NationStates Jolt Archive

Personally I think Christians are funny, their son of God was a jew yet from him spawned an entire league of religions. From what I understand and have read, Jesus was a decent person trying to make his chosen religon (Judasim) available for more people as opposed to be being for the select few. Its a shame Jesus wasn't a buddist, we would all be very happy and have nothing :)

Anyway, I think the intent of Christians is overall good, but the damage caused by Christians/Catholics and the countless other denomiations over the last 2 thousand years shows that indeed it has a lot of faults.
The change from a wraithful god in the first testament to the fluffy and happy god in the second was interesting. Can someone answer why this happened?

I also find that blind ignorance by believers toward the bible in relation to the many sceptics who have written articles about inaccuracies and incorrect translations found in the bible, interesting to say the least. My understanding is that the bible has actually had texts omitted due to not fitting into the vision. An author I'd recommend would be Zecharia Sitchin. The recent actions of the church in relation to the treatment of children are a clear indication that it has and does attempt to hide what it does not want the public to see. Could biblical works be the same?

the curches have wained in thier time from good intentioned bloody enforcers to a mega conglomorate and monitary black hole, just like wal mart today. all the money these poor idiots give to these high hogs stays in the vatican or when a diaster stikes like the tsunami in south east asia they send money but advertise thier faith like it's a fucking car. i can't believe that people today believe a lie the has been handed down for thousands of years. oh wait yes i can you are all idiots. love me or go to hell. say your sorry or go to hell. do good deeds or go to hell. don't speak your mind or go to hell. don't say anything against us or be labled a heritic, tortured untill you give up and go to hell. don't be a woman or be oppressed. don't be from another faith or go to hell. molest young boys or go to hell. don't say anything about him molesting young boys or go to hell. someone up really high must be one rageing gay inferno to help cover up the molster/protecter problem in america. if i cought that fuck face i'd castrate him on the spot with a spoon. what other relgion can you start the decline of an entire civilization and be thought of as a hero. stand by as millions of poeple are slaughtered and not feel guilty, or feel guilty and pray, say your sorry to an imagionary being and then feel fine. start entire wars that lasts for 100 years for a fucking cup. sheer stupidity your name is vatican.

Too bad the Vatican is the biggest charity provider in the world.

Uhh...none of the above. Hazrat Isa (Jesus) was one of the greatest of God's many prophets.

Too bad your mom was is the biggest Charity provider....to my dick, Commado2.

:eek: Did i just say that?

haha....go shove your self-righteous head up your mom's....well, we won't go into details. ;) You'll just have to remove my manhood from it first, ok?

haha....oh man, this kills me...

Uhh...none of the above. Hazrat Isa (Jesus) was one of the greatest of God's many prophets.

Oh, another Muslim!

^5*high five*

I am a Major Christian and I have a fact to say. That is:

" There is historical proof that Jesus did exist e.g. Rome Crusifiction records, History books... And also there are many very specific Prophecies that he fullfilled. (I can go into detail with those if needed.)

:D

Too bad your mom was is the biggest Charity provider....to my dick, Commado2.

:eek: Did i just say that?

haha....go shove your self-righteous head up your mom's....well, we won't go into details. ;) You'll just have to remove my manhood from it first, ok?

haha....oh man, this kills me...

Infidel.

Personally I think Christians are funny, their son of God was a jew yet from him spawned an entire league of religions. From what I understand and have read, Jesus was a decent person trying to make his chosen religon (Judasim) available for more people as opposed to be being for the select few. Its a shame Jesus wasn't a buddist, we would all be very happy and have nothing :)

Anyway, I think the intent of Christians is overall good, but the damage caused by Christians/Catholics and the countless other denomiations over the last 2 thousand years shows that indeed it has a lot of faults.
The change from a wraithful god in the first testament to the fluffy and happy god in the second was interesting. Can someone answer why this happened?

I also find that blind ignorance by believers toward the bible in relation to the many sceptics who have written articles about inaccuracies and incorrect translations found in the bible, interesting to say the least. My understanding is that the bible has actually had texts omitted due to not fitting into the vision. An author I'd recommend would be Zecharia Sitchin. The recent actions of the church in relation to the treatment of children are a clear indication that it has and does attempt to hide what it does not want the public to see. Could biblical works be the same?

We are told not 2 disrespect Muslims 4 a few crazy fanatics, please show the same courtesy for Christians as it was not the whole church but a few cruel, heartless idiots who used their position in churches to molest children

Too bad your mom was is the biggest Charity provider....to my dick, Commado2.

:eek: Did i just say that?

haha....go shove your self-righteous head up your mom's....well, we won't go into details. ;) You'll just have to remove my manhood from it first, ok?

haha....oh man, this kills me...
That was an uncalled-for insult.
You may have your personal disagreements with Commando2, but don't resort to personal insults, as flaming is against forum rules.
Thank you.

We are told not 2 disrespect Muslims 4 a few crazy fanatics, please show the same courtesy for Christians as it was not the whole church but a few cruel, heartless idiots who used their position in churches to molest children

Ironic you say this, but the Church as an organisation knew of the molestations and has been found to go so far as to relocate preists when they where in danger of being found out. Does not this indicate a certain level of 'organisation' to this sort of crime, they knew about it, but did nothing. Sounds like an acceptance of the crime and an attempt to conceal it from the public. Instead the church tried to hide it and then tell these poor innocent children they (the priest and churches) did nothing wrong. The church is at much at fault as the staff/preists commiting such crimes. Its like knowing a rapist and aiding their escape and when the rapist finally gets busted, you plead innocent.. TO THE GALLOWS WITH THEM!!!

Ironic you say this, but the Church as an organisation knew of the molestations and has been found to go so far as to relocate preists when they where in danger of being found out. Does not this indicate a certain level of 'organisation' to this sort of crime, they knew about it, but did nothing. Sounds like an acceptance of the crime and an attempt to conceal it from the public. Instead the church tried to hide it and then tell these poor innocent children they (the priest and churches) did nothing wrong. The church is at much at fault as the staff/preists commiting such crimes. Its like knowing a rapist and aiding their escape and when the rapist finally gets busted, you plead innocent.. TO THE GALLOWS WITH THEM!!!
That still doesn't mean all Christians are evil.

To everyone who says that religious people such as Christians are responsible for wars, violence, and hate. Yes i have to agree with you. People do choose to do evil things. No one human being can live a pure life. (Romans 3:9-10) But just because a person or group of people do something wrong, doesnt mean it should be blamed on God. If any of you wants to know what Jesus said about 2 important things we should do in life read (Matthew 22:37-40)
Theres also an interesting article if anyone chooses to read it at
http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/atrocities.html

Ironic you say this, but the Church as an organisation knew of the molestations and has been found to go so far as to relocate preists when they where in danger of being found out. Does not this indicate a certain level of 'organisation' to this sort of crime, they knew about it, but did nothing. Sounds like an acceptance of the crime and an attempt to conceal it from the public. Instead the church tried to hide it and then tell these poor innocent children they (the priest and churches) did nothing wrong. The church is at much at fault as the staff/preists commiting such crimes. Its like knowing a rapist and aiding their escape and when the rapist finally gets busted, you plead innocent.. TO THE GALLOWS WITH THEM!!!

The Church was wrong to cover up the horrid molestations. I was sickened when I found that out, but so were the majority of priests. One I was speaking with literally was crying when he spoke of what happened in the church and he had gone and spoken with countless victimes trying to comfort them. So don't say all priests are at fault.

Oh, another Muslim!

^5*high five*

Shiggity Shiggity Shway

1) Why would jesus be in a book about evolution? If you are going to invent evidence, at least be credible.

What was the name of the book? Is there an online link?

2) Most people agree that a man called Jesus lived in roughly the right place at roughly the right time. Other than that meager offering, there is no non-scripture evidence for any of it.

3) Jesus told the disciples he knew he was going to be betrayed. Both he and Judas knew that ALL of the other disciples would be too WEAK to betray him, so Judas did it. He betrayed his most beloved friend in order that Jesus could finish his work.

