If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was *most likely* a person named Jesus, no doubt. Most of the religion, however, was created by Paul. He never actually met Jesus. Unless you consider that rather bizarre incident on the road to Damascus. Color me skeptical.

FIFY

o.k., I'm willing to assume there was. But only because of circumstantial evidence, which in some arenas is not considered good enough.

There were lots of people named Jesus back then. Still are.

Early canonical and non-canonical Christian sources testify to Jesus’s crucifixion, and we can also confirm that early non-Christian sources confirm our case. In the first century, Roman historian Tacitus and Jewish historian Josephus confirm more than just Christ’s crucifixion: they note Pilate’s association with the execution. Tacitus, referring to the crucifixion as the “extreme penalty”, writes in The Annals:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus (15.44).

Other early, non-sympathetic writers who refer to Christ’s execution include Lucian of Samosata and Mara Bar Serapion. The Greek writer Lucian writes, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account” (The Passing of Peregrinus). He adds that Jesus was crucified in Palestine, a further corroboration of the Gospels.

While noting that there are multiple Christian and non-Christian sources corroborating Christ’s crucifixion, it is important to note the great diversity of genres that mention this event: ancient biography, historiography, creed, epistle, and hymn. It would be absurd to indifferently pass over the broad impact of Jesus’ death in the ancient world.

Recent scholarship persuasively confirms that the four Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. A leading scholar in this area, Richard Bauckham, concludes that the Gospels “embody the testimony of the eyewitness, not of course without editing and interpretation, but in a way that is substantially faithful to how the eyewitnesses themselves told it (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). He shows that the Gospel writers were “in more or less direct contact with eyewitnesses.” Consider, for example, the prologue of St. Luke’s Gospel which resembles the style of ancient historiography:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word… (Luke 1:1-3)

Some skeptics have posited that the Gospels, including the crucifixion, are fabrications, but this is unlikely given a few important points.

First, attributing the Gospels to non-apostles such as Mark or Luke is unlikely unless they really were the original authors. If you want people to believe your false Gospel, why not go with a prominent apostle like Peter or Andrew? Or, as theologian Brant Pitre offers, “why not go straight to the top and attribute your Gospel to Jesus himself?” (The Case For Jesus).

Second, the Passion narratives sparkle with authenticity because of their uncensored portrayal of Jesus’s suffering. Although at times even his enemies notice his composure under extreme duress, other scenes such as Jesus’s agony in Gethsemene or his anguished cry of “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” portray a weakened, suffering Messiah. New Testament historian Michael Licona confirms that, in antiquity, “a number of accounts existed of Jewish martyrs [i.e the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees, Eleazar, and Stephen] who acted bravely under extreme torture and execution. In light of these, reports of a weaker Jesus at his arrest and crucifixion could cause embarrassment in contrast” (The Resurrection of Jesus). Historians consider the criterion of embarrassment to be an important consideration when determining a source’s reliability. Thus, these potentially unflattering details in the Passion accounts are unlikely inventions.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

The rejection of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is historically untenable. Thus all non-Christians who are willing to face the fact are left with a jarring conundrum. They must face the questions: How in the world, in light of their Messiah’s brutal execution, did the small group of common Jewish men and women known as “Christians” ever come to believe that Christ was God? How on earth did Christianity ever get off the ground? Only one answer comes close—and it is the same answer that Christians have given for two thousand years: Christ has died, Christ is risen.

[Anonymous]

Non-Christian sources, reporting several decades later, were recounting what they had *heard*. So they believed it happened and recorded it. Not that they had actual evidence of it happening.

Most likely there was a man named Jesus behind these stories. But we don’t 100% know for sure.

Why did people believe this story? People like a good story. Especially if there are perks.

[Anonymous]

^ and it doesn’t even matter if they think the story is true. People believe what they want to believe, facts be damned. The last 6+ years have shown us that very clearly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm an atheist, but in my understanding, historians generally agree that Jesus was a real historical person.

But to answer your wider question - Christian theology didn't come from Jesus. Christian theology was first agreed upon at the Council of Nicaea:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

OP here. Yes, yes. I know about the council of Nicaea. I have been saying the Nicene Creed every Sunday for most of my life. I also k is about Saint Jerome.

