Jump to content

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Zod

Luke, Jon, and Thomas

Recommended Posts

Guest BlueBoyRamses_E1b1a

We're talking religion on this board now but race and politics are not allowed? Talk about hypocritical. Not everyone is religious, by the way. Plus, this thread wasted me a click. That's about 1/10th of a calorie.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Only Thomas was a disciple of Jesus.

Luke and Jon were the names of writers of the gospels, all of which were written over a hundred years after the supposed death of some random dude there's no evidence ever existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Irv

watch us draft a linebacker named judas smith in the 7th round and he becomes a bust.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're confusing apostle with disciple. The apostles are the twelve, of which John was one. Jesus' disciples were many, many people who likely would have followed him as well and just not been among his twelve closest. Luke was quite likely one of these.

Only Thomas was a disciple of Jesus.

Luke and Jon were the names of writers of the gospels, all of which were written over a hundred years after the supposed death of some random dude there's no evidence ever existed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Only Thomas was a disciple of Jesus.

Luke and Jon were the names of writers of the gospels, all of which were written over a hundred years after the supposed death of some random dude there's no evidence ever existed.

No evidence except for having four biographies written about him, or being referenced by contemporary sources like Josephus, or spawning an entire belief system. People can choose to believe anything they want about the religion itself but to think that the person never existed would require the assumption that Caesar, Genghis Khan, Plato, etc. were mythical figures as well seeing as the evidence for their existence is even less comprehensive.

Also, the writer of the book of John was the disciple John, as he referenced himself in the book, and the earliest extant manuscript fragments place it's authorship within the lifetime of Jesus' contemporaries.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike those other historical figures you listed, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus, including Josephus. That's a really stupid fuging thing to suggest and a pitiful comparison.

As far as inspiring a belief system, can I assume you then believe Muhammad to be the one true prophet or what

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites




as long as we don't end up with twelve disciples on the field

Penalty for that would be five yards and two fishes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Inb4 tinderbox. Also the Bible is a great work of fiction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unlike those other historical figures you listed, there are no contemporary accounts of Jesus, including Josephus. That's a really stupid fuging thing to suggest and a pitiful comparison.

As far as inspiring a belief system, can I assume you then believe Muhammad to be the one true prophet or what

Without turning this into a tinderbox debate, let me assure you that I could utterly and thoroughly destroy you in any debate regarding ANE history and culture. Secondly, seeing as Mohamed spawned a belief system no one questions whether he actually existed, which is the only point I was making. Whether Jesus performed miracles or was resurrected is irrelevant to whether he actually existed, and unless you wish to posit that thousands of people collectively invented a contemporary figure of reverence in a manner never before achieved in human history (since the myths of Hercules, Gilgamesh, etc. all concerned historical figures in their own time) I would be safe to say the historicity of Jesus existence is only a topic for imbeciles. Those who argue the topic do so demanding a weight of evidence not required from contemporary figures of that time, and assuming some sort of fanciful mass delusion better reserved for Dan Brown novels.

The reason that some figure called Jesus had to exist is because the figure defies all archetypal attributes associated with myth: he was of a commoner trade, had no martial aptitude, was not the progenitor of philosophical trends, was followed by fellow commoners, and died in a brutal, non-heroic, emasculating manner reserved for criminals. If anyone wanted to invent a figure for mass reverence in the culture of that time he could not have created a less likely character to engender such feelings. To quote an atheist historian friend of mine: "If Jesus didn't exist then neither did Alexander the Great." In fact the topic angers him because he feels the amateur anti-religious zealots taint the field by treating it like their personal playground where they are free to remake history to suit their personal preference. We can't help that history can't be proven scientifically, but then again we can't convince people that Obama was born in Hawaii, so such is life in the land of the dumb.

It is perfectly valid to question whether Jesus did all the things attributed to him; it is not reasonable to assume he didn't exist at all because he didn't sit in your lap and say "Hi!"

For an atheist's view on the ridiculousness of the topic: http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2011/05/nailed-ten-christian-myths-that-show.html?m=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×