul was very much trying to start a cult, and founded himself many churches

.

Originally he was a Christian persecutor, his “job” was to destroy the Christian cult, he was a noble and well educated, this is why I am saying that Paul and Pilate would have had the same degree of reliability.



This would not however be evidence of resurrection.[/quote]

That was my original point, as far as I can tell, no amount of historical evidence would convince you that a resurrection occurred. Not even letters from Pilate. Am I wrong?

It is relevant because you just assumed that the existence of "James brother of Jesus" was established. But if you were to look in close detail about this, you would found out that nobody seams to know who "James" was, much less being the brother of Jesus.

Multiple independent sources identify James as the brother of Jesus

So he is talking about scripture, and "receiving the scripture" not in the sense of having been told by friends or family of Jesus, but by having scripture read to them.

For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance[a]: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve. 6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers and sisters at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep. 7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles, 8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.

So Paul received the Gospel (from Peter, James, John etc.) and now he is delivering the message to the The Corinthian Church, this is what Paul is reporting, Paul explicitly talks about his trips to Jerusalem where he meat Peter, James, John etc. with the intent of learning the gospel. And Luke confirms these trips in his writings.

And here is clearly talking about scripture.
No where is it ever implied that he talked to Cephas and Cephas told them this, nor does it say that he talked to any of the twelve who reveled it to him, nor does it say that he has talked to James.
He is just stating what we usually call "Dogma", i.e. his personal conviction that this is what happened, and he does so according to scripture, not according to first hand accounts.
There is indeed one first hand account in this text. Namely that of himself. And we already know what he meant by that. His "visions" on the road to Damascus

To me by reading just that text, it is more than clear that he is talking about what he received from Peter, James John etc. but if you consider all the background information that confirms that Paul indeed meet these people and that he meat them with the explicit intend of learning about Jesus, his life and his teachings it becomes obvious that Paul is not using his experience as the only source. So ether Paul (and then Luke) manifestly lied or he did meat these people and he wrote what they told him about Jesus.

Q: Did Paul lied and invented those lines?
A: Technically he wrote it. But Paul isn't talking about facts, he never claimed to have talked to any of those people. He is talking about conviction. He is talking about what he believes to be true. So your question is misses the point of what is happening, because you don't understand what the text is telling you

Yes he did claimed it, so ether he lied in this writings or he actually knew this people

Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas[a]and stayed with him fifteen days, I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. (Galatians 1:18)

The rest of your comments are based on the assumption that Paul didn’t claimed to have ever talked to this people, but since I already provided a source, now we know that at least he did claimed to have meat them.

So did Paul lied and never meat these people? Did these people lie to Paul? Did these people hallucinated Jesus a reported to Paul what they thought was a real experience?

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

That was my original point, as far as I can tell, no amount of historical evidence would convince you that a resurrection occurred. Not even letters from Pilate. Am I wrong?

If Pilate had said it would have been more reliable. However, definitely far from proof.

Multiple independent sources identify James as the brother of Jesus

Ok, then you shouldn't have a problem finding one outside of the bible?

So Paul received the Gospel (from Peter, James, John etc.)

That last bit in there, is entirely made up. Nowhere does it say that or implies, in any way shape or form. You just wrote it into it. You read something into it that wasn't there.

To me by reading just that text, it is more than clear that he is talking about what he received from Peter, James John etc.

Sorry, no, it is not. It absolutely isn't. It is not there. You read into it something that isn't there.

The rest of your comments are based on the assumption that Paul didn’t claimed to have ever talked to this people, but since I already provided a source, now we know that at least he did claimed to have meat them.

Ok, since you brought up Galatians, lets read Galatians:

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Galatians+1&version=NIV

11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

There you go, from the horses mouth! Stop selectively reading shit, stop reading shit that ain't there.

 

[leroy]

leroy wrote:
Multiple independent sources identify James as the brother of Jesus

Ok, then you shouldn't have a problem finding one outside of the bible?

.

This simply exposes how naive you are, the New Testament is a collection of multiple independent sources, and you can’t invalidate these documents just because some guys from Rome decided to collect them and crate a book out of these documents.

But is response to your comet, sure I can provide extra biblical sources.
I would also like to add that this meets the criteria of embarrassment, many Christian Churches (Catholic, Anglican, Orthodox…) believe in the perpetual virginity of Marry, the mother of Jesus, the existence of James (and other brothers and sisters) is simply an inconvenient fact for that doctrine.

