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

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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/

Not DCUM’s atheists. It’s hard to imagine a more ignorant bunch. As demonstrated in this thread, where you’re capable of posting links like this one but no atheist here seems capable of arguing the counterpoint to OP.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Hmm.... I see Jesus as being to Judaism as Martin Luther was to Catholicism. The source of a very distinct split between the parent religion and emergence of a new religion.

[Anonymous]

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?

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.

Sure, it’s an Abrahamic religion like Islam. But there’s a lot that’s new, just like in Islam.

For example, re Leviticus and so on, Jesus gave two commandments and said the rest were basically subordinate to these (“on these depend all the law and the prophets”).

1. Love God
2. Love your neighbor as yourself

It’s difficult to pretend there’s nothing new here.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Not DCUM’s atheists. It’s hard to imagine a more ignorant bunch. As demonstrated in this thread, where you’re capable of posting links like this one but no atheist here seems capable of arguing the counterpoint to OP.

Maybe because only a small subset of atheists don't believe Jesus existed. I accept that he did but I'm still atheist. I can't argue with the premise of the thread though, which invites comments only from people who think Jesus wasn't real.

[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?

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.

Hmm.... I see Jesus as being to Judaism as Martin Luther was to Catholicism. The source of a very distinct split between the parent religion and emergence of a new religion.

True, but there are more similarities than differences post splits. They split over very significant issues, but much of the foundational theology is the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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/

Not DCUM’s atheists. It’s hard to imagine a more ignorant bunch. As demonstrated in this thread, where you’re capable of posting links like this one but no atheist here seems capable of arguing the counterpoint to OP.

Maybe because only a small subset of atheists don't believe Jesus existed. I accept that he did but I'm still atheist. I can't argue with the premise of the thread though, which invites comments only from people who think Jesus wasn't real.

Not OP, but invites comments from everybody. And as we know all too well, atheists feel free to chime in on any and all threads.

You might think it’s a boring topic because you agree he was a real person, though, and that’s why you’re not participating. Fair.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

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).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

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).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

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).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

LOL. You resort to ad hominems over a phone typo?

And I guess you can’t address the point yourself so you refer to what others think?

Where are these brainiac believers who can think for themselves? Maybe just another “myth”…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

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).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

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).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

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).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

That is true of all ancient history and even modern history? Should we believe nothing but what we see with our own eyes? Should we even believe what our lying eyes show us?

We should take it all with a grain of salt. And our confidence should be related to known evidence. Zero contemporary reports? Not quite as confidant.

It’s likely that Genghis Khan did X.
We believe that the Vikings did Y.
It’s likely there was a man named Jesus.

The only thing we know for sure is that people do like a good story. Even if it’s clearly not based on truth.

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).

Also it’s “confident,” not “confidant.”

A confidant is person with whom one shares a secret or private matter, trusting them not to repeat it to others.

See: we get the dumb atheists!

DP here. There is a common pejorative I won't use for people who make a big deal out of minor grammatical errors on forums. This is particularly true in the days of "auto-correct" and poor voice-dictation services on devices. Stuff happens, especially with homonyms. It really isn't proper (or nice) to do, particularly when you add an insult to it.

Please note the good intent and polite and respectful tone of this message when and if you choose to reply.

#1 the post itself was a lie
#2 when atheists post links to studies about how smart they are vs Christians, they should proofread at the very least when posting. They’ve tooted their own horn.
#3 nobody cares about your rules. Are you the moderator?

Which part was a lie?

Try to use your own words and not copy blog posts.

Jesus existed, not likely existed. That part was a lie. No blog posts copied.

How is that “a lie”?