That isn’t my question. The question is for those who do NOT believe that Jesus was a real, historical figure. Paul had a pretty clear theology and a pretty clear story. And he was definitely a real dude. I am not trying to use this to prove the existence of Jesus as a real person. I am just curious about where people think he got his ideas.

It seems doubtful that he just made the whole thing up on his own. Do people think he just listened to some other delusional people talking about Christ? Or that these ideas were kind of out there already, and he just invented this figure?

You have entirely changed your own question. You posit that (if) Jesus never existed, where did Christian theology come from--as in, if there was no Jesus, how did these early Christians come up with what they believed?

Now you're switching it asking how this guy Jesus came up with his own ideas. Clearly the early Christians (Paul being an excellent example) did not confine their ideas to things they record Jesus as having said (and we were leaving out entirely the variety of scriptures that were floating around were condemned as heresy by the early Christian hierarchy). So are you asking where Christians got their ideas or where Jesus got his or where early Christians got the statements they attributed to Jesus?

[Anonymous]

^ as to where he got his ideas--why couldn't he have come up with them? He was (if we can believe the NT) raised in the Jewish faith, he got around enough ad hung out with enough people to have an idea about the politics of his day, he knew people in his community. How does any young man with a taste for challenging the status quo come up with stuff?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^ as to where he got his ideas--why couldn't he have come up with them? He was (if we can believe the NT) raised in the Jewish faith, he got around enough ad hung out with enough people to have an idea about the politics of his day, he knew people in his community. How does any young man with a taste for challenging the status quo come up with stuff?

It's immaterial whether or not Jesus was real -- Christianity is certainly real and has had major influence in society and with individuals for the last 2000+ years.

Remember: Jesus, assuming he was real, lived and died a Jew. Christianity was formed later.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

Did someone say he was schizophrenic? I think some people liked the message, and wanted to belong to the various church communities (like today), but the Christians were a minor and inconsequential sect for 300 years until the emperor Constantine converted. Read A.N. Wilson's biography of Paul as to why he did it (he was convinced the Christian god could deliver military victories which, of course, included booty for him and his men).. That was Christianity's big break.

Yeah -- the stuff you don't learn in sunday school!

you must be protestant.. i certainly learned this in 9th grade church history, or maybe even 8th grade. constantine had a dream or wife/ or mother, helen had a dream about fishes and greek letters.. etc and its called "pauline" christianity bc PAUL came up with it. Im pretty sure pauline christianity, a summary was the title of one of our textbooks. Did you drop out of sunday school in 5th grade?? And one of the major histories written about Augustus' reign does mention a messiah in Judea who caused all sorts of trouble .. most people think this was Jesus (pubh) he lived like all teh prophets lived and then died, like they did. Evangelical atheist are so tiresome.

I learned this in my Protestant high school.

You’re right, it’s so tiresome when evangelical atheists find a new tidbit in some atheist media, something they had never heard before because they’re usually totally ignorant about Christianity, and they think it’s going to shatter all our world views.

Atheists are more knowledgable about religion than religious people. Many of them made a study of religion before giving it up.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/21/among-religious-nones-atheists-and-agnostics-know-the-most-about-religion/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was *most likely* a person named Jesus, no doubt. Most of the religion, however, was created by Paul. He never actually met Jesus. Unless you consider that rather bizarre incident on the road to Damascus. Color me skeptical.

FIFY

o.k., I'm willing to assume there was. But only because of circumstantial evidence, which in some arenas is not considered good enough.

There were lots of people named Jesus back then. Still are.

Early canonical and non-canonical Christian sources testify to Jesus’s crucifixion, and we can also confirm that early non-Christian sources confirm our case. In the first century, Roman historian Tacitus and Jewish historian Josephus confirm more than just Christ’s crucifixion: they note Pilate’s association with the execution. Tacitus, referring to the crucifixion as the “extreme penalty”, writes in The Annals:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus (15.44).

Other early, non-sympathetic writers who refer to Christ’s execution include Lucian of Samosata and Mara Bar Serapion. The Greek writer Lucian writes, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account” (The Passing of Peregrinus). He adds that Jesus was crucified in Palestine, a further corroboration of the Gospels.

While noting that there are multiple Christian and non-Christian sources corroborating Christ’s crucifixion, it is important to note the great diversity of genres that mention this event: ancient biography, historiography, creed, epistle, and hymn. It would be absurd to indifferently pass over the broad impact of Jesus’ death in the ancient world.