Hopefully you will let this go and admit that there is evidence that James was the brother of Jesus, and hopefully you would also realize that asking for “extra biblical sources” is arbitrary,

If Pilate had said it would have been more reliable. However, definitely far from proof

Sure that is my point, by your standards; no amount of historical evidence will count as proof for the resurrection.
The best I can do is proof (with a high degree of certainty) that the apostles had experiences that where interpreted by them as the risen Jesus.

Which is a trivial claim, most scholars accept this as historically certain. Even non Christian scholas accept this historical fact.

It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus's death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ. Gerd Lüdemann

so if scholars accept this fact, why cant you?
Is there any evidence that Gerd Lüdemann is missing?

A: Technically he wrote it. But Paul isn't talking about facts, he never claimed to have talked to any of those people. He is talking about conviction. He is talking about what he believes to be true. So your question is misses the point of what is happening, because you don't understand what the text is telling you

So do you admit that you where wrong?

Galatians 1 wrote:
11 I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel I preached is not of human origin. 12 I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ.

13 For you have heard of my previous way of life in Judaism, how intensely I persecuted the church of God and tried to destroy it. 14 I was advancing in Judaism beyond many of my own age among my people and was extremely zealous for the traditions of my fathers. 15 But when God, who set me apart from my mother’s womb and called me by his grace, was pleased 16 to reveal his Son in me so that I might preach him among the Gentiles, my immediate response was not to consult any human being. 17 I did not go up to Jerusalem to see those who were apostles before I was, but I went into Arabia. Later I returned to Damascus.

18 Then after three years, I went up to Jerusalem to get acquainted with Cephas and stayed with him fifteen days. 19 I saw none of the other apostles—only James, the Lord’s brother. 20 I assure you before God that what I am writing you is no lie.

It could be that Paul learned some stuff from direct revelation, but the claim that Peter (and others) had experiences came directly from Peter.

What do you find so problematic about this claim? “Paul went to Jerusalem where he talked to peter, Peter told him about his experience and Paul reported that experience in his letters”

Also the appearance to Peter are reported in the gospel of Luck and John. Where did the authors of these documents took that information? Did they lie? Did Peter lie to them?

The most obvious explanation is that Peter was telling everybody that he saw Jesus and that Paul and the authors of the gospels reported this event because they thought that Peter was saying the truth.

 

[Bango Skank]

I don't understand this Christ myth theory. To me it seems like a wild conspiracy theory. Why it is so hard to believe that Jesus was yet another messianic claimant, who sealed his fate by declaring himself as a god (A direct threat to Roman emperor, cause only he can be god). If you look at the gospels, Jesus portrayed in Mark is a different person compared to proto gnostic John. Here we have a clear evidence how religions start, the central person gets more and more supernatural aspects as time goes, gnostism went full retard...i mean full cycle.

So let's use Occam's razor here guys.

 

[he_who_is_nobody]

I don't understand this Christ myth theory. To me it seems like a wild conspiracy theory. Why it is so hard to believe that Jesus was yet another messianic claimant, who sealed his fate by declaring himself as a god (A direct threat to Roman emperor, cause only he can be god). If you look at the gospels, Jesus portrayed in Mark is a different person compared to proto gnostic John. Here we have a clear evidence how religions start, the central person gets more and more supernatural aspects as time goes, gnostism went full retard...i mean full cycle.

So let's use Occam's razor here guys.

While not buying it myself, I feel it is unfair to call Jesus mythicism a wild conspiracy. Richard Carrier's book on this subject actually made it through peer-review. Beyond that, we already know that lots of key figures in the Bible are mythological, including Adam, Eve, Abraham, and Moses. Moses being a very interesting parallel to Jesus if mythicism is correct, since Moses was thought to be real until recent scholarship demonstrated him to be legendary.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Bango. Don't get me wrong, I couldn't care less if Jesus was an historical figure or not. What I am arguing is that we are not even sure he was a real person, his accounts surely wasn't based on a real person. What I'm trying to demonstrate is that this historical connection christians think exists, is fiction, much less capable to be proof of miracles.

 

[leroy]

I don't understand this Christ myth theory. To me it seems like a wild conspiracy theory. Why it is so hard to believe that Jesus was yet another messianic claimant, who sealed his fate by declaring himself as a god (A direct threat to Roman emperor, cause only he can be god). If you look at the gospels, Jesus portrayed in Mark is a different person compared to proto gnostic John. Here we have a clear evidence how religions start, the central person gets more and more supernatural aspects as time goes, gnostism went full retard...i mean full cycle.

So let's use Occam's razor here guys.

By denying the existence of Jesus you can sell many books and/or gain many subscribers and youtube views.

 

[WarK]

By denying the existence of Jesus you can sell many books and/or gain many subscribers and youtube views.

By proclaiming existence of Jesus you can sell even more books.