All the historical evidence for Jesus in one room

  • @[email protected]OP
    link
    fedilink
    -11 year ago

    I did consider it. The thing is the Gospel miracles are all variations on common magic tricks in the area at that time. If someone made them up decades later why not make up bigger ones? To me it made more sense for James to claim his non-existent brother did those same tricks that way it would sound familiar. You always want to tell the most minimum lie you can get away with. If I told you I was late for work because of a flat tire you are more likely to believe me than if I said because I was defusing a hostage situation.

    Additionally if you look at the formula school you notice a repeating pattern to the miracles. Jesus is asked to solve a problem, no one thinks he can, he does, everyone is shocked. All these repetitive stories hints at a core one a core lie.

    Plus you still have Paul to worry about which your reduced Jesus doesn’t cover.

    • AnonTwo
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      I mean, it can all be lies and the person themself can exist. That is if anything the most believable part in the story.

      I will take a moment and just clarify but you did check that there’s undeniable evidence that James and Paul existed in your view, right?

      • @[email protected]OP
        link
        fedilink
        -21 year ago

        I mean, it can all be lies and the person themself can exist. That is if anything the most believable part in the story.

        Sure and if pigs had wings they could probably fly.

        I will take a moment and just clarify but you did check that there’s undeniable evidence that James and Paul existed in your view, right?

        I am very sorry if I miscommunicated. My bad. We have a much higher degree of confidence in those two men. Someone wrote those 7 primary letters and they used a consistent voice and shows a consistent story. Also we have copies of them from all over. We also have stories in the letters about Paul himself that match up with the historical geographical data. If there was no Paul it is a very impressive con job. Someone would have had to go around the Roman Empire and track down all these different churches, find the names of people there, some how convince them that Paul started that church and meet with them personally, developed an entire theological system, convince people that public events at their churches had happened but no one remembered them. So yeah I guess it is possible but I would really like to meet the man who could do that. Get him a job where I work in sales.

        As for James, once we trust that Paul isn’t lying we get mention of him. We also get two other references to him. I admit I am on less sturdy ground with James. I am curious if you have a reason to doubt either one? I have reasons to doubt Jesus, like for example the massively inconsistent records of him.