RE: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1)
December 1, 2014 at 1:12 pm
(This post was last modified: December 1, 2014 at 1:58 pm by Anomalocaris.)
Jesus, Mary, Joseph were common names in a part of the world not known for innovative naming practices, who is to say a certain Jesus son of Mary and Joseph had never existed who was a bit luny in ways that happen to dovetail with pervailing social conditions so as to impress impressionable illiterate yokels? Who is to say the bunch of yokels most foolishly impressed didn't number 13 and didn't have the names that Christians recognized as the "apostles"?
But it seems absolutely irrelevent whether a real Jesus existed. The important thing is a biblical New Testament Jesus who had the salient characteristics attributed to him by subsequent christians runs against all we've since learned about the real world. So we can as confidently rule out the existence of the biblical Jesus son of god as we can the sun rising from the west.
Christians seem to think insinuating the unprovable fact Jesus existed proves any such Jesus as might have existed would also be son of god.
What idiots.
But it seems absolutely irrelevent whether a real Jesus existed. The important thing is a biblical New Testament Jesus who had the salient characteristics attributed to him by subsequent christians runs against all we've since learned about the real world. So we can as confidently rule out the existence of the biblical Jesus son of god as we can the sun rising from the west.
Christians seem to think insinuating the unprovable fact Jesus existed proves any such Jesus as might have existed would also be son of god.
What idiots.