Firstly, look for a book by the name of "The Last two Million years".
Secondly, Roman records match up with what the Bible says so there more evidence.
Thirdly, Judas had actually the thought of betrayal put into him I think but the Devil b/c at the last supper I remember reading something about the devil and Judas (I don't have the Bible in front of me right now so I'm uncertain).

I must say, that is the most retarded thing I've ever heard.

I've been forced to go to a religious education class for the last 5 years, and the parish just happens to be Roman Catholic. We(they) believe that the priest is Christ(God) empodied on Earth, and that confessing to him, not just to a mortal priest genius. Thanks for your time.



Not really. Idiot

Firstly, why not simply pray to God for forgiveness? I don't recall the bible saying that you have to go to a priest. I'm simply saying I don't recall the Bible saying that you go to Purgatory or that you have to confess your sins to a priest who has God embodied in him. Just my opinion. Also, thanks for the information, I'll remember that. School may end, but learning never does (I think that's a famous qoute, I at least know I heard it from somewhere).

Despite the belief that Jesus is the son of God or not, he is nonetheless a great moral compass. His many life lessons and teachings are wonderful guides for those in trouble morally.

Personally I think Christians are funny, their son of God was a jew yet from him spawned an entire league of religions. From what I understand and have read, Jesus was a decent person trying to make his chosen religon (Judasim) available for more people as opposed to be being for the select few. Its a shame Jesus wasn't a buddist, we would all be very happy and have nothing :)

Anyway, I think the intent of Christians is overall good, but the damage caused by Christians/Catholics and the countless other denomiations over the last 2 thousand years shows that indeed it has a lot of faults.
The change from a wraithful god in the first testament to the fluffy and happy god in the second was interesting. Can someone answer why this happened?

I also find that blind ignorance by believers toward the bible in relation to the many sceptics who have written articles about inaccuracies and incorrect translations found in the bible, interesting to say the least. My understanding is that the bible has actually had texts omitted due to not fitting into the vision. An author I'd recommend would be Zecharia Sitchin. The recent actions of the church in relation to the treatment of children are a clear indication that it has and does attempt to hide what it does not want the public to see. Could biblical works be the same?

Depending on whether or not those ppl were looking at different translations then yes the wording mayu seem ciontradictory, but the perfect translation wouldn't have contradicts at all or possible. A good translation has no contraictions and remains close to what was meant. Also, there have been many articles written against evolution but you still hear it as true. Another thing though is that you can't just look at one verse and say "AHA! A CONTRADICTION!" You have to look at the entire chapter if not more to see if there is because there aren't any contradictions.

The Old Testament has both a wrathful, fluffy God, it's just that most of what you read is wrathful. In the New Testament it's somewhat the other way around. Same God, just different part of him your seeing.

Despite the belief that Jesus is the son of God or not, he is nonetheless a great moral compass. His many life lessons and teachings are wonderful guides for those in trouble morally.

That I can totally agree on and quite honestly, whether he was real or not there is still a great deal of information which would make the world a better place in the Bible.

That I can totally agree on and quite honestly, whether he was real or not there is still a great deal of information which would make the world a better place in the Bible.

Jesus was most definantly real. He is mentioned in 18 or more Roman history books from the time or shortly after, is mentioned in several Jewish history books (Josephus who lived at the time of Jesus), and there are Roman records of him. They also have the nails he was crucified with.

52 pages about a fairy tale hero? such a waste of time..

Jesus was most definantly real. He is mentioned in 18 or more Roman history books from the time or shortly after, is mentioned in several Jewish history books (Josephus who lived at the time of Jesus), and there are Roman records of him. They also have the nails he was crucified with.

Ya I know he was real I'm simply saying that even if he wasn't real there is alot of information in the Bible that would make the world a better place.

52 pages about a fairy tale hero? such a waste of time..

Pages in science textbooks about evolution, on the net and everywhere else I'd consider such a waste of time but yet it is there. Which "fairy tale" however has a better outlook on life? Certainly not the fairy tale of us coming from monkeys over millions of years.

Just my opinion.

Nihilistic when did he say the end would come in their lifetimes?

money when did Jesus get pissed off at people for quotin scripture?

money when did Jesus get pissed off at people for quotin scripture?


When the devil quoted scripture Jesus was mad at him but that was the devil.

I'm the 777th post! WOOT

Firstly, look for a book by the name of "The Last two Million years".
Secondly, Roman records match up with what the Bible says so there more evidence.
Thirdly, Judas had actually the thought of betrayal put into him I think but the Devil b/c at the last supper I remember reading something about the devil and Judas (I don't have the Bible in front of me right now so I'm uncertain).

First: Okay - that explains it. The source you cited isn't an 'evolution' book, although it does mention evolution. It is a reference book to general history - which makes it neither authoritative, nor scientific.

It was also published in 1975, and suffers from that fact. The model of evolution in their description ignores much evidence - since it turned up AFTER this book was published... for example: The Human Genome Project.

It is ALSO a Readers Digest bookclub book. That doesn't NECESSARILY make it bad - but it certainly doesn't equate to being a peer-reviewed source.


Secondly: The ONLY contemporary records for Jesus, describe what may have been the equivalent of our modern 'criminal record'. And, the fact that Rome recorded a trouble-maker called 'Jesus' (hardly an unpopular name), is NO evidence at all, of the supernatural qualities of the Jesus myth.


Thirdly: Judas supposedly went to see the High Priests BEFORE the Last Supper - so what would be the relevence of the Last Supper in his decision?Personally I think that part was added later - because it doesn't make any sense in the context of Jesus' and Judas' conversation during the meal:

Matthew 26:21 "And as they did eat, he said, Verily I say unto you, that one of you shall betray me."

Matthew 26:25 "Then Judas, which betrayed him, answered and said, Master, is it I? He said unto him, Thou hast said."

It seems that Judas was unsure he would betray Jesus (which makes a mockery of the 'Jewish gold' story), and that his confirmation was in Jesus' assent: "You have said".

So - basically Jesus told Judas that HE would be the one to betray him.

The only Gospel that even mentions satan in this context is Luke - and he just says that "Then entered Satan into Judas", which clearly just means that he acted in an adversarial manner - and note further, this 'happened' before they even entered the city.

Ok, I'm a Christian and i just want to know what everyone else's opinion's on Jesus are? I'm really curious so that I know who I'm arguing with...

The Poll question isn't properly made.
It misses out one possibility:
"An Extraordinary Man."

Not a Divine figure, neither a fake or un-existing. A Man who did things others also did.
Buda did miracles, also had disciples. 500 BC
The Islam states Christ as a man, but grants him the dignity of great prophet, and Muhamed is said to have flewn hundreds of kilometers in a night.
Moses did also miracles.
Many heros in Hindu tradition did or experienced marvelous things.
And please, let's not discuss the concept of "miracle", it is not in the Poll.

Jesus was most definantly real. He is mentioned in 18 or more Roman history books from the time or shortly after, is mentioned in several Jewish history books (Josephus who lived at the time of Jesus), and there are Roman records of him. They also have the nails he was crucified with.

Cite sources.

You can't - because this is all untrue, I'm afraid.

For one - Josephus most certainly was NOT a contemporary of Jesus. Check your history, friend.

Second - most scholars (even 'christian' scholars) agree that the Jesus references in Josephus' work were added later, by a different author.

Third - 'who' has the nails he was crucified with? I want evidence. Quote me a source, or give me the name of the book that alleges this. If you are just talking about artifacts that people have CLAIMED were the nails... well, I believe there are currently 7 seperate foreskins on display throughout the world, which are ALL claimed as being that of Jesus.


As far as I have been able to work out - the ONLY contemporary record that might show the existence of the man 'Jesus'... is a criminal record, for a rabble-rouser. And, that certainly does NOT prove any of the scriptural claims of miracles or resurrection.

