The fabrication of Jesus.

[Elijah John]

Some go beyond the theory that a real, human Jesus existed and was later mythologized into the Divine person of "Christ".

Some hold that Jesus of Nazareth never existed at all, even as a completely human person.

For debate:

-Why would anyone have invented the tale that Jesus existed?

-Who "invented" Jesus, and why?

[historia]

[Replying to post 79 by marco]

You didn't answer my question. Are you proposing that Luke's account of Paul persecuting Christians is entirely fictional?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 80 by historia]

(Psst...Historia. The entire website is about whether or not Christianity is fictional. Luke and Paul's account, or their being fictional themselves, doesn't come as a surprise to most of us, it shouldn't shock you as being a premise, or require clarification.)

[marco]

[Replying to post 79 by marco]

You didn't answer my question. Are you proposing that Luke's account of Paul persecuting Christians is entirely fictional?

No one today would be able to make that claim. Luke may have had black hair; he might have been a friend of Paul; he certainly presented fiction as if it were fact. Is Luke reliable? NO. Is everything Luke said a lie? Meaningless question and not the issue.

[1213]

Well, you are summing up everything you said with, "I believe."

I dont see that to be true.

You may think God didn't deceive them, but if you look at the events, you have the definite conclusions, you don't need to think, you can be sure.

God didnt do anything deceiving. People are deceived only when they dont want to see truth, then they make all kind of excuses to reject truth, even if it would be crystal clear.

I wonder if you noticed that those rulers afraid of God, were not disrupted by him in the lease; never have been, never will be.

Really, Maybe God doesnt have to, after all, it seems to me that they are dead. All evil people die eventually, so they are not a big problem.

You say Christianity is not Hellenic? There that you se no proof? Only because if you looked, you find it, and bye-bye religion.

Sorry, there is not proof to see. That is why the whole idea can be rejected.

Do you stone adulterers, or give them a pass?

I have no right to judge, I am not judge set by God. I can only say what is wrong according to the Bible and what person would deserve, but I cant judge.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 83 by 1213]

Exactly - you don't follow God's laws, because Jesus disempowerered you from judging.

As to the rest, I guess that is you conceding the debate?

[1213]

Exactly - you don't follow God's laws, because Jesus disempowerered you from judging.

Gods law doesnt give right to be judge for everyone.

[historia]

Is everything Luke said a lie? Meaningless question and not the issue.

I'm not asking you whether everything Luke wrote is fictional -- you already agreed that wasn't the case. Instead, I'm asking you whether this specific account in Acts of Paul persecuting Christians is fictional.

That, of course, is precisely the point we are debating, as you objected to my claim that Luke corroborates Paul being a persecutor of Christians. Again, the conversation in context (with irrelevant parts omitted):

The fact that Acts agrees in broad outlines, while also disagreeing with various details, of Paul's own account strongly suggests that Luke did not get his information directly from Paul.

. . .

And when you find disagreement in details you generously suppose Luke got his information from a proper source rather from the same source from which he extracted Adam's birth certificate and the conversation with angels.

And what is this "same source"?

His imagination.

Again, for clarification: Are you proposing that Luke's account of Paul persecuting Christians is entirely fictional?

No one today would be able to make that claim.

I'm just trying to understand your position. Earlier you said Luke's 'source' for this account concerning Paul was his imagination. But it appears (if I understand your last comment) you're now saying that it's not fiction.

So, are you saying Luke's account of Paul persecuting Christians is, in fact, based (at least in part) on historical information?

[Willum]

[Replying to post 86 by historia]

No, h-, it is a meaningless question.
It will take no mean effort on your part, I realize, but please back-track to the post where your meaningful answer was required.

V/R