TheGreatestOfTheseIsLOVE... TGOTIL... Gotty; can I call you that? I read your post and I have to say you have a way with words that is pretty impressive. I wish I was more fluent when trying to get my points across like you are.
Speaking about points, I would like to hear from you about my thoughts on the topic: Jesus' sacrifice only makes sense if there was actually a god-man to sacrifice in the first place. From the research I've done, it seems like there was no such man. Even the NT itself lacks the evidence for such a man, and in my opinion, actually paints a whole different picture about what the early Christians believed. Why is it that Mark, the first Gospel written, originally had no resurrection accounts? Why did 'Matthew', a supposed witness, need to rely on Mark for his testimony (Matthew and Luke used Mark)? That's quite shocking for someone who was supposedly there for most of it. It seems like no author in the NT saw this god-man for themselves, and in fact, neither did any other historian of the time. There's no contemporary accounts whatsoever about Jesus and his one/three year ministry.
If anything, answer me this, because I've yet to hear any response from the theists on here: why does Paul claim his gospel came from no man, that he didn't get taught it by any man, but received it through revelation of Jesus Christ? Wasn't Jesus just on earth during his one/three year ministry?? To say that his gospel came from no man, but it did come from Jesus is telling us something very clearly; that Paul believed in a spiritual being, which makes perfect sense in reality. Jesus is simply nowhere to be found in history.
Speaking about points, I would like to hear from you about my thoughts on the topic: Jesus' sacrifice only makes sense if there was actually a god-man to sacrifice in the first place. From the research I've done, it seems like there was no such man. Even the NT itself lacks the evidence for such a man, and in my opinion, actually paints a whole different picture about what the early Christians believed. Why is it that Mark, the first Gospel written, originally had no resurrection accounts? Why did 'Matthew', a supposed witness, need to rely on Mark for his testimony (Matthew and Luke used Mark)? That's quite shocking for someone who was supposedly there for most of it. It seems like no author in the NT saw this god-man for themselves, and in fact, neither did any other historian of the time. There's no contemporary accounts whatsoever about Jesus and his one/three year ministry.
If anything, answer me this, because I've yet to hear any response from the theists on here: why does Paul claim his gospel came from no man, that he didn't get taught it by any man, but received it through revelation of Jesus Christ? Wasn't Jesus just on earth during his one/three year ministry?? To say that his gospel came from no man, but it did come from Jesus is telling us something very clearly; that Paul believed in a spiritual being, which makes perfect sense in reality. Jesus is simply nowhere to be found in history.
"It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it" ~ Aristotle