Depending on whether or not those ppl were looking at different translations then yes the wording mayu seem ciontradictory, but the perfect translation wouldn't have contradicts at all or possible. A good translation has no contraictions and remains close to what was meant. Also, there have been many articles written against evolution but you still hear it as true. Another thing though is that you can't just look at one verse and say "AHA! A CONTRADICTION!" You have to look at the entire chapter if not more to see if there is because there aren't any contradictions.

The Old Testament has both a wrathful, fluffy God, it's just that most of what you read is wrathful. In the New Testament it's somewhat the other way around. Same God, just different part of him your seeing.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

One part of scripture says he "immediately" departed for the wilderness for 40 days... another says he was at the wedding in Cana three days later.

One of those claims must be untrue.

Thus, contradiction.

And, I'm afraid THAT isn't a translation error, either... we can do this again in Greek, if you prefer.

Pages in science textbooks about evolution, on the net and everywhere else I'd consider such a waste of time but yet it is there. Which "fairy tale" however has a better outlook on life? Certainly not the fairy tale of us coming from monkeys over millions of years.

Just my opinion.

I don't like the idea of being the distant cousin of a monkey, but for me that's no reason to discard a logical theory. I can write a book about humans being a chosen race, whith a devine father-figure watching over them, but that wouldnt make it true.

Anyway noone's forcing you to learn about evolution, noone's forcing you to learn how to read and write, that's all your own choice.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

One part of scripture says he "immediately" departed for the wilderness for 40 days... another says he was at the wedding in Cana three days later.

One of those claims must be untrue.

Thus, contradiction.

And, I'm afraid THAT isn't a translation error, either... we can do this again in Greek, if you prefer.

"You have to look at the entire chapter if not more to see if there is because there aren't any contradictions."

So - Teckor makes the claim there are no contradictions... and when it is proved otherwise - he/she flees.

Can't say I'm all that surprised.

Hmm, my belief isn't an option i'm afraid.

I believe him to be a liberal, a socialist, and a very good man.

That is all.

why do all of the pictures of jesus usually show him as white just becuase we went over there and killed loads of people and called our deeds the crusades, doesnt mean that we can change his colour even if he did exist or not (ps i do not believe in him, but more likely alot of stories of individuals which were overexagerated and contributed to one person)

remember everybody jesus was black, he liked gospel, called everybody brother and couldn't get a fair trial.

Its quite worrying looking at the pole that so many people believe he didn't exist at all. Which is strange, given we have more evidence for his existance than Ceasers.

Why put "How can you be that stupid" after he didn't exist.
I can say the same for the believers who believe the writings in that contardictory book.

Its quite worrying looking at the pole that so many people believe he didn't exist at all. Which is strange, given we have more evidence for his existance than Ceasers.

Why do you say things like that, Neo?

Have you got even a single scrap of evidence? I doubt it.

Let's see shall we? Aside from the bible - have you ANY other sources you can cite, that are contemporary accounts of Jesus?

Why put "How can you be that stupid" after he didn't exist.
I can say the same for the believers who believe the writings in that contardictory book.

While the may be contridictions about the details, there are no contridictions about Jesus's message. There's no rearly significent contridictions. Most of the ones people point to don't amount to significent problems. But answer this question. If I could resolve evey contridiction you talk about would it change your mind?

Jesus seems pretty much to be a social fabrication.

Jesus is some human construct to enable Christians (originally Jews, I guess) to 'embrace' their 'faith' without confronting the real issues of their spirituality. 'He' is already perfect, complete, concluded, and for Christians he is able to comfort them, so they don't have to look in their own hearts/souls/minds, rather refer all spiritual queries/worries/doubts/pains etc to this encyclopedic, forgiving entity acting essentially as a makeshift conscience (acting on behalf of the church), who can, without doubt or worry, solve all crises of faith. He is the construct of our own minds to enable us to continue our little lives unburdened by the questions that we, as humans, have asked ourselves for probably millions of years, questions that shake society, questions that develop peace, justice and equality. Yet is is those very questions, eternally unanswered, that in their very asking re-affirm our humanity. To reject Jesus is to embrace your true spirituality and humanity.

This is just my view, of course.

Why do you say things like that, Neo?

Have you got even a single scrap of evidence? I doubt it.

Let's see shall we? Aside from the bible - have you ANY other sources you can cite, that are contemporary accounts of Jesus?

My point refers to historians that existed within the lifetimes of those who did see Jesus. Jewish historians, Roman historians etc. They document much of what Jesus said and did as fact. Two prime examples of this are "History of the Jewish War" and "Antiquities of the Jews". Both of which were written in the mid first century. And later Tacticus wrote of Jesus briefly, confirming his existance and crucifixtion, order by Pilate.

Also there is the fact that the Bible became common throught Israel within the lifetimes of those who saw and heard Jesus. So the fact that they didn't put it down as the purest fiction is proof that those who read it knew it to be at least reasonably accurate (that he existed)

While the may be contridictions about the details, there are no contridictions about Jesus's message. There's no rearly significent contridictions. Most of the ones people point to don't amount to significent problems. But answer this question. If I could resolve evey contridiction you talk about would it change your mind?

That's a new level even for you, Neo.

On this very same page... I have shown a potentially fatal contradtiction - vis-a-vis, in this instance, different accounts claim that Jesus was in two totally different places.

Obviously, both accounts cannot be true - so, how can you choose one account over the other? How can you believe ANY of scripture, if this is the case?

My point refers to historians that existed within the lifetimes of those who did see Jesus. Jewish historians, Roman historians etc. They document much of what Jesus said and did as fact. Two prime examples of this are "History of the Jewish War" and "Antiquities of the Jews". Both of which were written in the mid first century. And later Tacticus wrote of Jesus briefly, confirming his existance and crucifixtion, order by Pilate.

Also there is the fact that the Bible became common throught Israel within the lifetimes of those who saw and heard Jesus. So the fact that they didn't put it down as the purest fiction is proof that those who read it knew it to be at least reasonably accurate (that he existed)

Okay - you have still failed to cite a CONTEMPORARY text, Neo.

A book written by someone born after the alleged death of Jesus has NO real evidentiary value, now, does it? As a source, all it could do is vouch for the fact that SOME PEOPLE recalled the 'Jesus' story enough to still be telling it a few years later.

I thought you were a christian, Neo? And yet, you claim that the 'Bible' became common throughout Israel within the lifetimes of those who saw and heard Jesus? It's not true, is it? Since the Bible wasn't a canonised text until over a century later...

And, even if that HAD been true - which, of course, it isn't... that STILL wouldn't be any kind of evidence of the existence of 'Jesus' - any more than the tabloid papers with their pictures of "Two-Headed-Alien-Babies" are verification of the existence of such things.

As far as I recall - there is ONE piece of non-Bible contemporary confirmation of the existence of a man called 'Jesus' (that being his 'criminal record') - and it CERTAINLY doesn't attempt to support any kind of messianic mythology.

As far as I recall - there is ONE piece of non-Bible contemporary confirmation of the existence of a man called 'Jesus' (that being his 'criminal record') - and it CERTAINLY doesn't attempt to support any kind of messianic mythology.


Of course it doesn't support the fact that Jesus is the messiah, due to the fact THAT THE ROMANS WERE PAGAN! They are not going to give Jesus lots of attention because they didn't want people to realize that he was actually the savior of humanity. They did what they had to do and were done with it.

remember everybody jesus was black, he liked gospel, called everybody brother and couldn't get a fair trial.

That also makes him a Muslim. ;)

Of course it doesn't support the fact that Jesus is the messiah, due to the fact THAT THE ROMANS WERE PAGAN! They are not going to give Jesus lots of attention because they didn't want people to realize that he was actually the savior of humanity. They did what they had to do and were done with it.

You've never actually read the bible, have you...

And, you clearly lack the vocabulary fot his kind of debate.

The Romans were not Pagans, because they were city dwellers... try researching what a 'pagan' is before throwing the word around.

They were not going to do 'anything, based on realising that he was actually the saviour of humanity'... because they clearly didn't believe he was so. Pilate OBVIOUSLY though him a rabble-rouser and no more.

The JEWS also thought him a rabble-rouser... there is no reason why Rome should have felt differently.

