So what if Paul's letters don't mention the details about Jesus that the gospels do? Except for Romans, Paul's letters were not evangelistic tools but letters dealing with issues and problems in the churches he established. Romans was an exposition of his theology to the Roman church which he didn't found but was eager to contact about evangelism in the western empire. Paul's evangelism about Jesus was person-to-person, not by letter. Paul wrote to Christians already familiar with Jesus.
After 40 years of illiteracy and 2000 years of alteration and manipulation, facts do not exist, and if they did would it make any difference today in any real sense?
I am Agnostic and I know the fact that the Historical Jesus was a Man that was put on a Crux and killed, this is why NO OTHER scholar agrees here. We have historical documents from non christian historians writing about it IN THAT TIME FRAME, proving this mans views is in ERROR.
"Professor Well's views are shared by almost no other scholar. But the fact that such a case can be seriously made..."
I'm sorry. But if his argument is that serious, why does hardly anyone share it?
Furthermore, what is Well's evidence that Paul's letters are the earliest documents? And if they are, on what grounds, does that automatically discount the Gospels as reliable accounts?
Far from being a convincing argument against a historical Jesus, all this does is make me ask more questions.
I would think that by this year a great number of academic scholars would agree entirely with Professor Wells in asserting quite forcibly that the Jesus figure is entirely mythical. A number of excellent books have appeared, promoting this thesis; other books have been published that demolish the Christian apologists' arguments. At all events, I am convinced.
So what if Paul's letters don't mention the details about Jesus that the gospels do? Except for Romans, Paul's letters were not evangelistic tools but letters dealing with issues and problems in the churches he established. Romans was an exposition of his theology to the Roman church which he didn't found but was eager to contact about evangelism in the western empire. Paul's evangelism about Jesus was person-to-person, not by letter. Paul wrote to Christians already familiar with Jesus.
jimtrueblue99 3 weeks ago
After 40 years of illiteracy and 2000 years of alteration and manipulation, facts do not exist, and if they did would it make any difference today in any real sense?
theGetRealGuy 8 months ago
I am Agnostic and I know the fact that the Historical Jesus was a Man that was put on a Crux and killed, this is why NO OTHER scholar agrees here. We have historical documents from non christian historians writing about it IN THAT TIME FRAME, proving this mans views is in ERROR.
daytonohiofellowship 9 months ago
its a fake people,wake the fuck up
starfyre05 10 months ago
"Professor Well's views are shared by almost no other scholar. But the fact that such a case can be seriously made..."
I'm sorry. But if his argument is that serious, why does hardly anyone share it?
Furthermore, what is Well's evidence that Paul's letters are the earliest documents? And if they are, on what grounds, does that automatically discount the Gospels as reliable accounts?
Far from being a convincing argument against a historical Jesus, all this does is make me ask more questions.
simiteen 11 months ago
God is the Hebrew name of a false deity worshipped by Babylon (Bavel), Fortune, known in Aramaic as Mammon, and translated into Greek as Demon.
CreateRealWorldPeace 1 year ago
I would think that by this year a great number of academic scholars would agree entirely with Professor Wells in asserting quite forcibly that the Jesus figure is entirely mythical. A number of excellent books have appeared, promoting this thesis; other books have been published that demolish the Christian apologists' arguments. At all events, I am convinced.
tenneral 1 year ago
so you wud use part of the bible 2 say the other is not real yeah right, this man has no idea of whay he's talking about.
bigjheazy 2 years ago
Because the episitles regard Man's relationship to Christ. They were not meant to address historical events.
However if one reads 1 Corinthians 11 he does remind us of the Lord's teaching on Communion.
jesujoyofmansdesirin 2 years ago