Chapabel, the only ones who look foolish here are Christians for accepting what they read by faith. In fact, the very method used to determine what books were to be accepted in the biblical text as inspired is dubious since it was conducted by a panel of clergy. Secondly you do not have any eyewitness accounts of the life of Jesus. In fact, what you do have are third, fourth person accounts and most of those accounts were written from about 40 years after the death of Christ (synoptic gospels ca.70 A.D.). So everything you have are written from oral traditions rather than historical facts. Not to mention that most of the authors of the texts are anonymous and till this day some remain unknown. When it comes to the synoptic gospels the names of Matthew, Mark, and Luke did not appear on these texts as authors till somewhere in the middle of the 2nd. century.
The curious thing about this is that before the 2nd century the synoptic gospels were anonymous works, but it was traditional in those times to add the names of some contemporaries of Jesus to give the text some authenticity and make them authoritative. Although, this does not mean that these so called contemporaries of Jesus actually met him who is to say that they themselves did not make these tales up based on oral traditions and already pre- existent myths that were pervasive throughout that era?
The curious thing about this is that before the 2nd century the synoptic gospels were anonymous works, but it was traditional in those times to add the names of some contemporaries of Jesus to give the text some authenticity and make them authoritative. Although, this does not mean that these so called contemporaries of Jesus actually met him who is to say that they themselves did not make these tales up based on oral traditions and already pre- existent myths that were pervasive throughout that era?
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/
http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/
