Reply to Jesus' Historicity

Forum Index » Religion

Reply to "Jesus' Historicity"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]With his alleged birthday coming up, let's discuss the person that is being celebrated. Present your information and argument for Jesus, fact or fiction.[/quote]

Jesus would be disgusted by MAGA

Jesus was a socialist

The Gospels were written long after Jesus's death and are unreliable, contradictory, and heavily influenced by theological agendas rather than historical accuracy

Some theories suggest that [b]the Jesus story was created by combining elements from various pre-Christian pagan mystery cults[/b], such as Mithras and Osiris

[/quote]

Add in the well known story about the fabled founder of Rome, Romulus (especially in a Roman controlled province). Both the narratives of Jesus and Romulus feature a hero of divine parentage (Mars/God the Father), whose infancy is imperiled by a jealous ruler (Amulius/Herod) but who is saved and raised in humble circumstances. Both feature tales of prophesied death as part of a divine plan, after death their bodies disappear, and they are then seen after death. They both ascend to heaven. [/quote]

There are at least fourteen independent sources for the historicity of Jesus from multiple authors within a century of the crucifixion of Jesus[21] such as the letters of Paul (contemporary of Jesus who personally knew eyewitnesses since the mid 30s AD),[note 5][note 6][22] the gospels (as biographies on historical people similar Xenophon’s Memoirs of Socrates),[23] and non-Christian sources such as Josephus (Jewish historian and commander in Galilee)[24] and Tacitus (Roman historian and Senator).[25][26] Multiple independent sources affirm that Jesus actually had family.[22][27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus[/quote]

Tacitus is hearsay and is not evidence for a historical Jesus. Josephus = one is an interpolation (not evidence for a historical Jesus) and the other is an outright forgery added by later Christians.

Paul speaks of a cosmic Jesus, not a historical one. It's also telling that none of the information from the community he is responding to has survived the later orthodox Christian scrubbing they did of any information that they considered heretical.

The gospels are not eyewitness accounts, nor are they based on any oral history.

There goes all your contemporary sources.

Add in that Philo is completely silent on Jesus (or Christianity altogether = a small sect that had no relevance).

Next? [/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics