I did not deny Christianity existed before the New Testament was written, so why raise the issue? Are you grasping for strawmen now?
I don’t think you know what reverse engineering means.
This doesn’t mean there isn’t a real origin story for that religion. The mere fact that a religion exists tells us it arose somehow, somewhere and through the efforts of someone or some people.
I accept what’s supported by evidence and when evidence isn’t enough or unavailable, I tend to go with the most plausible ideas. You just built a strawman perception of me and went ahead to knock it down. A waste of mental and typing energy.
So do you think the real origin story for Christianity appears in Acts 2? The magic tongues of fire story? Because that is neither supported by evidence or plausible. It’s what I mean by reverse engineering which when it comes to religion means making stuff up.
Ok. So can you provide links to the apologists saying this? Because I did a Google search and couldn’t find any. Admittedly, I didn’t spend much time on my search and may have missed it. I did find a LifeWay article about a study showing 2 out of 3 college students stop attending church for a period of time, but church attendance can drop off for lots of reasons. A college student juggling a full load of classes and a part time job may need that hour on Sunday morning.
Why do you appear to be unable to grasp the idea that at least some of those arguing with you are simply pointing out that your arguments do not justify your grand, negative claims?
Its unlikely that all parts of Acts are actual records of the early days of Christianity, but it won’t be farfetched to think that some parts are historically accurate. I go with whatever is supported by evidence.
This is most likely mythic, but I can’t rule out its occurrence. At best I can label it extremely implausible. No one wakes one morning and begins to speak in a language he or she has not learned.
You don’t know what reverse engineering means. Reverse engineering doesn’t mean “making stuff up”. That would be fabrication.
What can you tell us about this historical Jesus? Just a short summary using only historians who wrote within 40 or 50 years of his supposed death. There is only the Jesus of myth and literature. No miracles = no Jesus.
Okay what parts of Acts are supported by evidence? Its unlikely that any parts of Acts are actual records of the early days of Christianity. The whole book reads like a fantasy novel, not like any historical narrative.
For all those who think that the notion that Jesus never existed is some fringe idea, I just got one of those quiz type articles in my inbox: “Were They Real? See Which Historical Figures May Not Have Existed” By Margo Gothelf Guess who is on that list.
I don’t know because I am not familiar with historical investigations into it. I believe you can peruse the relevant literature to figure this out yourself.
I don’t see why. Mythic and historic accounts can exist side by side.
For me, that’s not Acts, but Revelation. I strongly suspect there are factual accounts of early Christian history in Acts. Only historical analysis will tell.
Wouldn’t Seneca count? This seems a silly argument. We expect Nero to be documented. We expect his face to be on coins of the time. He was famous and important when he was alive. Jesus, not so much. There seems to be no reason to expect contemporary documentation of Jesus, even if he really existed.
I’m not going to give you a free history lesson. I will say that writers who were actually alive when Nero was, wrote about him such as Lucanus, Seneca, Plutarch and probably others. We have nothing about Jesus from any historians who were alive when Jesus supposedly lived. There are coins with with Nero’s image on them and sculptures of him. Nothing like that exists for Jesus, not even a physical description. So there is a Nero outside of myth and literature. We have no reason to doubt the existence of Nero and no other candidates for Emperor of Rome during that period.
No miracles = no Jesus is a not total non-sequitur. There are no stories about a regular dude Jesus. They all involve the miraculous. Even Eusebius’s forgery in Josephus implies Jesus was superhuman.
You don’t think I’ve done that? It’s obvious to me that the people here criticizing me have not investigated this subject at all.
For you? You have your own “truth” then? If there were factual accounts of anything in Acts or any other part of the Bible we would never hear the end of it from believers. People on this site would have some weight behind their whataboutism. But they have nothing and anybody else reading this can see that.
The story of magical happy meal food multiplication appears in the Old Testament as does a story about raising a dead person in narratives about Elijah and Elisha. All the miracles in the gospels are integral parts of the narratives and without them there would be no story and no reason to even tell the story. To naively believe these stories are about a real person on one hand and then say that something is going over MY head on the other is arrogance gone into orbit.