Recent scholarship persuasively confirms that the four Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. A leading scholar in this area, Richard Bauckham, concludes that the Gospels “embody the testimony of the eyewitness, not of course without editing and interpretation, but in a way that is substantially faithful to how the eyewitnesses themselves told it (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). He shows that the Gospel writers were “in more or less direct contact with eyewitnesses.” Consider, for example, the prologue of St. Luke’s Gospel which resembles the style of ancient historiography:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word… (Luke 1:1-3)

Some skeptics have posited that the Gospels, including the crucifixion, are fabrications, but this is unlikely given a few important points.

First, attributing the Gospels to non-apostles such as Mark or Luke is unlikely unless they really were the original authors. If you want people to believe your false Gospel, why not go with a prominent apostle like Peter or Andrew? Or, as theologian Brant Pitre offers, “why not go straight to the top and attribute your Gospel to Jesus himself?” (The Case For Jesus).

Second, the Passion narratives sparkle with authenticity because of their uncensored portrayal of Jesus’s suffering. Although at times even his enemies notice his composure under extreme duress, other scenes such as Jesus’s agony in Gethsemene or his anguished cry of “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” portray a weakened, suffering Messiah. New Testament historian Michael Licona confirms that, in antiquity, “a number of accounts existed of Jewish martyrs [i.e the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees, Eleazar, and Stephen] who acted bravely under extreme torture and execution. In light of these, reports of a weaker Jesus at his arrest and crucifixion could cause embarrassment in contrast” (The Resurrection of Jesus). Historians consider the criterion of embarrassment to be an important consideration when determining a source’s reliability. Thus, these potentially unflattering details in the Passion accounts are unlikely inventions.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

The rejection of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is historically untenable. Thus all non-Christians who are willing to face the fact are left with a jarring conundrum. They must face the questions: How in the world, in light of their Messiah’s brutal execution, did the small group of common Jewish men and women known as “Christians” ever come to believe that Christ was God? How on earth did Christianity ever get off the ground? Only one answer comes close—and it is the same answer that Christians have given for two thousand years: Christ has died, Christ is risen.

Is this original, or did you copy it from somewhere without providing a reference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was *most likely* a person named Jesus, no doubt. Most of the religion, however, was created by Paul. He never actually met Jesus. Unless you consider that rather bizarre incident on the road to Damascus. Color me skeptical.

FIFY

o.k., I'm willing to assume there was. But only because of circumstantial evidence, which in some arenas is not considered good enough.

There were lots of people named Jesus back then. Still are.

Early canonical and non-canonical Christian sources testify to Jesus’s crucifixion, and we can also confirm that early non-Christian sources confirm our case. In the first century, Roman historian Tacitus and Jewish historian Josephus confirm more than just Christ’s crucifixion: they note Pilate’s association with the execution. Tacitus, referring to the crucifixion as the “extreme penalty”, writes in The Annals:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus (15.44).

Other early, non-sympathetic writers who refer to Christ’s execution include Lucian of Samosata and Mara Bar Serapion. The Greek writer Lucian writes, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account” (The Passing of Peregrinus). He adds that Jesus was crucified in Palestine, a further corroboration of the Gospels.

While noting that there are multiple Christian and non-Christian sources corroborating Christ’s crucifixion, it is important to note the great diversity of genres that mention this event: ancient biography, historiography, creed, epistle, and hymn. It would be absurd to indifferently pass over the broad impact of Jesus’ death in the ancient world.

Recent scholarship persuasively confirms that the four Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. A leading scholar in this area, Richard Bauckham, concludes that the Gospels “embody the testimony of the eyewitness, not of course without editing and interpretation, but in a way that is substantially faithful to how the eyewitnesses themselves told it (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). He shows that the Gospel writers were “in more or less direct contact with eyewitnesses.” Consider, for example, the prologue of St. Luke’s Gospel which resembles the style of ancient historiography:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word… (Luke 1:1-3)

Some skeptics have posited that the Gospels, including the crucifixion, are fabrications, but this is unlikely given a few important points.

First, attributing the Gospels to non-apostles such as Mark or Luke is unlikely unless they really were the original authors. If you want people to believe your false Gospel, why not go with a prominent apostle like Peter or Andrew? Or, as theologian Brant Pitre offers, “why not go straight to the top and attribute your Gospel to Jesus himself?” (The Case For Jesus).

