So based on this assumption you are willing to believe he existed despite any historical evidence?
There IS historical evidence. I outlined this in my first post.
How do we know his name was even Jesus? Let alone he was a single individual?
His name wasn’t Jesus – it was Y’eshua.
This leads me to believe you really haven’t done much research on the subject at all.
What reason do you have to believe that he was more than one individual? :bugeye:
Again, if you apply Ockham’s Razor, I see no reason to make that assumption.
And that proves he existed?
Of course not. It suggests that these claims about his “miracles” were made later by those forming the Roman Catholic Church.
You still did not answer my question? How much more historically distorted does a person have to be in order to be considered a myth?
Because it’s a silly question – there is no formula to apply.
I did address the idea, however, when I said:
“The point is that the details of his life don't mean anything - the point is what he was teaching.
The point is his philosophy - and that does appear to have come from a real person.
I see no reason at all to believe his words are not real or did not come from a real person.
In fact, if they were made up, the Church would not have made him say the things he did.”
Obviously, that kind of philosophy comes from a real person. Now if you don't mind could you explain to me exactly why you would think this philosophy has to come solely from one person? Why could it not evolve through a sect, passed on by words one generation to another? You are claming just one guy preached something, caused some turmoil, had lots of followers, died, and passed on his teachings generation to generation to a point where he eventually became considered a god.
Why is it so hard to believe that his philosophy came from one person?
How many people wrote Nietzsche’s collected works? Kant’s?:shrug:
I see no reason to believe that one person can not be a philosopher. Why would you make that assumption?
And, no, I don’t think “he eventually became considered a god”, I think it was a concerted effort by the founders of the Church to craft that image.
Good points, but this again leads to something you failed to take into account. Have you ever played a game called telephone? If you do not know what it is feel free to ask, then reconsider what you mean by - his teachings were spread forms of communications traveled by foot.
I didn’t fail to take it into account.
There is good reason that the earliest texts differ from the later ones.
There is also good reason that I think the earlier ones are more reliable.
However, his words, across several hundred years of texts, are strikingly similar, and carry the same undertones and ideas.
I think there was a real man who wrote his teachings, and he existed.
That’s all I am saying.
Many deny that – I used to deny it.
nor did he have to live at the time Jesus was supposedly alive.
As I already pointed out, we have evidence that there were early Christian sects established less than 50 years after his death.
That’s pretty solid evidence, if you ask me.
The way you quoted me made it difficult to respond, by the way.
