Hamas legalizes Crucifixion

[Final-Fan]

Avinash_Tyagi said:

Final-Fan said:

Avinash_Tyagi said:

Final-Fan said:
I'm going to sleep now. Avinash_Tyagi, I leave you with this reiteration of an earlier point that may have gotten lost in the shuffle:

What exactly is your alternate theory here? How did his existence get manufactured in such a brief time? Why didn't anyone say anything like "wait a second that never happened, there was no such Jesus"?

To say simply that we aren't OMG 100% ABSOLUTELY sure of the "Jesus was real" view isn't good enough. There has to be a "Jesus wasn't real" view that at least makes some sense. What is it?

I already answered that question, one prevailing theory is that Jesus is actually an Amalgamation story, drawn from Mithras, Horus, Prometheus and other saviors

First off, it's not a "prevailing" anything.  Your skepticism is very much a fringe belief even among secular historians. 

Now, fine, the amalgamation theory.  But (1) how did the amalgamation form so quickly?  I mean, wouldn't it be awfully suspicious to fabricate the existence of someone who was supposedly around within living memory?  Why did no one deny this claim?  (2) How could such a blatant falsehood get into the writings of some of the best Roman historians of the day only a few decades later? 

Christianity was viciously opposed by Jews as heresy.  There were many attacks on an intellectual level as well as physical.  (3) Why the hell would there be absolutely no evidence that they didn't completely miss this golden opportunity to discredit the religion? 

(4) Looking at the amalgamation itself, that's quite a list.  Mithras was from a Roman religion of apparently Persian/Zoroastrian descent; Horus is Egyptian; Prometheus, Greek.  Mithras in particular is interesting, because it didn't become popular until the 3rd and 4th centuries and isn't even known to have existed prior to Jesus' lifetime.  Very interesting that Christianity could be "drawn" from a religion that seems to be contemporary with it at best.

With the Mithraic stories, much of which became practiced in the first century through third centuries AD, around the time that many of the stories of christ were being written finalfan, remeber many stories were written decades, even the next century later, not to mention that the bible underwent revisions around that time as well, incorporating other pagan myths into it.

Also how it spread, well no telephone, no newspaper, no real record keeping, so things passed by word of mouth and since distance made fact checking harder, well rumors could become legend fast, so even the Jews or any other groups couldn't discredit them

And yet historians did exist, and they did fact check.  "No real record keeping"?  Well, I grant you that there was a lot less of it back then, but Rome actually had quite a well-developed bureaucracy IIRC.  I agree that rumor can become legend, but that doesn't explain why people who would LOVE to cast doubt on Christianity would miss out on that opening if it was even remotely suspected that Jesus had never really existed.  The most reasonable explanation is that it was known to interested parties at the time that he had in fact existed. 

As for the Mithraic stuff, that makes no sense.  Maybe you can argue that some influences may have been edited into his life story in the Bible, if the Gospels were written in the 3rd century or later, which I seriously doubt.  But that isn't the same as Jesus being created in the first place out of Mithraic mythology, which is what you asserted could be the case.