But - you just keep telling yourself it was deicide - whatever helps you sleep at night.

city dwellers?? rome was an empire, half the reason it fell apart was because it was too dang big, and the germanics of course.

city dwellers?? rome was an empire, half the reason it fell apart was because it was too dang big, and the germanics of course.

Relevence? We are talking about Pilate and his pals, one assumes... either that, or my reading of scripture is sorely taxed... because I thought that Luke 22:10 said "And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city...", which would imply... a city.

The point I was making to my under-educated friend, is that he is using the wrong term... a pagan is a village dweller - that is what it 'means'.

In the same way that people misuse 'heathen'... to mean something OTHER than 'the people of the heath'.

Monkeys simply do NOT have a complex enough brain to evolve into civilized beings.

Sorry for bringing this up from so many pages back, but I see this said just too often. NO-ONE who understands the theory of evolution would claim that we're descended from monkeys. We are a type of primate (ape) and share a common ancestor with monkeys, but we are not descended from them. It seems a minor point but it's very important.

As for Jesus. I think a radical rabbi existed who was probably ultra-orthodox. His followers happened to be historically lucky and their cult eventually flourished, incorporating many ideas from pagan religions to help with conversion i.e. the moving of Christmas from March to just after the winter solstice or the substitution of Gods for everything such as sailors/farmers etc with saints.

Why do so many of you have a problem with the Bible. If it was a secular book then would slight contradictions like you have been talking about mattered? Would you be so fussy about what else was written about that person? Or is it just because you don't want to believe it that you think that there has to be MORE evidence for Jesus?

Its quite worrying looking at the pole that so many people believe he didn't exist at all. Which is strange, given we have more evidence for his existance than Ceasers.

Ceasar never claimed to be the Son of God, so his specific excistence, in the broad picture, is irrelevant.

Why do so many of you have a problem with the Bible. If it was a secular book then would slight contradictions like you have been talking about mattered? Would you be so fussy about what else was written about that person? Or is it just because you don't want to believe it that you think that there has to be MORE evidence for Jesus?
Well, when a book contradicts itself, whether or not it's a religious book, many people tend to doubt it. And usually people want information from more than one source on something.

Why do so many of you have a problem with the Bible. If it was a secular book then would slight contradictions like you have been talking about mattered? Would you be so fussy about what else was written about that person? Or is it just because you don't want to believe it that you think that there has to be MORE evidence for Jesus?

Not at all.

If I was reading a 'secular' text - like, for example... a Physics text-book... and it said that gravity was a force of attraction that made things fall towards a body...

and then, 10 pages later, it said that gravity was a force that pushed things away...

Well, contradiction is contradiction - no matter where you find it.

And, when you contradict parts of your message, you add doubt to your entire context.

So it would be with our 'conflicted physics' book... so it IS with the Bible - to one with an opne mind.

Not at all.

If I was reading a 'secular' text - like, for example... a Physics text-book... and it said that gravity was a force of attraction that made things fall towards a body...

and then, 10 pages later, it said that gravity was a force that pushed things away...

Well, contradiction is contradiction - no matter where you find it.

And, when you contradict parts of your message, you add doubt to your entire context.

So it would be with our 'conflicted physics' book... so it IS with the Bible - to one with an opne mind.

People recall things slightly differently. Get 2 friends to recall in detail an event they were both @ even as close as a week ago. If they dont talk while writing their accounts then ther will be differences.

Ceasar never claimed to be the Son of God, so his specific excistence, in the broad picture, is irrelevant.

Yes, but if it was a life or death situation and you were asked whether or not Ceasar existed and did the things that history books claim he did (ie if you got the answer wrong you would be killed) what would you say? It's kinda the same with Jesus apart from the fact that you don't just die you go 2 hell (sorry to bring hell into this but i had to make the point)

you right wing fundamentilist christions fools

Jesus (peace be upon him) was a great Prophet of God, and the Messiah (means annointed one). I believe he was saved from the cross and did not die, but is still alive and will reappear to defeat the great evil on Judgement Day. But I don't believe he was the son of God, for God is supreme and can have no sons, otherwise he would no longer be supreme, he'd have to share his power. In any case, this is my (the Islamic) point of view. I wish you were smart enough to know many people believe he is a Prophet.

and what do you actually believe because if you do believe the Bible then he is actually part of the Trinity and is actually not just "more spiritual" than us...

Don't get me wrong, I'm a Christian, but you've made a mistake. The word "Trinity" doesn't appear in the bible, anywhere.

I believe it is true, but the bible never EVER says Trinity.

Jesus (peace be upon him) was a great Prophet of God, and the Messiah (means annointed one). I believe he was saved from the cross and did not die, but is still alive and will reappear to defeat the great evil on Judgement Day. But I don't believe he was the son of God, for God is supreme and can have no sons, otherwise he would no longer be supreme, he'd have to share his power. In any case, this is my (the Islamic) point of view. I wish you were smart enough to know many people believe he is a Prophet.
So not catholic? I do not find many Catholics out there that deny him dying for their sins (therefore reducing their chances to get into heaven) from the name guessing islamic ... I did not know they did not believe he died

Yes, but if it was a life or death situation and you were asked whether or not Ceasar existed and did the things that history books claim he did (ie if you got the answer wrong you would be killed) what would you say? It's kinda the same with Jesus apart from the fact that you don't just die you go 2 hell (sorry to bring hell into this but i had to make the point)

Exactly, *if* it were a life-or-death situation.
But it's not, (and even if it were, the Jesus example is about your immortal soul) so Jesus requires more proof than Caesar.

Exactly, *if* it were a life-or-death situation.
But it's not, (and even if it were, the Jesus example is about your immortal soul) so Jesus requires more proof than Caesar.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof

Exactumundo.

Relevence? We are talking about Pilate and his pals, one assumes... either that, or my reading of scripture is sorely taxed... because I thought that Luke 22:10 said "And he said unto them, Behold, when ye are entered into the city...", which would imply... a city.

The point I was making to my under-educated friend, is that he is using the wrong term... a pagan is a village dweller - that is what it 'means'.

In the same way that people misuse 'heathen'... to mean something OTHER than 'the people of the heath'.


ok pagan comes from a latin word meaning city dweller, but in english it means someone who follows a polytheistic religion. Same with heathen. So before you say people misused words, you have to make sure your not misusing them.

go look it up in a dictionary, you'll find im right.

i think that this thread is dying because everyone is so stubborn on here that it doesn't matter who wins any arguments... thankyou for your time everyone, i'll be praying that some of the things i have said made you think

Yes, but if it was a life or death situation and you were asked whether or not Ceasar existed and did the things that history books claim he did (ie if you got the answer wrong you would be killed) what would you say? It's kinda the same with Jesus apart from the fact that you don't just die you go 2 hell (sorry to bring hell into this but i had to make the point)
The problem is, most of the other religions say the same thing, and all of them include that if you answer "yes" to one of the others, you die either way. So you can't really use Pascal's Wager.

I suspect he likely existed, but the proof indicating such remains rather minimal. There is the substantial problem that we have no way to know what he was really like, thought, or said, without the Apostle filter. It has been suggested by many that it was likely not Jesus himself who declared himself to be Messiah OR the son of God, but rather that this was written years or even decades later, by his followers.

ok pagan comes from a latin word meaning city dweller, but in english it means someone who follows a polytheistic religion. Same with heathen. So before you say people misused words, you have to make sure your not misusing them.

go look it up in a dictionary, you'll find im right.

In modern english, the base root of the word is ignored, along with a half of the base MEANING. The 'pagans' are polytheistic ONLY because they remained less well educated, due to their more rural nature - if you look at the origin of the word.

And, in this case... that IS important - since the original poster was suggesting some kind of Roman agenda to 'shut down' the Jesus myth, and cited that Romans were pagan. Clearly, THESE Romans were NOT pagan, since - in the parlance of the time, they were NOT 'country dwellers'.

And - applying the more modern version (which I refute and refuse, because it is based on an error, and I refuse to crown 2000 years of misinformation, or condone church-established lies) would STILL be incorrect... since the 'pagans' - as the modern dictionary defines - didn't EXIST in contemporary Rome.

