Replies

We base our beliefs on events transcribed by those who claimed to have witnessed them. Furthermore, we must base our decision to embrace such accounts on circumstantial evidence surrounding the claimed events.

Such as the fact that no one bothered to preserve any of Jesus's sayings in the language in which he spoke them and no one remembered what year he was supposedly crucified.

Yes you are correct, the majority of Judeans during the time of Christ rejected His message; but some did not. Those that did embrace Christ preached Christ's message to the Jew first, than to the Gentile

According to Acts 1:15, after the crucifixion there were 120 disciples. The Gospels say Jesus met at least 4000-5000 people and Paul claimed that 500 "brethren" witnessed the resurrection but there were only 120 disciples. After that, unless I am missing it, there is no discussion anywhere else in the New Testament about anyone having personally met Jesus when he was alive. (It is not even clear that these 120 disciples actually met Jesus). The epistles of Peter and James are not written as personal accounts of Jesus. Paul claims that he met Jesus only as a vision.

Doesn't it bother you that there is so little direct testimony from people who witnessed Jesus?

You believe that the Apostles were thieving con artists that created a cult (based a a non-existent deity) to gain material wealth and prestige. You believe that it was some huge conspiracy set in motion by evil men.

Not necessarily just to gain material wealth, but, when people give up their livelyhoods to preach, they have to get money to live somehow. The episode regarding Ananias and Sapphira gives us a hint of what they would do for money. And the fact that the publicans are portrayed in the Gospels as persecuted innocents rather than the traitorous thugs they actually were is an indication that the Nazarenes probably promised salvation to the publicans for cash and had some success doing that.

In addition, the first believers were all Jewish, the disciples themselves. Again, they were a small minority, but to claim no one of the Jewish faith embraced Christ is not correct.

Christianity was probably begun by Hellenized Jews who wanted to follow a religion more like that of the Greeks and Romans, ie. a "mystery" religion involving a son of god. This new hybrid Greek-Jewish religion was eagerly embraced by those gentiles who had read the Jewish Bible and wanted to follow its moral precepts but did not want to become Jews or have to follow Jewish law. The idea that covenant between God and the Jews had been broken and that believers in Jesus were now the true heirs to the Israelites was naturally appealing to gentiles who loved the Bible and wanted to claim it as their own.

Of course, none of these gentiles ever actually witnessed Jesus or ever met anyone who had witnessed Jesus, but they had a strong motive to believe in him.

Such as the fact that no one bothered to preserve any of Jesus's sayings in the language in which he spoke them and no one remembered what year he was supposedly crucified.

No. Does it bother you that no one can prove that the world is less than 100,000 years old; does it bother you that no one can prove Noah, Abraham, or Moses existed? Can you prove that the ten commandments where actually produced by God?

Once and for all, get it through your head that not everything can be proved, not everything was recorded. Prove to us that none of Jesus's teachings were never transcribed in the original language, you can't. Your argument is subjective based on arguments that cannot be proved one way or the other.

"there is no discussion anywhere else in the New Testament about anyone having personally met Jesus when he was alive...."

Pure nonsense, read the New Testament. Someone is feeding you misleading information.

"The episode regarding Ananias and Sapphira gives us a hint of what they would do for money. And the fact that the publicans are portrayed in the Gospels as persecuted innocents rather than the traitorous thugs they actually were is an indication that the Nazarenes probably promised salvation to the publicans for cash and had some success doing that. "

Have you even read the entire context of this story; do you even understand why they were smited for their actions.? How many times in the Old Testament were people struck down for attempting to decieve God? How many Jews died in the desert because they chose to worship a false God?

Irregardless of your lack of knowledge here, I'll attempt to explain it to you. They were not strucjk down by God because of their not giving all they had. they were struck down by God for attempting to decieve Him. Your argument here is ridiculous.

Please, finally, take the time to explain how your theory supports the lives led by the Apostles. Again, Unlike your assumed accounts, the Apostles (after the resurrection) did not live a life full of pleasure and plenty. Their remaining days were filled with poverty, misery, and loneliness. Again, they all died, with few exceptions, very horrifying deaths; deaths that could have been avoided if they only recanted what they had stated to be truth. Not one denied what they witnessed. They didn't because they witnessed what they stated; they believed they saw Christ alive after his death. They did not fear the horrors that befell them because they saw death conquered. Your explanations give no support to the actions of these men after the resurrection.Please do not respond unless show how your theories support the lives these men lived. You've avoided addressing this from the beginning; it's time you put your theory to work. And please, please, don't use your defense of "prove they existed" it is has grown tiring.

"Christianity was probably begun by Hellenized Jews who wanted to follow a religion more like that of the Greeks and Romans, ie. a "mystery" religion involving a son of god. This new hybrid Greek-Jewish religion was eagerly embraced by those gentiles who had read the Jewish Bible and wanted to follow its moral precepts but did not want to become Jews or have to follow Jewish law. "

This nonsense has been debunked so many times; you should know this, let's not play games here. You are really grasping here.

"The idea that covenant between God and the Jews had been broken and that believers in Jesus were now the true heirs to the Israelites was naturally appealing to gentiles who loved the Bible and wanted to claim it as their own."

More nonsense, you really should read the New Testament before making such outrageous accusations. Usually, understanding what your commenting on is a prerequisite to debating it. Christ fulfilled the covenant promised in the Old Testament. Whether you agree with it is one thing; lying about it is another.

"Of course, none of these gentiles ever actually witnessed Jesus or ever met anyone who had witnessed Jesus, but they had a strong motive to believe in him."

This is absurd. Are you claiming that mo Gentiles ever met Jesus and believed?

Honestly, unless you address the following, do not respond.

Please, finally, take the time to explain how your theory supports the lives led by the Apostles.

Again, unlike your false accounts, the Apostles (after the resurrection) did not live a life full of pleasure and plenty. Their remaining days were filled with poverty, misery, and loneliness. Again, they all died, with few exceptions, very horrifying deaths; deaths that could have been avoided if they only recanted what they had stated to be truth. Not one denied what they witnessed. They didn't because they witnessed what they stated; they believed they saw Christ alive after his death. They did not fear the horrors that befell them because they saw death conquered. Your explanations give no support to the actions of these men after the resurrection.

Please do not respond unless you demonstrate how your theories support the lives these men lived. You've avoided addressing this from the beginning; it's time you put your theory to work.