Saturday, January 23, 2016

There was no historical jesus, jesus did not exist.

Galatians 1:12 ►
"I did not receive it from any man, nor was I taught it; rather, I received it by revelation from Jesus Christ"
Paul is saying that whatever he taught about Jesus he made it up. We also know from the Acts that Paul and Peter had a rivalry. So what do you think,  would it be difficult for Peter to expose the fraud of Paul,  unless Peter was also talking about a 'revealed' Jesus than a real one,  that is.
Philippians 2:8-10 ►
"And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth"
Another gem from the same Paul who can be considered the father of Christianity for the majority of the books of new testament are his and Gospel of Luke and Acts of apostle was thought to be written by his disciple. Here he clearly states that Jesus was named Jesus after his death and resurrection. Another point that could easily have been countered but we don't see anyone objecting.
If there were a historical Jesus wouldn't his followers object? Would they expose his chicanery instead of making a compromise that Peter is Jews and Paul Gentile's apostle?
So this clearly shows that there was no historical Jesus.