THAT meaning of pagan doesn't begin to exist until AFTER christianity became the official state religion.

using the modern version of the word they were pagans. Pagan is not a word that is dependent on the time period.

and you can't refute what a word means. Pagan in ENGLISH is someone who follows a polytheistic religion. IF we were speaking Latin then you would be correct, but since I don't even know Latin, we cannot be speaking Latin.

Look at the Byzantine Empire, they called themselves Romans, and their contemporaries called them Romans, but we call them Byzantines. You can call them Romans and I'll call them Byzantines and we will both be right. Just because you don't like how a word evolved doesn't mean you can deny what it means.

Jesus was a ancient Palestinian Jew who favored either revolution or social reform, depending upon what point in his career you discuss. His politics changed at least once. He didn't like the establishment and they hated him, hence his execution, and he is still very much dead. The so-called "New Testament" is a self-contradictory book of lies written by his followers (who didn't want to go back to working real jobs) and the lunatic Paul. Very little of what Jesus actually taught is in the "gospels". He didn't claim to be God or even Son of God: he claimed to be Messiah. There is a very big difference. He was an ancient rabble-rouser who had some good ideas and some bad, probably was sincere, but had no delusions of deity. Since my option wasn't included, I refuse to vote.

Well, when a book contradicts itself, whether or not it's a religious book, many people tend to doubt it. And usually people want information from more than one source on something.

Tell me, where again the Bible contradicts itself? Scientists contradict way more than just about anything ni the world. Also, there is always the source of archeological digs or othe history books or records.

Tell me, where again the Bible contradicts itself? Scientists contradict way more than just about anything ni the world. Also, there is always the source of archeological digs or othe history books or records.

Done this already. I have hundreds of examples - but let's start with one...

Where was Jesus 3 days after his baptism?

using the modern version of the word they were pagans. Pagan is not a word that is dependent on the time period.

and you can't refute what a word means. Pagan in ENGLISH is someone who follows a polytheistic religion. IF we were speaking Latin then you would be correct, but since I don't even know Latin, we cannot be speaking Latin.

Look at the Byzantine Empire, they called themselves Romans, and their contemporaries called them Romans, but we call them Byzantines. You can call them Romans and I'll call them Byzantines and we will both be right. Just because you don't like how a word evolved doesn't mean you can deny what it means.

Using the modern accepted word... perhaps they were 'pagans'. Personally, I wouldn't be so lazy - I'd refer to them as polytheists, perhaps. Or point out that they followed the Roman Pantheon.

By THEIR lights, they certainly were NOT pagans - since they followed the dominant religion, and they dwelled within the city.

I CAN refute the meaning of the word... and I just did. It is a corruption of a term, used to insult. One those grounds alone, I would object.

But, I also object to the belief that ignorance is a virtue. If the original poster lacked SO MUCH knowledge of the matter that he/she utterly misses the connotations of the word... well, I OWE it to society to help educate.

Jesus is the "son" of god and my personal savior. Need I say more?

Same Here

Same Here
Jesus is my favorite fictional charicter

Done this already. I have hundreds of examples - but let's start with one...

Where was Jesus 3 days after his baptism?
As no response is heard...

Jesus is my favorite fictional charicter



Jesus isn't fictional

Jesus isn't fictional
Sure he is … he did all that amazing and wacky things … whoever the author is had one hell of an imagination. I couldn’t have made up that much stuff in one book if I tried!

Can one come to know anything about Christ from
history? No. And why not? It is because Christ is the paradox,
the object of faith, and exists only for faith. About him nothing
can be known; he can only be believed. You cannot come to
know anything about Christ from history. Whether one learns
little or much about him, it will not represent who he is in reality.
Obtaining historical facts makes Christ into someone other
than who he in fact is.
Can’t you at least demonstrate from history that Christ was
God, even though we might know little else? Let me ask another
question first: Can any more absurd contradiction be imagined
than wishing to prove that an individual person is God? Now
think of proving that! How can you make something that conflicts
with reason into something reasonable? You can’t, unless you
wish to contradict yourself. The so-called proofs for the divinity
of Christ that people claim Scripture sets forth – his miracles,
his resurrection, his ascension – are not, when you think about
it, in harmony with our reason. On the contrary, they demonstrate
that believing in Christ’s works is a matter of faith.
What can all the miracles really demonstrate anyway? At
most that Jesus Christ was a great man, perhaps the greatest
who ever lived. But that he was – God – no, stop; that conclusion
will surely miscarry.
How is it possible to observe the gradually unfolding results
of something and then arrive at, by some trick of deduction, a
conclusion different in quality from what you began with? Is it
not sheer insanity (providing humanity is sane) to let your
judgment become so altogether confused as to land in the
wrong category? A footprint is certainly the consequence of
some creature having made it. I may mistake it for that of a bird,
but on closer inspection, and by following the prints for some
distance, I may determine that some other animal made it. Fine.
But can I at some point reach the conclusion: ergo it is a spirit
that has walked along this way, a spirit – which leaves no print?
Precisely the same holds true whenever we try to infer from the
results of a person’s life that therefore he was God.
True, if God and humankind resemble each other so closely
so as to essentially belong to the same category of being, the
conclusion “therefore Christ was God” makes perfect sense. But
this is nothing but humbug. If that is all there is to being God,
then God does not exist at all! But if God belongs to a category
infinitely different from the human, why, then neither I nor any
one else can start with the assumption that Christ was human
and then logically conclude that therefore he was God. Anyone
with a bit of logical sense should be able to see this. The question
of whether or not he was God lies on an entirely different
plane: each person must decide for himself whether or not he
will believe Christ to be what he himself claimed to be.
Faith protests against every attempt to approach Christ by
means of historical facts. Faith’s contention is that the
historian’s whole approach is – blasphemy. How strange! With
the help of history, that is, by looking at the results of Christ’s
life, we think we can arrive at the conclusion that he was God.
Yet faith makes the very opposite claim. Anyone who begins
with this kind of logic is guilty of blasphemy. The blasphemy is
not so much the hypothetical assumption that Christ was a human
being, but in the thought that the results of his life can be
separated from who he was. When you scrutinize the facts, you
make Christ out to be just a man.
With regard to Christ we have only sacred history (which is
qualitatively different from the historian’s account). Christ is
the divine-human paradox that history can never digest or convert
into a proof. Even with what we know of Christ’s life and of
all his brilliant works, they will pale in comparison to his coming
again in glory! Or perhaps you think that Christ’s return
will be nothing more than the progressive result of his life in
history? No! Christ’s return will be something entirely different,
something that can only be believed. That Christ was God incarnate
in his lowliness and that he will come again in glory, all
this is far beyond the comprehension of history. This cannot be
inferred from “facts” or from history, no matter how matchlessly
you regard them, except through a matchless lack of logic.
It is infinitely beyond history’s capacity to demonstrate that
God, the omnipresent One, lived here on earth as an individual
human being. History can indeed richly communicate knowledge,
but such knowledge annihilates Jesus Christ. How strange,
then, that anyone ever wanted to use history to demonstrate
that Christ was God. Even if Christ’s life had manifested no astonishing
results, it makes no difference. Besides, what’s so extraordinary
about the fact that God’s life had extraordinary
results? To talk this way is sheer nonsense. No, God lived here
on earth, in true lowliness, and that is what is infinitely extraordinary
– extraordinary in itself. The fact that he lived among
us is infinitely more important than all the extraordinary results
ever recorded in history.-Sorensen Kierkaard

Sure he is … he did all that amazing and wacky things … whoever the author is had one hell of an imagination. I couldn’t have made up that much stuff in one book if I tried!

Don't insult Jesus ... he is real regardless whether you believe it or not. I'm not here to argue with you ... just to inform you of the truth. Now it is up to you to investigate the truth of his existance or not.

Don't insult Jesus ... he is real regardless whether you believe it or not. I'm not here to argue with you ... just to inform you of the truth. Now it is up to you to investigate the truth of his existance or not.
Ohh blue! that must make him real! if I put Fictional in blue does that make it real?