No reason to expect contemporary documentation of Jesus? Really? More people would have seen Jesus than ever saw Nero. In the real world people have to do something before they become famous. But in one gospel and several myths there’s a massacre of infants in attempt to kill the hero as a child (Matt 2:16). Then as an adult his fame spreads throughout all Syria so ‘all the sick’ are brought to him - who are then healed by him (Matt 4:24). After that Jesus is followed by ‘crowds’ (Matt 5:1) and then ‘great crowds’ follow him (Matt 8:1). ‘Many’ afflicted brought to him: he heals ‘all who were sick’ (Matt 8:16) and so more great crowds follow him (Matt 8:18). Crowds witness healing (Matt 9:8) and so a ruler comes to him for help with daughter (Matt 9:18) and she is healed (Matt 9:25). “Report of this went through all that district” (Matt 9:26) and Jesus becomes even more famous as they ‘spread his fame through all that district’ (Matt 9:31). Crowds marvel (Matt 9:33). He heals ‘every disease and every infirmity’ as he travels about cities and villages (Matt 9:35) being followed by crowds (Matt 9:36) as he preaches in cities (Matt 11:1) and speaks to still more crowds (Matt 11:7). Many follow him and ‘he heals them all’ (Matt 12:15).“Great crowds gather” around him and he speaks to them (Matt 13:34). Herod hears about Jesus’ fame (Matt 14:1). Crowds follow him again, he heals the sick, and feeds 5000 (Matt 14:13). On entering Gennesaret, he is recognized and all the sick are brought to him and all those who touch him are healed (Matt 14:36). Great crowds come to him with the sick and they are healed (Matt 15:30). He Feeds 4000+ and crowds are sent away (Matt 15:38). Large crowds follow him in Judea and he heals them (Matt 19:2). Great crowd follows him on leaving Jericho (Matt 20:29). People call for his execution (Matt 27:23).
We’re supposed to believe all of this and much more went completely unnoticed by all the secular writers of the time, and indeed anyone capable of writing. If Jesus performed no miracles, no exorcisms, no healings and was not followed by huge crowds as his fame spread throughout the land then no such person ever existed.
Yes, really. I strongly doubt your claim here. Further, the people who saw Nero would likely have more ability to write about him and have their writing preserved. There are reasons we have writings from Seneca but none from Random Judaean Dude.
It seems obvious that this never happened, nor the flight into Egypt. I would suggest that Jesus also was likely born not in Bethlehem but in Nazareth, and the whole nativity story was invented to make him fulfill a prophecy. But that doesn’t mean Jesus didn’t exist. This is all strawman argument.
I would suggest Nazareth did not exist in the First Century. No such place was mentioned in the Old Testament, by any historians, the Talmud or the writings attributed to the mythical apostle Paul. There’s no archaeological evidence that such a town existed in the First Century. It’s not just the Nativity story that was invented to fulfill a prophecy. Jesus was invented to fulfill the 70 weeks prophecy in Daniel. This is why two gospel writers tried in vain to place his birth at the very beginning of the First Century. 70 years later the temple was destroyed and Jesus represents a new method for the absolution of sins. To Jews he represented the New Israel. To pagan sun worshipers he represented the sun and the coming of the Age of Pisces. To the Greek wine cults the figure of Dionysus has as much in common with the gospel figure of Jesus as it has with Isaiah’s Israel.
According to Gerald Massey, “The mythical Messiah is Horus in the Osirian Mythos; Har-Khuti in the Sut-Typhonian; Khunsu in that of Amen-Ra; Iu in the cult of Atum-Ra; and the Christ of the Gospels is an amalgam of all these characters.” The myth of Hercules also resembles Jesus in many ways. The mortal and chaste Alcmene, gave birth to him from a union with God (Zeus). Herod wanted to kill Jesus and Hera wanted to kill Hercules. Hercules traveled the earth as a mortal helping mankind and performed miraculous deeds. Hercules died and rose to Mt. Olympus and became a god. People believed that he actually lived, including Josephus, told stories about him, worshiped him, and dedicated temples to him. So using your anti-logic we should believe that Hercules, Apollo, Dionysus, Attis, Mithras, Tammuz… were all real people. Or is just your Jesus a special exception? Why?
I think I know. It’s Christian and largely Western arrogance: “We know all religions are false. But unlike those less sophisticated POC at least our religion is based on real people and real events.” Well no, no it isn’t. It’s just as primitive as the others. But for too many folks it’s still too sophisticated to grasp.
I think L. Ron Hubbard was a historical figure, even if I do not believe in thetans. I think Joseph Smith was a historical figure, even if I do not believe he received anything from any angel. There are many modern religions whose founders were real enough. You seem to arbitrarily rule out this possibility in the past.