If I wrote a bible-like book telling people I was the son of god...
- Thread starter ericfost
- Start date
When Jesus walked the earth he had very few followers. For the first hundred years after his death he was obscure to say the least. Romans looking for the next 'in' thing were the ones who really got Christ on the radar screen. It was some time before he caught on. Which makes you think, gee what other religions were floating around at the time that are lost to the ages. And how close Jesus was to being 'not' discovered.
By the way Jesus was illiterate, and did not write a single word.
"Luke 4:17-20 And there was delivered unto him the book of the prophet Esaias. And when he had opened the book, he found the place where it was written, The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he hath anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor; he hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted, to preach deliverance to the captives, and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty them that are bruised, To preach the acceptable year of the Lord. And he closed the book, and he gave it again to the minister, and sat down. And the eyes of all them that were in the synagogue were fastened on him."
"Meier finally decides that the odds, though, are much greater that Jesus was literate even without these cites. He points to Jesus' obviously familiarity with both the OT and the intertestamental writings, to the general attitude in Judaism that "to be able to read and explain the Scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews," and Jesus' obvious skill at using the Scriptures, and concludes that it is far more likely that Jesus would have to have been literate to have had such skill. He adds that all that would be required for Jesus to have this path open was a pious father (Joseph would fill the bill) and a local synagogue (which Nazareth probably had) to do the teaching. We therefore conclude that the burden of proof would be on those who claim that Jesus was not literate."
http://www.tektonics.org/illit.html
"Meier finally decides that the odds, though, are much greater that Jesus was literate even without these cites. He points to Jesus' obviously familiarity with both the OT and the intertestamental writings, to the general attitude in Judaism that "to be able to read and explain the Scriptures was a revered goal for religiously minded Jews," and Jesus' obvious skill at using the Scriptures, and concludes that it is far more likely that Jesus would have to have been literate to have had such skill. He adds that all that would be required for Jesus to have this path open was a pious father (Joseph would fill the bill) and a local synagogue (which Nazareth probably had) to do the teaching. We therefore conclude that the burden of proof would be on those who claim that Jesus was not literate."
http://www.tektonics.org/illit.html
tektonics.org is home of Tekton Apologetics Ministries. The
tecktonics website is owned and operated by James Partick
Holding aka Robert Turkel aka the Want-to-be Apologist.
Well, look at joseph smith, who didn't even need to bury his book for support.
Look at david koresh- all he left was a few pages of written garbage yet he had/has support.
The list goes on...
All you really need is a good ability to manipulate the weak mind. Seek out those at their most mentally fragile and suck the life out of them...
Jesus' PR man
You are correct on all counts; however, I don't think it was the Romans who got him on the radar screen--it was Saul/Paul who was the mythmaker.
You are correct on all counts; however, I don't think it was the Romans who got him on the radar screen--it was Saul/Paul who was the mythmaker.
well actually, people don't argue about this. jesus is on roman census records and whatnot. the argument is whether or not he was the son of god and if all the miracles were fabricated. there are accounts of a dude in that area that people followed around like elvis and the gov knocked off.
it's kind of like david of the branch davidians. we know he exists but we think he's a crackjob.
Well, actually, people DO. Jesus' existance has been debated since the Christian movement began.
Um, bullshit? There is no historical record of Jesus Christ anywhere other than the New Testament.
There is nothing to say he even existed at all to fabricate anything.
I'll say this again, real slow-like, so you can understand....
....There. Are. No. Historical. Records. Of. The. Biblical. Jesus. Anywhere.
Dude, remember when they found the burial box that had James, Joseph and Jesus' names on it? Well, the big deal behind it was that it would have been the first historical indication that the Biblical Jesus existed! Of course, it was proven to be a hoax, but the point is that the only place you can find any accounts of Jesus Christ are in the Bible.
And by the way, why don't you enlighten us by providing links to these Roman records that speak of an "Elvis-like" man parading around?