I have ... which lead me to the fictional belief ... (used to be Christian)

Objectivity will disconnect you from reality. Don't forget that you are here and outside of the computer you are concentrating on and outside of the house you are in goes out to infinity and eternity. I am starting to believe that objective thinking will make some of us feel a little safer.

As no response is heard...
I dont get it ... lol where is everyone trying to prove gravy wrong :)

I dont get it ... lol where is everyone trying to prove gravy wrong :)
Yeah, I thought it was en vogue to try to beat him, or something like that.
But nobody's been trying...

Don't insult Jesus ... he is real regardless whether you believe it or not. I'm not here to argue with you ... just to inform you of the truth. Now it is up to you to investigate the truth of his existance or not.

If Jesus was God Incarnate, and, as The Son, one of the Persons of the Trinity and therefore an aspect of the Supreme Being, do you really think it's possible to insult him/it? Can the Supreme Being really be moved out of his putative eternal and infinite state of grace by taking the huff at a posting on a web forum? Just to put things in a bit of perspective.

Investigating the truth... OK. There are four Gospels in the New Testament, none of which were written by eye-witnesses. At best, they may contain versions of oral reports made by eye-witnesses. Some of what they contain is flat-out wrong: for example, the confused geography in Luke indicates that not only was the author of Luke's gospel not an eye-witness, but that he had never even been to Palestine. Other gospels are mutually contradictory, for example the two variant accounts of the nativity (both garbled versions of a Persian myth dating back to around 2,000BCE), or the different genealogies given for Jesus (or at least Joseph), or the two separate deaths of Judas Iscariot, and so on. Other gospels, such as those of Thomas or Mary Magdalene, give other pictures of Jesus's career, but have been excluded for what were essentially political reasons.

The Epistles are a little more solid, and give a good insight into the politics behind St Paul's arguments with the (Jewish) early Christians in Jerusalem, organised under James, Jesus's brother. Paul is in favour of throwing the whole game open to the gentiles, they are not. Paul does spend a lot of time, though, telling early Christian communities to be patient, as the End of the World is just around the corner. Unless we missed it, we're still waiting.

In short, the New Testament is an unreliable collection of letters, second- or third-hand reports, garbled stories and legends. Moreover it has been edited and re-edited, to say nothing of rewritten, translated, retranslated, punctuated and repunctuated over the last 2,000 years. Its value as evidence is pretty low -- about the same as someone saying "I read this one thing on a website once."

The only non-biblical evidence for Jesus, or Joshua ben Yusuf, is the contemporary history of Josephus. On this evidence, we can say that there probably was such a guy. Some of what he is reported to have said is very moving, although it is hardly unique in the history of human philosophy. He was probably a backwoods rabbi with a messianic bent -- not uncommon at the time -- and he was executed by the Romans for stirring up trouble -- also not uncommon at the time. But even this is not sure and certain. Anything beyond this has to be taken on faith. Believe what you like, but don't demand that everyone else accepts it as true.

Don't insult Jesus ... he is real regardless whether you believe it or not. I'm not here to argue with you ... just to inform you of the truth. Now it is up to you to investigate the truth of his existance or not.

Don't insult Anubis ... he is real (and sexy) regardless whether you believe it or not. I'm not here to argue with you ... just to inform you of the truth. Now it is up to you to investigate the truth of his existance or not.

Hear Hear! ;)

Don't insult Anubis ... he is real (and sexy) regardless whether you believe it or not. I'm not here to argue with you ... just to inform you of the truth. Now it is up to you to investigate the truth of his existance or not.

I think he is refering to the Historical eveidence for Jesus existance, of which there is more of than for Ceaser.

Investigating the truth... OK. There are four Gospels in the New Testament, none of which were written by eye-witnesses. At best, they may contain versions of oral reports made by eye-witnesses. Some of what they contain is flat-out wrong: for example, the confused geography in Luke indicates that not only was the author of Luke's gospel not an eye-witness, but that he had never even been to Palestine. Other gospels are mutually contradictory, for example the two variant accounts of the nativity (both garbled versions of a Persian myth dating back to around 2,000BCE), or the different genealogies given for Jesus (or at least Joseph), or the two separate deaths of Judas Iscariot, and so on. Other gospels, such as those of Thomas or Mary Magdalene, give other pictures of Jesus's career, but have been excluded for what were essentially political reasons.


There is reasonable evidence to support Johns gospel being written by an eye witness. And they were all written and distributed within the lifetimes of those who saw Jesus and so that means that those who read it saw it and knew they were not lying.

Even if they were written in the lifetimes of the disciples, which I doubt, people could still take advantage of distances and popular ignorance to deceive them with such tales. Alot of legends and myths were born that way.

Even if they were written in the lifetimes of the disciples, which I doubt, people could still take advantage of distances and popular ignorance to deceive them with such tales. Alot of legends and myths were born that way.

Myths and ledgends are known as just that. Myths and ledgends. Even if they are passed down. The Gospels are a clearly written as an account of truth. And what would they have to gain from decieveing people. The leader of said religion has asscended into heaven and is not here anymore.

If Jesus was God Incarnate, and, as The Son, one of the Persons of the Trinity and therefore an aspect of the Supreme Being, do you really think it's possible to insult him/it? Can the Supreme Being really be moved out of his putative eternal and infinite state of grace by taking the huff at a posting on a web forum? Just to put things in a bit of perspective.

Investigating the truth... OK. There are four Gospels in the New Testament, none of which were written by eye-witnesses. At best, they may contain versions of oral reports made by eye-witnesses. Some of what they contain is flat-out wrong: for example, the confused geography in Luke indicates that not only was the author of Luke's gospel not an eye-witness, but that he had never even been to Palestine. Other gospels are mutually contradictory, for example the two variant accounts of the nativity (both garbled versions of a Persian myth dating back to around 2,000BCE), or the different genealogies given for Jesus (or at least Joseph), or the two separate deaths of Judas Iscariot, and so on. Other gospels, such as those of Thomas or Mary Magdalene, give other pictures of Jesus's career, but have been excluded for what were essentially political reasons.

The Epistles are a little more solid, and give a good insight into the politics behind St Paul's arguments with the (Jewish) early Christians in Jerusalem, organised under James, Jesus's brother. Paul is in favour of throwing the whole game open to the gentiles, they are not. Paul does spend a lot of time, though, telling early Christian communities to be patient, as the End of the World is just around the corner. Unless we missed it, we're still waiting.

In short, the New Testament is an unreliable collection of letters, second- or third-hand reports, garbled stories and legends. Moreover it has been edited and re-edited, to say nothing of rewritten, translated, retranslated, punctuated and repunctuated over the last 2,000 years. Its value as evidence is pretty low -- about the same as someone saying "I read this one thing on a website once."

The only non-biblical evidence for Jesus, or Joshua ben Yusuf, is the contemporary history of Josephus. On this evidence, we can say that there probably was such a guy. Some of what he is reported to have said is very moving, although it is hardly unique in the history of human philosophy. He was probably a backwoods rabbi with a messianic bent -- not uncommon at the time -- and he was executed by the Romans for stirring up trouble -- also not uncommon at the time. But even this is not sure and certain. Anything beyond this has to be taken on faith. Believe what you like, but don't demand that everyone else accepts it as true.

Firstly, the New Testament was written by his disciples who for your information were eye-witnesses. Also, I seriously doubt that there are any other books of the Bible, or letters, so are that have been excluded for political purposes. If anything they either don't exist b/c they were destroyed sometime during or before Roman rule or they simply never existed.

We don't demand that you take it as true, un like atheists teaching what they believe in schools as true, we are simply trying to say that we believe that it is true b/c there is evidence.

