On a Facebook thread a friend of mine asked me the following question; "Why is it that you don't accept the Apostle's writings of the Miracles of Jesus? We have many witnesses there."
Short answer? I do not believe these sources are authentic.
Long answer? The passion story is nonsensical; that God created people with the capacity for evil, then became angry when they did what they were programmed to do - so angry in fact that he needed to become a man Himself, sacrificing Himself to Himself to appease His own wrath. This doesn't make sense. And, when studying history, often the simplistic answer is the most likely. Religions evolve. The Hebrew people believe that God was angry and needed to be continually appeased with sacrifice. Jesus came along and cried, "Bullshit!" and the religious leaders had him put to death - these were the people who had something to lose if the sacrificial system broke down. But Jesus, it seems, had a following among the lay people who, prior to his death, accepted forgiveness of sins without atonement. In order to propagate this 'new faith' after his death, it would make sense to have him rise again, to tell of miracles, and to eventually call him God. I am not saying that I believe this is what happened, only that it is more probable than what has been put forth in the gospels that have been attributed to witnesses. Bear in mind that we have no originals from within the first two centuries of Christendom and, of the 5000+ copies that we have, no two are exactly the same.
Short answer? I do not believe these sources are authentic.
Long answer? The passion story is nonsensical; that God created people with the capacity for evil, then became angry when they did what they were programmed to do - so angry in fact that he needed to become a man Himself, sacrificing Himself to Himself to appease His own wrath. This doesn't make sense. And, when studying history, often the simplistic answer is the most likely. Religions evolve. The Hebrew people believe that God was angry and needed to be continually appeased with sacrifice. Jesus came along and cried, "Bullshit!" and the religious leaders had him put to death - these were the people who had something to lose if the sacrificial system broke down. But Jesus, it seems, had a following among the lay people who, prior to his death, accepted forgiveness of sins without atonement. In order to propagate this 'new faith' after his death, it would make sense to have him rise again, to tell of miracles, and to eventually call him God. I am not saying that I believe this is what happened, only that it is more probable than what has been put forth in the gospels that have been attributed to witnesses. Bear in mind that we have no originals from within the first two centuries of Christendom and, of the 5000+ copies that we have, no two are exactly the same.