Actually, it's nothing like the Branch Davidians. Why? Because there are no historical records of the Biblical Jesus anywhere. ANYWHERE. At all. Nowhere. Nodda. Zip. Zilch.
And if you want me to appeal further to your common sense, have a listen to this: This great man, this great prophet, the son of God....NEVER WROTE A SINGLE WORD. The Bible says he could read just fine...but he never wrote a word. C'mon...what prophet doesn't write something? That's just common sense talking.
JD
Josephus, Talmud, non-canon writings, Ignatius disciple of John etc. Romans would have surely responded with facts against Jesus even existing if this was so.
There is a letter supposively written by Jesus. I suppose we don't really know if it is fake or not. http://www.consulex.hu/ms/events/workshops/2002rulership20.html
I think most Gnosis Christians believed the Jesus story was just that – a story. As they made up ~ 50% of the early Christians I’d say I agree, Jesus is a story with no real counterpart. As for the smoke – yes there seems to be a lot of people questioning the validity of Jesus based around the fact that there is a major lack of contemporary historical evidence. Therefore the fire is – no Jesus.
I would recon that these were all followers? I'd like to study up on this a bit, but I'd definately don't think any of what you listed is considered evidence.
Not true. The Roman Empire became Christian as the movement grew, so there was no need to assault the religion as the leaders were themselves Christian.
I would say it is possible that the Biblical Jesus lived. I say that because it is not unusual for a man to begin a movement to change what he considers unjust. The Roman Empire was very cruel to Jews, and Jesus was a Jew.
The legend, however, changed and grew as time went on. That, I am sure of. And that is because legends always grow, and there is nothing to say that this one did any different.
So, was he alive? I don't know. There are other ficticious characters in antiquity, including the Greek and Roman Gods, and this would seem to fit the mold. But, if you strip away the Son of God moniker, and all the miracles, the basic story seems realistic enough to be true. Think William Wallce. Could have been the same deal.
JD
This statement isn't exactly true either. For many years, being a Christian was not uncommon among noblemen, but it was very hazardous to admit it in public. Romans considered Christianity to be "Foreign Supersticion" and was cause for execution. This was done regularly, especially among nobelmen who showed even a hint of faith towards Christ.
But many Romans in public life admitted their faith later in life, i.e. after retirement or at very old ages. Baptisms were usually saved until their last days. So, it is my opinion that the empire didn't try to offer any evidence against Jesus existing because A)they considered it, at best, supersticion, or B)many in power were secretly Christian.
JD
I suppose it's something that can be debated forever, and, unless we happened to go back in time and personally see it, we'd never really know. Here's another version of jesus:
King Arthur.
Did he exist at all? Are stories of him all perfectly written? Would a christian instantly subscribe the same validity to the 'reality' of king arthur as they would to jesus? If not, why not?
King Arthur abounds in old literature. What about the lady of the lake? The sword in the stone? Are they also true?
How about merlin.... was he really a powerful magician?
We could go on with so many other old "characters", and jesus does not differ from any of them. In england alone we have stories of countless legendary people.
King arthur, robin hood, and so on and so forth.... It is unlikely that the stories are entirely accurate, (there is no way to stop chinese whispers- which is even worse when political motives are involved).
All we have is the evidence.... and jesus certainly has no more evidence to corroborate his existence than king arthur does.
King Arthur.
Did he exist at all? Are stories of him all perfectly written? Would a christian instantly subscribe the same validity to the 'reality' of king arthur as they would to jesus? If not, why not?
King Arthur abounds in old literature. What about the lady of the lake? The sword in the stone? Are they also true?
How about merlin.... was he really a powerful magician?
We could go on with so many other old "characters", and jesus does not differ from any of them. In england alone we have stories of countless legendary people.
King arthur, robin hood, and so on and so forth.... It is unlikely that the stories are entirely accurate, (there is no way to stop chinese whispers- which is even worse when political motives are involved).
All we have is the evidence.... and jesus certainly has no more evidence to corroborate his existence than king arthur does.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
Based on what?