>>21398839You are apparently not familiar with the Synoptic Problem. The author of Mark who was not Mark, wrote the original book. Matthew is a loose copy of Mark. John is a weirded out copy going a different direction. Luke is a collection of tales from other followers. None of the authors of those books were eyewitnesses.
>They had no motive to lie about JesusHero-worship, legends, tall tales, all come from the mind, just as stories about a JeZeus did.
> a life in refuge and if caught torture to death, having to leave behind family and friends.There have been hundreds of persecuted, underground religions. It's part of their story-telling nature.
> they would never have believed Pauls conversion story The Early church fathers would have gone with Socrates until the Tales of Saul showed up and preached the right wing story. They bought it and ran with it.
>You may say they were crazy, deceived, on drugs or whatever, but they did believe their own testimony 100%It wasn't testimony. They knew they were telling stories and lots of people had lots of details to add to the tales.
>So we can establish 2 things as fact:Why are believers so anti-science? There's very little to prove the Jesus character actually existed. Millions of people know the story about Paul Bunyan, but most midwit adults know it is a legend and would never try to claim it as a fact.