Second, the Passion narratives sparkle with authenticity because of their uncensored portrayal of Jesus’s suffering. Although at times even his enemies notice his composure under extreme duress, other scenes such as Jesus’s agony in Gethsemene or his anguished cry of “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” portray a weakened, suffering Messiah. New Testament historian Michael Licona confirms that, in antiquity, “a number of accounts existed of Jewish martyrs [i.e the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees, Eleazar, and Stephen] who acted bravely under extreme torture and execution. In light of these, reports of a weaker Jesus at his arrest and crucifixion could cause embarrassment in contrast” (The Resurrection of Jesus). Historians consider the criterion of embarrassment to be an important consideration when determining a source’s reliability. Thus, these potentially unflattering details in the Passion accounts are unlikely inventions.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

The rejection of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is historically untenable. Thus all non-Christians who are willing to face the fact are left with a jarring conundrum. They must face the questions: How in the world, in light of their Messiah’s brutal execution, did the small group of common Jewish men and women known as “Christians” ever come to believe that Christ was God? How on earth did Christianity ever get off the ground? Only one answer comes close—and it is the same answer that Christians have given for two thousand years: Christ has died, Christ is risen.

The above is not original. It is taken from a Christian blog https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/four-reasons-to-believe-jesus-was-really-crucified/18593/

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

Did someone say he was schizophrenic? I think some people liked the message, and wanted to belong to the various church communities (like today), but the Christians were a minor and inconsequential sect for 300 years until the emperor Constantine converted. Read A.N. Wilson's biography of Paul as to why he did it (he was convinced the Christian god could deliver military victories which, of course, included booty for him and his men).. That was Christianity's big break.

Yeah -- the stuff you don't learn in sunday school!

you must be protestant.. i certainly learned this in 9th grade church history, or maybe even 8th grade. constantine had a dream or wife/ or mother, helen had a dream about fishes and greek letters.. etc and its called "pauline" christianity bc PAUL came up with it. Im pretty sure pauline christianity, a summary was the title of one of our textbooks. Did you drop out of sunday school in 5th grade?? And one of the major histories written about Augustus' reign does mention a messiah in Judea who caused all sorts of trouble .. most people think this was Jesus (pubh) he lived like all teh prophets lived and then died, like they did. Evangelical atheist are so tiresome.

I learned this in my Protestant high school.

You’re right, it’s so tiresome when evangelical atheists find a new tidbit in some atheist media, something they had never heard before because they’re usually totally ignorant about Christianity, and they think it’s going to shatter all our world views.

Atheists are more knowledgable about religion than religious people. Many of them made a study of religion before giving it up.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/08/21/among-religious-nones-atheists-and-agnostics-know-the-most-about-religion/

I wonder where all these knowledgeable atheists are; they aren’t posting here. We get the dumb ones.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There was *most likely* a person named Jesus, no doubt. Most of the religion, however, was created by Paul. He never actually met Jesus. Unless you consider that rather bizarre incident on the road to Damascus. Color me skeptical.

FIFY

o.k., I'm willing to assume there was. But only because of circumstantial evidence, which in some arenas is not considered good enough.

There were lots of people named Jesus back then. Still are.

Early canonical and non-canonical Christian sources testify to Jesus’s crucifixion, and we can also confirm that early non-Christian sources confirm our case. In the first century, Roman historian Tacitus and Jewish historian Josephus confirm more than just Christ’s crucifixion: they note Pilate’s association with the execution. Tacitus, referring to the crucifixion as the “extreme penalty”, writes in The Annals:

Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus (15.44).

Other early, non-sympathetic writers who refer to Christ’s execution include Lucian of Samosata and Mara Bar Serapion. The Greek writer Lucian writes, “The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day—the distinguished personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that account” (The Passing of Peregrinus). He adds that Jesus was crucified in Palestine, a further corroboration of the Gospels.

While noting that there are multiple Christian and non-Christian sources corroborating Christ’s crucifixion, it is important to note the great diversity of genres that mention this event: ancient biography, historiography, creed, epistle, and hymn. It would be absurd to indifferently pass over the broad impact of Jesus’ death in the ancient world.

