Post #41,

Sounds very scholarly, and plausible.

NOT!

gizmo_2655 wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 12:15pm:


No, I was saying that the story of Jesus is only 600 or 700 years old, and was reignited by American pioneers who fled the enlightenment period. You can always rewrite history and books to suit your own agenda.

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 10:45pm:



Chrisitianity is stated to be around 2,000 years old on every record, but according to you its around 600 years old, and started in the american colonies ??????????

stryder wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 11:01pm:


Once again... I stated that Christianity is assumed to be about 600 or 700 years old, and was revived in the American colonies, when pilgrims fled Europe in pursuit of continuing their fanaticism for their religion. I didn't say that it was invented in America. There isn't anything out there that proves that the religion was widespread 1700 years ago. Nor does the fact that people seemed unexcited by the prospect of someone, for example, "magically" being able to feed thousands of people through limited resources. Yet, then still be able to go about their day without such a life altering experience witnessed, and not made public enough that authority figures would try and make sense and use of such a strategically significant resource. It... doesn't.... make.... sense!

UnSubRocky wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 11:37am:



The fact is 2,000 years ago was a different time and era compared to today, there wasnt twitter or mass media technology to report on what was going on in the roman or biblical world of then.

stryder wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 12:08pm:


Obstinate Christians believe that Jesus had the ability to replicate food (bread and fish) of small portion samples so that 5000 people were able to be fed sufficiently. Had all these miracles been witnessed by any number of people, it is obvious that the Romans would have seized on such an opportunity to strengthen their army, and feed them with such a person. Any nation on earth would be falling over themselves for the chance to use such a person. But since the bible basically goes on about Jesus getting his arse kicked, and then executed, and THEN seeing that people basically forget about him, we can assume that the story is just a story, and such a miracle worker didn't exist.

Mattywisk wrote on Jun 6^th, 2014 at 10:55pm:


Your opinion concedes that I probably have a reasonable point. Why wouldn't the likelihood that a region of society that is more than 90% illiterate would also have its recorded history dictated retroactively by more modern religious scholars?

2000 years ago, historians wouldn't have had any problem embellishing the functionality of society, as well as claiming that God came to them in dreams, and that the ooga-booga demon caused earthquakes, whilst magic was what caused the earth to be the centre of the universe, blah, blah, blah...

Historians over the next 2000+ years wouldn't have had any real number of competitors to challenge them on what went on at the time. My opponents have also conceded that there wasn't any twitter, facebook, internet, up to date news which would have allowed an educated (amongst largely uneducated) society to follow up and challenge the validity of such claims. Therefore, to be able to verify the possibility of such acts, the historian is up against it to prove something that no one will challenge. But that puts him in the advantage.

So, you can imagine that my premise that "those making the assertion need to prove their point" is a valid argument. If you want to go and prove something from a time when now the dust of the involved people's bones have blown away in the wind, you really are grasping at fresh air in trying to convince a modern day agnostic that far-fetched scenarios are plausible.

stryder wrote on Jun 7^th, 2014 at 12:08pm:


few people were literate.
People did not travel much or far.