Can one come to know anything about Christ from
history? No. And why not? It is because Christ is the paradox,
the object of faith, and exists only for faith. About him nothing
can be known; he can only be believed. You cannot come to
know anything about Christ from history. Whether one learns
little or much about him, it will not represent who he is in reality.
Obtaining historical facts makes Christ into someone other
than who he in fact is.
Can’t you at least demonstrate from history that Christ was
God, even though we might know little else? Let me ask another
question first: Can any more absurd contradiction be imagined
than wishing to prove that an individual person is God? Now
think of proving that! How can you make something that conflicts
with reason into something reasonable? You can’t, unless you
wish to contradict yourself. The so-called proofs for the divinity
of Christ that people claim Scripture sets forth – his miracles,
his resurrection, his ascension – are not, when you think about
it, in harmony with our reason. On the contrary, they demonstrate
that believing in Christ’s works is a matter of faith.
What can all the miracles really demonstrate anyway? At
most that Jesus Christ was a great man, perhaps the greatest
who ever lived. But that he was – God – no, stop; that conclusion
will surely miscarry.
How is it possible to observe the gradually unfolding results
of something and then arrive at, by some trick of deduction, a
conclusion different in quality from what you began with? Is it
not sheer insanity (providing humanity is sane) to let your
judgment become so altogether confused as to land in the
wrong category? A footprint is certainly the consequence of
some creature having made it. I may mistake it for that of a bird,
but on closer inspection, and by following the prints for some
distance, I may determine that some other animal made it. Fine.
But can I at some point reach the conclusion: ergo it is a spirit
that has walked along this way, a spirit – which leaves no print?
Precisely the same holds true whenever we try to infer from the
results of a person’s life that therefore he was God.
True, if God and humankind resemble each other so closely
so as to essentially belong to the same category of being, the
conclusion “therefore Christ was God” makes perfect sense. But
this is nothing but humbug. If that is all there is to being God,
then God does not exist at all! But if God belongs to a category
infinitely different from the human, why, then neither I nor any
one else can start with the assumption that Christ was human
and then logically conclude that therefore he was God. Anyone
with a bit of logical sense should be able to see this. The question
of whether or not he was God lies on an entirely different
plane: each person must decide for himself whether or not he
will believe Christ to be what he himself claimed to be.
Faith protests against every attempt to approach Christ by
means of historical facts. Faith’s contention is that the
historian’s whole approach is – blasphemy. How strange! With
the help of history, that is, by looking at the results of Christ’s
life, we think we can arrive at the conclusion that he was God.
Yet faith makes the very opposite claim. Anyone who begins
with this kind of logic is guilty of blasphemy. The blasphemy is
not so much the hypothetical assumption that Christ was a human
being, but in the thought that the results of his life can be
separated from who he was. When you scrutinize the facts, you
make Christ out to be just a man.
With regard to Christ we have only sacred history (which is
qualitatively different from the historian’s account). Christ is
the divine-human paradox that history can never digest or convert
into a proof. Even with what we know of Christ’s life and of
all his brilliant works, they will pale in comparison to his coming
again in glory! Or perhaps you think that Christ’s return
will be nothing more than the progressive result of his life in
history? No! Christ’s return will be something entirely different,
something that can only be believed. That Christ was God incarnate
in his lowliness and that he will come again in glory, all
this is far beyond the comprehension of history. This cannot be
inferred from “facts” or from history, no matter how matchlessly
you regard them, except through a matchless lack of logic.
It is infinitely beyond history’s capacity to demonstrate that
God, the omnipresent One, lived here on earth as an individual
human being. History can indeed richly communicate knowledge,
but such knowledge annihilates Jesus Christ. How strange,
then, that anyone ever wanted to use history to demonstrate
that Christ was God. Even if Christ’s life had manifested no astonishing
results, it makes no difference. Besides, what’s so extraordinary
about the fact that God’s life had extraordinary
results? To talk this way is sheer nonsense. No, God lived here
on earth, in true lowliness, and that is what is infinitely extraordinary
– extraordinary in itself. The fact that he lived among
us is infinitely more important than all the extraordinary results
ever recorded in history.-Sorensen Kierkaard

U have some points, but unfortunately there is no contradiction. The Old Testament says that there would be a Messiah, that he would be called Emmanual. Heck, the Old Testament litteraly tells his life before it happed.

We don't demand that you take it as true, un like atheists teaching what they believe in schools as true, we are simply trying to say that we believe that it is true b/c there is evidence.
What is it you're referring to that atheists teach as true without evidence? Are we going of on an evolution tangent?

And believing something is true because there is evidence is what these atheists that you speak of do. That's what science is about.

What is it you're referring to that atheists teach as true without evidence? Are we going of on an evolution tangent?

And believing something is true because there is evidence is what these atheists that you speak of do. That's what science is about.

Science is about evidence yes. Evidence which is true. Bones, layers of rock, and anything that evolution is supported by can often times be easily seen in a different way. Any evidence they have is interpretted how they want it to be. Atheists also have no proof that there isn't a God. There is proof however that our bodies, the Earth, the universe was probably designed by something. Probably is the key word, or should almost positively be the key.

Science is about evidence yes. Evidence which is true. Bones, layers of rock, and anything that evolution is supported by can often times be easily seen in a different way. Any evidence they have is interpretted how they want it to be.
As though your side's evidence isn't either?
Atheists also have no proof that there isn't a God.
What does that have to do with anything so far?
There is proof however that our bodies, the Earth, the universe was probably designed by something. Probably is the key word, or should almost positively be the key.
Well, it seems that we're still waiting to see it, but this thread isn't the place. Seeing as it's about Jesus and I wouldn't want to thread-jack it.

Where was Jesus three days after his baptism?

One part of scripture says he "immediately" departed for the wilderness for 40 days... another says he was at the wedding in Cana three days later.

One of those claims must be untrue.

Thus, contradiction.

And, I'm afraid THAT isn't a translation error, either... we can do this again in Greek, if you prefer.

Find the verses plz. And read in between them.

Never mind, I found the verses. In the book of Matthew it says that the Holyb Spirit led him there, not that he went "immediately" there. John it says that 3 days later he was at a wedding.

As though your side's evidence isn't either?

What does that have to do with anything so far?

Well, it seems that we're still waiting to see it, but this thread isn't the place. Seeing as it's about Jesus and I wouldn't want to thread-jack it.

You know what, that's what I hate about evidence, it's all about interpretation. But tell me, which is more reasonable, saying a tornado went through a junk yard and created a working Aztec (a car) or saying that someone went and designed it and created it?

You forgot the option of 'nice guy, fans are bat-shit crazy'

That's a lame argument, since the universe has enough chaos to suggest randomness.

I agree. Not only that Europe is a super power but explain things that have happened to the Jews. Hitler, the Jews being hated, want of destroying them, that's actual all Biblical. Take what has happened. I heard that one time the Isrealis were close to Egypt in a war and they had to stop b/c of the Passover. The Egyptians attacked with a force larger than the Isrealis and had the suprise too but yet they were all captured. The Egyptians were defeated. Egypt beign a desert. The plagues of Moses and the 7 yrs of famine. Need I go on?

Egypt (where most of the people actually live in it) is not desert. Another thing, not all European countries are Christian. Several are Muslim. Most of the countries that are "Christian" are only so nominally anyway.

Egypt (where most of the people actually live in it) is not desert. Another thing, not all European countries are Christian. Several are Muslim. Most of the countries that are "Christian" are only so nominally anyway.

But most of Egypt is desert. Also, what does a Christian countries in Europe have to do with anything?

That's a lame argument, since the universe has enough chaos to suggest randomness.

But tell me, which is more probable. And another thing, how is the universe chaotic? The stars rotate around a point in a path which can be traced, planets in an orbit, etc, just b/c we have a hard time doing it doesn't mean it's chaotic.

You know what, that's what I hate about evidence, it's all about interpretation. But tell me, which is more reasonable, saying a tornado went through a junk yard and created a working Aztec (a car) or saying that someone went and designed it and created it?
Well, it's a bit different...
It would be like if the Aztec were built of 4 or 5 different parts only, but there were multiples, and the parts would just stick together if they got close enough in the right way. Also, there were lots and lots of tornadoes.

The thing is that both sides end up sounding corny, either way. Neither can disprove the other, they can only resort to attacking each other.

