***Continued from above***
So having covered that the liar or lunatic strawmen are just that, let's get to the "Lord" possibility. What exactly did Jesus claim again?
First of all, good luck ever knowing the true story of Jesus or what he said, assuming he existed at all. He wrote nothing down in his own lifetime (one wonders just what kept him so busy during the first 30 years of life that documenting his message for posterity had to be put off and finally, 40 years after his death, delegated to third hand accounts). This alone seems a curiosity since we have the books of Moses and Paul, neither of whom claimed to be divine.
The job of relating the teachings of Jesus for posterity fell to Mark, who was a companion of Paul, who saw Jesus in a vision. Where Mark got his information is left to speculation but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he got it from surviving disciples, those that were still alive 40 years later, whatever they could clearly remember.
So we've got hearsay of hearsay? No, actually it's worse than that. We're assuming we can take Christian claims of authorship at face value and that Mark is indeed the author of the Gospel that bears his name. In reality, "Mark" is a source allegedly a companion of Paul who heard what Jesus said from other unknown witnesses based on what they could remember 40 years after the events?
"Reliable Eye-Witness Accounts" should be made of sterner stuff.
***Conclusion coming soon***
So having covered that the liar or lunatic strawmen are just that, let's get to the "Lord" possibility. What exactly did Jesus claim again?
First of all, good luck ever knowing the true story of Jesus or what he said, assuming he existed at all. He wrote nothing down in his own lifetime (one wonders just what kept him so busy during the first 30 years of life that documenting his message for posterity had to be put off and finally, 40 years after his death, delegated to third hand accounts). This alone seems a curiosity since we have the books of Moses and Paul, neither of whom claimed to be divine.
The job of relating the teachings of Jesus for posterity fell to Mark, who was a companion of Paul, who saw Jesus in a vision. Where Mark got his information is left to speculation but let's give him the benefit of the doubt and say he got it from surviving disciples, those that were still alive 40 years later, whatever they could clearly remember.
So we've got hearsay of hearsay? No, actually it's worse than that. We're assuming we can take Christian claims of authorship at face value and that Mark is indeed the author of the Gospel that bears his name. In reality, "Mark" is a source allegedly a companion of Paul who heard what Jesus said from other unknown witnesses based on what they could remember 40 years after the events?
"Reliable Eye-Witness Accounts" should be made of sterner stuff.
***Conclusion coming soon***
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
