RE: The Historical Christ
June 8, 2009 at 11:26 am
(This post was last modified: June 8, 2009 at 3:11 pm by chatpilot.)
"I think you have missed my point. You say the apostles were real, historical figures, and they clearly believed in the physical, historical Christ. This leaves two options; Jesus is real or they are lying. Which one will it be?"
Dagda what you fail to see is that the apostles existence is irrelevant to the existence of Christ.Simply because they might have been trying to promote a religion based on older traditions of the gnostics.Not to mention that the apostles never wrote one word about Christ in the bible.Their names were later added to the gospel narratives in the year 180 AD before that those books were known as anonymous works.Most biblical scholars agree on these findings and they have yet to be refuted.So those responsible for writing the gospels are in fact lying and not only that they are guilty of fraudulently calling their works those of the apostles.Although,this was a common practice in those day in order to give those works more authority.
If I was to accept the existence of an historical Christ in history then that still does not take away from the fact that his biography and exploits as narrated in the gospels are greatly exaggerated.So accepting the existence of Christ niether makes him divine nor the son of God.
Dagda what you fail to see is that the apostles existence is irrelevant to the existence of Christ.Simply because they might have been trying to promote a religion based on older traditions of the gnostics.Not to mention that the apostles never wrote one word about Christ in the bible.Their names were later added to the gospel narratives in the year 180 AD before that those books were known as anonymous works.Most biblical scholars agree on these findings and they have yet to be refuted.So those responsible for writing the gospels are in fact lying and not only that they are guilty of fraudulently calling their works those of the apostles.Although,this was a common practice in those day in order to give those works more authority.
If I was to accept the existence of an historical Christ in history then that still does not take away from the fact that his biography and exploits as narrated in the gospels are greatly exaggerated.So accepting the existence of Christ niether makes him divine nor the son of God.
There is nothing people will not maintain when they are slaves to superstition
http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/
http://chatpilot-godisamyth.blogspot.com/
