The Root of Religion

[likeasong1]

Quite the opposite. There's not a single shred of evidence to indicate that Jesus was a real person, much less a divine being. Consider that not a single thing was written about Jesus during his alleged lifetime. The earliest account was written over a quarter century after his alleged death by Paul nee Saul, who readily admits he never met Jesus when he was "alive". The whole thing smacks of fiction.

Under what name were they looking? Because "Jesus" is a heavily anglicized name.

 

[jts963]

Under what name were they looking? Because "Jesus" is a heavily anglicized name.

"They" are Biblical scholars researching the original documents, not some students doing an internet search for homework. Absolutely nothing was written about "Jesus" or whatever his real name was during his alleged lifetime. Truly remarkable, considering that even his birth was allegedly a miracle, attended by actual magi (aka wise men), who presumably could read and write, or had access to scribes to record such a marvelous event. Sorry, no contemporaneous writing(s) of a miracle birth in Bethlehem. No anything about "Jesus" in writing until decades after his alleged crucifixion. It's more than a little strange. Then there's the misordering of the Gospels (alleged eyewitness reports). I'll wait and see if you can figure that one out for yourself.

 

[likeasong1]

"They" are Biblical scholars researching the original documents, not some students doing an internet search for homework. Absolutely nothing was written about "Jesus" or whatever his real name was during his alleged lifetime. Truly remarkable, considering that even his birth was allegedly a miracle, attended by actual magi (aka wise men), who presumably could read and write, or had access to scribes to record such a marvelous event. Sorry, no contemporaneous writing(s) of a miracle birth in Bethlehem. No anything about "Jesus" in writing until decades after his alleged crucifixion. It's more than a little strange. Then there's the misordering of the Gospels (alleged eyewitness reports). I'll wait and see if you can figure that one out for yourself.

Yes yes, you're calling it fiction, and maybe even conspiracy. But I still think you're wrong. It sounds too far-fetched to be questioning the existence of someone who'd been generally accepted as having existed for so long. The Four Gospels, while they don't always agree to the letter on every detail, generally are in agreement with one another, so I would say that that's something right there.

 

[jts963]

Yes yes, you're calling it fiction, and maybe even conspiracy. But I still think you're wrong. It sounds too far-fetched to be questioning the existence of someone who'd been generally accepted as having existed for so long. The Four Gospels, while they don't always agree to the letter on every detail, generally are in agreement with one another, so I would say that that's something right there.

The Harry Potter books are generally are in agreement with one another. Does that mean that something real is going on there? What if we didn't know who wrote each book, and it was made to look like each book had a different author? The episodes in a fictional TV series typically have different screenwriters but they still generally agree with each other about content and series "history".

The fact remains that absolutely nothing was written about this remarkable individual Jesus of Navareth until well after his death. Sorta like King Arthur and Robin Hood, among others of questionable authenticity.

 

[likeasong1]

The Harry Potter books are generally are in agreement with one another. Does that mean that something real is going on there? What if we didn't know who wrote each book, and it was made to look like each book had a different author? The episodes in a fictional TV series typically have different screenwriters but they still generally agree with each other about content and series "history".

So you're now basically saying the gospel writers were a collusion of sorts?

The fact remains that absolutely nothing was written about this remarkable individual Jesus of Navareth until well after his death. Sorta like King Arthur and Robin Hood, among others of questionable authenticity.

First off, it's Nazareth, at least in the modern translation. Second, a lot of biographies aren't written about individuals until after they die, and in the days before mass media you couldn't really expect him to be in the newspapers or anything. Third, there's also quite likely documentation that is either still hidden or didn't survive. What if we were able to find an official document of Pontius Pilate's trial of Jesus, or even of the release of Barabbas? Again, since movable type wasn't exactly part of the Roman empire, the people who could record in writing were mostly on the payroll of either the Pharisees or the Romans, neither party being ready and willing to acknowledge Jesus, nor are the kind of people that Jesus routinely hung out with. Fourth, if anyone would wish to eliminate the legend of Jesus, it'd be the Jews, who as I understand do (or at least did) acknowledge his existence and wisdom, just not his divinity.

 

[jts963]

So you're now basically saying the gospel writers were a collusion of sorts?

It's entirely plausible.

First off, it's Nazareth, at least in the modern translation. Second, a lot of biographies aren't written about individuals until after they die, and in the days before mass media you couldn't really expect him to be in the newspapers or anything. Third, there's also quite likely documentation that is either still hidden or didn't survive. What if we were able to find an official document of Pontius Pilate's trial of Jesus, or even of the release of Barabbas? Again, since movable type wasn't exactly part of the Roman empire, the people who could record in writing were mostly on the payroll of either the Pharisees or the Romans, neither party being ready and willing to acknowledge Jesus, nor are the kind of people that Jesus routinely hung out with. Fourth, if anyone would wish to eliminate the legend of Jesus, it'd be the Jews, who as I understand do (or at least did) acknowledge his existence and wisdom, just not his divinity.

Then how did anything at all get written about him? You keep making excuses for why nothing was written about him during his lifetime but that's all they are: excuses. We're talking about the basis for an entire religion and you can't explain why a single one of his followers, at least some of whom were literate, recorded absolutely nothing during his lifetime. The Gospels are far more than a biography, they are the sole record of the existence of Jesus. Not a single non-Christian document from that era mentions him except as the basis for the 'cult' of Christianity. The Jews would have preserved any contemporaneous record of him as a heretic and/or a "terrorist". Probably the Romans as well. As is, he has all the historicity of Robin Hood: precious little, and that's being generous.

There are no more documents to be found concerning Jesus. No way two millennia of searching by devout Christians failed to unearth all there is to find.

Obviously I can't convince you otherwise and you won't convince me otherwise. We agree to disagree.

 

[likeasong1]

Then how did anything at all get written about him? You keep making excuses for why nothing was written about him during his lifetime but that's all they are: excuses. We're talking about the basis for an entire religion and you can't explain why a single one of his followers, at least some of whom were literate, recorded absolutely nothing during his lifetime. The Gospels are far more than a biography, they are the sole record of the existence of Jesus. Not a single non-Christian document from that era mentions him except as the basis for the 'cult' of Christianity. The Jews would have preserved any contemporaneous record of him as a heretic and/or a "terrorist". Probably the Romans as well. As is, he has all the historicity of Robin Hood: precious little, and that's being generous.

The Gospel of John is attributed by many to the apostle John, Son of Zebedee. Peter himself wrote two epistles that while not biographical are rooted in the teachings that he learned from Jesus, in accordance with those gospels. You place so much emphasis that it have been written during his lifetime. I don't find that to be as important. Would it have been nice? Yes, but not having been so is not a deal-breaker for me either. Most of his apostles were actually from humble roots. Fishermen were not exactly the well-to-do elite of society of that time, and tax collectors may have been wealthy, but were even more of a social outcast than fishermen or shepherds.

There are no more documents to be found concerning Jesus. No way two millennia of searching by devout Christians failed to unearth all there is to find.

Gotta disagree. Discoveries are still being made all the time. But with much of that part of the world in either hotly disputed, or Muslim territory, the odds of being given further opportunity to find much of these lost records is unfortunately slim.

Obviously I can't convince you otherwise and you won't convince me otherwise. We agree to disagree.

Obviously. So be it.