Bert, are you saying that pissed-looking guy with a beard is a pre-op FTM tranny and has clitoral and vaginal orgasms?
>Bert, are you saying that pissed-looking guy with a beard is a pre-op FTM tranny and has clitoral and vaginal orgasms?
@Tom - Astounding! You read my mind.
When god spoke from the heavens at the baptism of Jesus it caused a great many who were present that day to believe. Oh, wait. They all believed already. Sorry.
Chuck, the only people I've met who knew the bible well enough to debate it were preachers and atheists. As close-minded as I am.
Most likely not.
They would have had to either be children at the time or in the case of John, some 70 years after Jesus's death, definitely not.
Paul says he neve rmet Jesus except in visions. Luke prefaces his gospel by explaining that there were so many writings about Jesus that he felt he had to set the record straight, so he was writing the true version of the miracles that had been passed down to his generation via oral tradition. Mark, writer of the first gospel, apparently went back in time and put a few prophecies in Jesus' mouth, for example the destruction of the Jerusalem temple in 70 CE, so he was writing 40 years after the crucifixion. Matthew and Luke both drew on Mark, so their writings came at least after 70 CE. John writes a bit later, arguing that Jesus is the only route to salvation and that Jesus was co-eternal with God. "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." This formulation solves a thorny logical problem: As the Son, Jesus must be younger than the Father, so he cannot be divine. As the Word, though, Jesus would have been present from the beginning but only incarnated later.
Ehrman writes that the gospels were in circulation anonymously for decades. The earliest source that associates them with named disciples comes from the Bishop Irenaeus around 180-190 CE. It seems very unlikely to me that the gospels were written by Jesus' disciples, and even more unlikely that they were passed along unaltered for 140-150 years.
Paul had visions. He could never tell if he was in or out of his body when he had them. As for meeting Jesus, Evangelicals hold that Jesus really came to Paul and appeared to him. Apparently Paul was special to the spreading of the gospel. It is stated that the ones with Paul saw the light that surrounded Jesus but did not hear the voice. Another account after Saul regained his sight as Paul twists that around somewhat. This man Saul of Tarsus (Paul) was apparently so very important because he started Christianity as we know it. Jesus had come only to save the lost sheep of Israel, but thanks to Paul everyone else could be involved also. Paul changed a lot of things.
He said that to be absent from the body was to be present with the lord. The ones who thought they had an undying soul or spirit must have really liked that one.
His teachings allowed everyone who was ever born to be able to get on the Jesus ship. This was very important to people at the time and maybe even today.
Paul was either all that and more, or he was the biggest damn liar there ever was. If he was known to any of Jesus' followers as scripture says I don't think they knew what to do with him. He claimed to be the greatest of them all.
I think the man was the antichrist and I say this because there is no futuristic message that is yet to come in any of the writings. Revelation does not predict any futuristic events other than Christ and the gospel prevailing. Modern ideas of an antichrist come out of bad sci-fi and religious movies.
Jesus never existed and neither did his 12 flunkies. The BuyBull is a collection of older plagiarized myths.
The 12 apostles represent the 12 signs of the Zodiac.
It is all BS and it is evil BS that makes people stupid and EVIL!
You know, I don't care if he existed. The presence of an itinerant rabble rousing preacher in first century Palestine makes a perfectly banal claim that requires very little evidence because it's not worth arguing about. I tune out when the miracles begin.