₦airaland Forum

Oladimeji247:
The only thing that makes sense to me is this:

There was a man named Jesus in Judea during the 1st century who many of the Jews of the time considered to be the Christ. He became famous locally around Jerusalem due to his unorthodox teachings, and when many considered him to possibly be a messiah, it caused a lot of problems with the Jewish authorities.

For the population to call him the messiah, it literally meant that he was being proclaimed to be a king. A king of the Jews. That's what a messiah is. But, since Judea was occupied by the Romans, the Jewish leaders feared that word would get to the Caesar that the Jews has anointed a king. If Caesar believed it, it could mean war because only Caesar himself could appoint a king.

So the Jewish leaders plotted against this Jesus dude, and brought him to the governor, Pontius Pilate. Pilate wanted to let Jesus go, but the Jews blackmailed him into crucifying this Jesus guy by saying that if Pilate didn't crucify him, they would tell Caesar that Pilate allowed a king to go free. So, Pilate had the guy strung up on a couple sticks and crucified him.

From there, you get all these insane stories written about this Jesus guy, including what you see in the Gospels. However, you also get all these nutjob conspiracy theories from unbelievers saying the guy didn't exist at all. They deny that any evidence is evidence at all, and do everything they can just to try to make this Jesus guy go away.

The bottom line is that with all evidence, reason, rationality considered, the argument that some dude named Jesus Christ existed is far better than any argument he didn't. It doesn't prove he existed, but it doesn't require twisting the truth at all to accept that he likely did.

And I have no problem with the Christian god getting dealt by the Romans. I have no idea why any atheist would have a problem with that.

are the letters attributed to Paul, the Pauline letters significant ?

The existence of Jesus is a hot topic in religious arguments.
There's D 1st group that beleives dat Jesus actually existed in d past as a historical figure but he wasn't a miracle man or magician.
The 2nd group views Jesus exactly d way he's described in D bible: the miracle working son of God who came to offer humans salvation.
Are they one in the same, the same thing.
I believe they are the same thing.
any dissenters?
please explain

.