10 days agostephenreed5374
The authors of the Gospel were anonymous but assigned the names of apostles which were attributed to them. The author of Matthew does not name himself or claim to be an eyewitness in the text of that Gospel, for instance. Most scholars agree the Gospels were written some decades after Christ and not from an eyewitness perspective. The similarities in the myths make their pagan origins obvious. That details were added or changed is no big deal. The similarities are not coincidental.
11 days agostephenreed5374
I encourage you to understand that we have no idea about what Jesus actually said. The Gospels were not written by eyewitnesses and no one we know of was writing down what he said. Moreover, the Gospel tales about him are rehashes of earlier mythos (Orion walked on water; Asclepius raised a young woman from the dead; Dionysius provided wine for festivals; many mortal women gave birth to the children of gods; Osiris and Baal came back from death themselves). Coincidence - I think not.
11 days agocameronmilligan
@danthemansyd7 yeah I agree. Making a claim without supporting it stinks. He existed The accounts are still written well within the time of eye witnesses. Also written by eye witnesses. There wasn’t any confusion about who the gospels were attributed to.
11 days agodanthemansyd7
or he never existed and people decades later created the myth as a way to control people….
11 days agomax_peters32
To be clear, all of the clearest instances of Jesus claiming to be god are found in John, which isn’t exactly one of the books of the Bible that’s perceived to have high historicity by biblical scholars and isn’t believed to have been written by an eyewitness of the living Jesus. When you acknowledge those facts and allow for legendary development like we do for every other historical story making fantastical claims, that trilemma kinda opens up and more compelling nuanced options start to appear.
11 days agopeyton_m_penders
I believe that Yeshua existed; I believe he was well-intentioned, and that he wanted people to feel a connection to the universe around and inside of them. I believe that he wanted to help people see each other as equals despite social hierarchy and wealth. On the contrary, I too believe his messaging was altered and distorted as a way to manipulate and control the will of the people. If someone in today’s day-and-age were to try to do what he did, they would be seen as just another (Jim Jones) cult leader. I think if he’d known what the result of his life’s work would turn out to be, he would’ve more than likely just chosen to stay as a carpenter.
11 days agomax_zandarski
this confuses what agnosticism is. an atheist has no belief in god, a Christian, or more generally a theist, does believe. A gnostic claims that knowledge on the existence of a god is possible while an agnostic would claim this is unknown now and possibly forever. Atheism and theism are responses to a belief claim while agnosticism and gnosticism are responses to a knowledge claim. I can be agnostic atheist and reject the divinity of Jesus Christ even if he claimed he was god just as someone can be gnostic Christian or even agnostic Christian and believe in his divinity
12 days agoheadhunterdaddy
I don't believe he ever preached he was God, I'm aware of all the verses that Christians point to. But even those have other possible explanations. I see time and time again Jesus preaching the opposite of being the same God as Yahweh. I believe Jesus thought of himself as having a unique Divine relationship with the father but I do not believe that Jesus thought of this relationship as the one described in the trinity
More posts
