What I find interesting in this whole discussion is what the Bible itself says.
Read 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7
It seems that the alleged author John, supposedly a disciple of Jesus, felt inspired to write not one but two separate epistles railing against the "false Christians" or "anti-Christs" who denied the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Rather than appeal to obvious recent history, he admonishes the reader to reject them using the language of faith. "Believe" and "confess" the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus.
Reading between the lines, it would seem that the early Christians had a serious problem with heterodox Christians who thought that Jesus was a purely spiritual being. Exactly who "John" is referring to is not clear from the letters. Apologists often claim he was speaking of the docetics, early Christians who thought Jesus was just an apparition, and try to dismiss them as a small group of schismatics. Even taking this claim at face value, it does nothing to help their case. The fact that John wrote at least two separate epistles suggests that this was no small group but a serious problem. Plus, why would he rail against them with the language of faith as opposed to appeal to recent history and dismiss the docetics as crazy?
Why would the docetics arise as a movement so close to the alleged life of Jesus, at a time when those who knew him were still alive? Did Jesus not have relatives, nieces and nephews perhaps, how could have testified adequately that he was a flesh-and-blood being? Were there not neighbors who could have verified that Jesus was real enough?
The alternative is that Jesus started as a higher god, was brought down to earth in parables and then these parables were told as "true stories".
Of course, anythings possible I suppose. Maybe some of the early Christians did feel inspired to reject obvious and recent within-the-lifetime history and instead invent fantasy notions about their lord and savior that he was just an illusion all along. One Christian apologist once told me not to underestimate the stupidity of people who just believe whatever they want to. Seriously. I couldn't argue with that.
That said, if there was some wandering rabbi names Yeshua who was among many doomcriers of the time, good luck ever knowing anything about him. The only sources we have are Christian mythology. This Jesus never wrote anything down himself and neither did anyone else for at least 40 years (in reality, probably a century). The fact that his followers apparently split off into many factions about what exactly it was that he taught brings any Christian account into question.
If you want further reason to doubt the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts, here you go:
The Jesus Timeline
Read 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7
It seems that the alleged author John, supposedly a disciple of Jesus, felt inspired to write not one but two separate epistles railing against the "false Christians" or "anti-Christs" who denied the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus. Rather than appeal to obvious recent history, he admonishes the reader to reject them using the language of faith. "Believe" and "confess" the existence of a flesh-and-blood Jesus.
Reading between the lines, it would seem that the early Christians had a serious problem with heterodox Christians who thought that Jesus was a purely spiritual being. Exactly who "John" is referring to is not clear from the letters. Apologists often claim he was speaking of the docetics, early Christians who thought Jesus was just an apparition, and try to dismiss them as a small group of schismatics. Even taking this claim at face value, it does nothing to help their case. The fact that John wrote at least two separate epistles suggests that this was no small group but a serious problem. Plus, why would he rail against them with the language of faith as opposed to appeal to recent history and dismiss the docetics as crazy?
Why would the docetics arise as a movement so close to the alleged life of Jesus, at a time when those who knew him were still alive? Did Jesus not have relatives, nieces and nephews perhaps, how could have testified adequately that he was a flesh-and-blood being? Were there not neighbors who could have verified that Jesus was real enough?
The alternative is that Jesus started as a higher god, was brought down to earth in parables and then these parables were told as "true stories".
Of course, anythings possible I suppose. Maybe some of the early Christians did feel inspired to reject obvious and recent within-the-lifetime history and instead invent fantasy notions about their lord and savior that he was just an illusion all along. One Christian apologist once told me not to underestimate the stupidity of people who just believe whatever they want to. Seriously. I couldn't argue with that.
That said, if there was some wandering rabbi names Yeshua who was among many doomcriers of the time, good luck ever knowing anything about him. The only sources we have are Christian mythology. This Jesus never wrote anything down himself and neither did anyone else for at least 40 years (in reality, probably a century). The fact that his followers apparently split off into many factions about what exactly it was that he taught brings any Christian account into question.
If you want further reason to doubt the historical accuracy of the Gospel accounts, here you go:
The Jesus Timeline
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