Recent scholarship persuasively confirms that the four Gospels are based on eyewitness testimony. A leading scholar in this area, Richard Bauckham, concludes that the Gospels “embody the testimony of the eyewitness, not of course without editing and interpretation, but in a way that is substantially faithful to how the eyewitnesses themselves told it (Jesus and the Eyewitnesses). He shows that the Gospel writers were “in more or less direct contact with eyewitnesses.” Consider, for example, the prologue of St. Luke’s Gospel which resembles the style of ancient historiography:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile a narrative of the things which have been accomplished among us, just as they were delivered to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and ministers of the word… (Luke 1:1-3)

Some skeptics have posited that the Gospels, including the crucifixion, are fabrications, but this is unlikely given a few important points.

First, attributing the Gospels to non-apostles such as Mark or Luke is unlikely unless they really were the original authors. If you want people to believe your false Gospel, why not go with a prominent apostle like Peter or Andrew? Or, as theologian Brant Pitre offers, “why not go straight to the top and attribute your Gospel to Jesus himself?” (The Case For Jesus).

Second, the Passion narratives sparkle with authenticity because of their uncensored portrayal of Jesus’s suffering. Although at times even his enemies notice his composure under extreme duress, other scenes such as Jesus’s agony in Gethsemene or his anguished cry of “My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?” portray a weakened, suffering Messiah. New Testament historian Michael Licona confirms that, in antiquity, “a number of accounts existed of Jewish martyrs [i.e the seven brothers in 2 Maccabees, Eleazar, and Stephen] who acted bravely under extreme torture and execution. In light of these, reports of a weaker Jesus at his arrest and crucifixion could cause embarrassment in contrast” (The Resurrection of Jesus). Historians consider the criterion of embarrassment to be an important consideration when determining a source’s reliability. Thus, these potentially unflattering details in the Passion accounts are unlikely inventions.

No mainstream scholar today argues against Jesus’ historical existence. In fact, nearly all New Testament scholars today, many of whom are non-Christians and skeptics, consider not only Christ’s existence but his crucifixion to be “historical bedrock.” Critic John Dominic Crossan writes that “Jesus’ death by crucifixion under Pontius Pilate is as sure as anything historical can ever be” (Jesus: A Revolutionary Biography). With similar conviction, atheist scholar Gerd Lüdemann concludes, “Jesus’ death as a consequence of crucifixion is indisputable” (The Resurrection of Christ).

The rejection of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ is historically untenable. Thus all non-Christians who are willing to face the fact are left with a jarring conundrum. They must face the questions: How in the world, in light of their Messiah’s brutal execution, did the small group of common Jewish men and women known as “Christians” ever come to believe that Christ was God? How on earth did Christianity ever get off the ground? Only one answer comes close—and it is the same answer that Christians have given for two thousand years: Christ has died, Christ is risen.

The above is not original. It is taken from a Christian blog https://www.wordonfire.org/resources/blog/four-reasons-to-believe-jesus-was-really-crucified/18593/

LOL

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
I think the answer is obvious, it came from the Jewish faith. Jesus was Jewish after all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
I think the answer is obvious, it came from the Jewish faith. Jesus was Jewish after all.

As was Paul, who is largely responsible for what we know as Christianity today. Over opposition of Peter and the original disciples, he took the faith to the gentiles. I've also read he alone is responsible for the belief that one only gets into heaven by grace and not by being a good person.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
I think the answer is obvious, it came from the Jewish faith. Jesus was Jewish after all.

It’s pretty different from Judaism though. Jesus got rid of all the dietary, clothing and other rules. That’s a big reason why he was so unpopular with the Jewish priestly class.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Certainly Paul was be-bopping all over Ancient Rome writing letters and starting churches within 50 years of his death. And his writings and behavior are much too organized to believe he was schizophrenic. So, where did this theology come from? Was there some group of crazy people who made it all up, including a central figure who never existed?

If Jesus wasn’t a real historical figure, where did Christian theology come from?
I think the answer is obvious, it came from the Jewish faith. Jesus was Jewish after all.

It’s pretty different from Judaism though. Jesus got rid of all the dietary, clothing and other rules. That’s a big reason why he was so unpopular with the Jewish priestly class.

Still, Christians believe stories in the Old Testament, which is the whole Jewish Bible.

It's where the 10 commandments come from, and supposedly a lot of the prophesies in the OT are realized in the NT.

Also, the Moses story of the parting of the red sea is a foundational story in both religions.