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.

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced so many men and women would willingly be martyred to preach the gospel. Crucified, beheaded, burned, boiled. Why would so many do it for a lie?

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?

historical figures are not needed to form a religion -- e.g., american indian religions and european paganism. People just dream up this stuff and sometimes a name gets attached to it and sometimes it doesn't.

Also, you don't have to be crazy -- just in search of meaning.

It's immaterial whether Jesus existed or not. Christianity certainly exists and has been a force in the world for centuries.

If it were proven that there was no Jesus, no crucifixion and no resurrection, Christianity would still probably survive.

It might not thrive, but it's already dying even with a lot of people still believing in it -- just not as many as before.

Since people are no longer burned at the stake for not believing, it's easer to come out as an atheist.

Focus, people.

OP is specifically addressing the origins of Christianity, because this is something that atheists have kept coming back to over the past few days. Not whether atheists feel comfortable coming out.

I think OP’s point is that so many independent but similar testimonies emerged that it suggests an actual person. You’d need Big European Religion to coordinate a similar rollout in the absence of a real person who did real things. Which obviously seems really improbable. Props, though, for going bravely down the path of silly conspiracy theories.

I doubt that dedicated Christians spend too much time wondering or worrying about if Jesus was a real person. It's the teachings of love and acceptance and charity that they care about and would likely continue to practice even if there were proof that Jesus was not real.

I hear this quite often, but what about the other stuff? Like the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and salvation being possible ONLY by believing in Jesus ? You believe that stuff? Or just the "teaching of love and acceptance and charity?" (i.e., the good things, I acknowledge).

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced so many men and women would willingly be martyred to preach the gospel. Crucified, beheaded, burned, boiled. Why would so many do it for a lie?

Why would do many people people die in the name of Trump?

People are fundamentally stupid.

Nope, sorry. No one is being boiled in oil for Trump. At the threat of such torment, they'd turn on him in a heartbeat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced so many men and women would willingly be martyred to preach the gospel. Crucified, beheaded, burned, boiled. Why would so many do it for a lie?

Why would do many people people die in the name of Trump?

People are fundamentally stupid.

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

Anonymous wrote:So who did the Romans crucify then?

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.

Anonymous wrote:So who did the Romans crucify then?

Anonymous wrote:I'm not convinced so many men and women would willingly be martyred to preach the gospel. Crucified, beheaded, burned, boiled. Why would so many do it for a lie?

Anonymous wrote:So who did the Romans crucify then?

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?

historical figures are not needed to form a religion -- e.g., american indian religions and european paganism. People just dream up this stuff and sometimes a name gets attached to it and sometimes it doesn't.

Also, you don't have to be crazy -- just in search of meaning.

It's immaterial whether Jesus existed or not. Christianity certainly exists and has been a force in the world for centuries.

If it were proven that there was no Jesus, no crucifixion and no resurrection, Christianity would still probably survive.

It might not thrive, but it's already dying even with a lot of people still believing in it -- just not as many as before.

Since people are no longer burned at the stake for not believing, it's easer to come out as an atheist.

Focus, people.

OP is specifically addressing the origins of Christianity, because this is something that atheists have kept coming back to over the past few days. Not whether atheists feel comfortable coming out.

I think OP’s point is that so many independent but similar testimonies emerged that it suggests an actual person. You’d need Big European Religion to coordinate a similar rollout in the absence of a real person who did real things. Which obviously seems really improbable. Props, though, for going bravely down the path of silly conspiracy theories.

I doubt that dedicated Christians spend too much time wondering or worrying about if Jesus was a real person. It's the teachings of love and acceptance and charity that they care about and would likely continue to practice even if there were proof that Jesus was not real.

I hear this quite often, but what about the other stuff? Like the virgin birth, bodily resurrection, and salvation being possible ONLY by believing in Jesus ? You believe that stuff? Or just the "teaching of love and acceptance and charity?" (i.e., the good things, I acknowledge).

This discussion is about OP's premise that Jesus did not exist historically.