That's exactly my point. There is no scientific, factual proof to support Christianity... or any religion for that matter.

You wouldn't be a Christian if you believed in it because it was factually proven. Chrisitian's believe because of faith.

God doesn't want people to believe in him because it's fact... he wants people to believe in him because it's the truth.
Didn't the Hitchikers guide kill god by proving he existed?

Well, it's a bit different...
It would be like if the Aztec were built of 4 or 5 different parts only, but there were multiples, and the parts would just stick together if they got close enough in the right way. Also, there were lots and lots of tornadoes.

The thing is that both sides end up sounding corny, either way. Neither can disprove the other, they can only resort to attacking each other.

But what is more likely or probable? Which is impossible? Also, I'm talking about a working Aztec or much less a car. Another thing is that which is more complicated, a car or a human being? HEY! Thats a great idea for a poll! Just to see how many idiots there are out there.

Jesus Walks.

Didn't the Hitchikers guide kill god by proving he existed?

You can't kill something that is eternal.

Ok, I'm a Christian and i just want to know what everyone else's opinion's on Jesus are? I'm really curious so that I know who I'm arguing with...

What happened to the option: Jesus could have been a very well-intentioned individual who tried to share his wisdom and ended up being killed for all the wrong reasons, as often happens to the enlightened?

What happened to the option: Jesus could have been a very well-intentioned individual who tried to share his wisdom and ended up being killed for all the wrong reasons, as often happens to the enlightened?

I think you'll have to send your question to Lashe via telegram b/c i think her last post was about not continuing this.

Jesus Walks.

Walks? Yes he did walk. What about "Walks"?

I think you'll have to send your question to Lashe via telegram b/c i think her last post was about not continuing this.

Ah well. I was curious, but not that curious...

People recall things slightly differently. Get 2 friends to recall in detail an event they were both @ even as close as a week ago. If they dont talk while writing their accounts then ther will be differences.

Exactly.

You take a car accident, for example - and you review the witness statements. One of the reasons police like to make so MANY statements after Road Traffic Accidents, is that it is almost impossible to correlate the facts.

License plates become confused, witnesses argue over who hit who, which car came from where, what COLOUR an offending vehicle might have been... and that's not shade... that's like one witness says "blue", another says "red".

You leave a situation like that for a while... you let the witnesses debate about the details, and you find that, all of a sudden, they are all concrete on the events, and have much LOWER amounts of conflict between stories... and this is true of people that were not truly 'witnesses'... i.e. someone who was ACTUALLY facing the other way, becomes a verifiable eyewitness.

Now- examine the bible... they can't decide the colour of the car, or who hit who... and yet we are supposed to believe we are dealing with eyewitnesses - and long-term associates, at that?

What the New Testament LOOKS LIKE, is a group of people writing about a story they had heard. Second-hand witnesses, so to speak - hence all the different embellishments.

Also - which of the Gospel writers actually "witnessed" Jesus' birth? And yet, we have a 'testament' of how it transpired...

As no response is heard...

There never is, on this issue.... no, there was one once... but it fell down on translational issues... i.e. I can translate the Greek text, and the other person (Neo Cannen, I believe).... can't.

Ohh blue! that must make him real! if I put Fictional in blue does that make it real?

I have ... which lead me to the fictional belief ... (used to be Christian)

Oh Noes!!!11!!!!One!

TWO people have posted conflicting things in BLUE!!!

HOW CAN BOTH BE TRUE?

And yet, they are both written in the TRUE colour!!!!!

Myths and ledgends are known as just that. Myths and ledgends. Even if they are passed down. The Gospels are a clearly written as an account of truth. And what would they have to gain from decieveing people. The leader of said religion has asscended into heaven and is not here anymore.

So, you, yourself, admit that Jesus no longer exists?

I think he is refering to the Historical eveidence for Jesus existance, of which there is more of than for Ceaser.

The funny thing is... this was a lie last time you posted it, too.

No two truths can be true in the same way at the same time if they conflict...

If Jesus was God Incarnate, and, as The Son, one of the Persons of the Trinity and therefore an aspect of the Supreme Being, do you really think it's possible to insult him/it? Can the Supreme Being really be moved out of his putative eternal and infinite state of grace by taking the huff at a posting on a web forum? Just to put things in a bit of perspective.

Investigating the truth... OK. There are four Gospels in the New Testament, none of which were written by eye-witnesses. At best, they may contain versions of oral reports made by eye-witnesses. Some of what they contain is flat-out wrong: for example, the confused geography in Luke indicates that not only was the author of Luke's gospel not an eye-witness, but that he had never even been to Palestine. Other gospels are mutually contradictory, for example the two variant accounts of the nativity (both garbled versions of a Persian myth dating back to around 2,000BCE), or the different genealogies given for Jesus (or at least Joseph), or the two separate deaths of Judas Iscariot, and so on. Other gospels, such as those of Thomas or Mary Magdalene, give other pictures of Jesus's career, but have been excluded for what were essentially political reasons.

The Epistles are a little more solid, and give a good insight into the politics behind St Paul's arguments with the (Jewish) early Christians in Jerusalem, organised under James, Jesus's brother. Paul is in favour of throwing the whole game open to the gentiles, they are not. Paul does spend a lot of time, though, telling early Christian communities to be patient, as the End of the World is just around the corner. Unless we missed it, we're still waiting.

In short, the New Testament is an unreliable collection of letters, second- or third-hand reports, garbled stories and legends. Moreover it has been edited and re-edited, to say nothing of rewritten, translated, retranslated, punctuated and repunctuated over the last 2,000 years. Its value as evidence is pretty low -- about the same as someone saying "I read this one thing on a website once."

The only non-biblical evidence for Jesus, or Joshua ben Yusuf, is the contemporary history of Josephus. On this evidence, we can say that there probably was such a guy. Some of what he is reported to have said is very moving, although it is hardly unique in the history of human philosophy. He was probably a backwoods rabbi with a messianic bent -- not uncommon at the time -- and he was executed by the Romans for stirring up trouble -- also not uncommon at the time. But even this is not sure and certain. Anything beyond this has to be taken on faith. Believe what you like, but don't demand that everyone else accepts it as true.

Excellent post. Congratulations.

*Hats off to Jeldred - round of applause*

Worth noting also - Josephus was born considerably later than the Jesus myth, and so, his version of the story was crafted long after the alleged incidents..

Also, there is further evidence to support the Jesus story NOT even originally turning up in Josephus' work in the first manuscripts... it looks like Jesus may have been 'edited into' Josephus' work at a much later point.

Firstly, the New Testament was written by his disciples who for your information were eye-witnesses. Also, I seriously doubt that there are any other books of the Bible, or letters, so are that have been excluded for political purposes. If anything they either don't exist b/c they were destroyed sometime during or before Roman rule or they simply never existed.

We don't demand that you take it as true, un like atheists teaching what they believe in schools as true, we are simply trying to say that we believe that it is true b/c there is evidence.

There is no evidence of the divinity of Jesus.

There is one book of 'stories' that cannot be independantly verified - so, it's almost useless as evidence.

You should stop arguing now... the point at which an alleged 'christian' admits that they know nothing of non-Canonical scripture, is the point at which they should go back to their books.

Find the verses plz. And read in between them.

Never mind, I found the verses. In the book of Matthew it says that the Holyb Spirit led him there, not that he went "immediately" there. John it says that 3 days later he was at a wedding.

Thank you, by the way - for at least attempting to address the point.

You are, however, and unsurprisingly - utterly wrong. Partly, I suspect, because you are reading the wrong verse...

It's not my fault that you read an inferior translation of scripture... so let us just do away completely with translational copies, shall we?

Let's start with my KJV.. Okay - Mark 1:12-3 "And IMMEDIATELY the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness......And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him".

Seems pretty clear to me... but, let's check shall we?

Mark 1:12 "kai euthos pneuma ekballo Autos Eis Eremos".

Okay, word-for-word:

kai = "And", "also", "likewise", or "but". Based on the 1894 Scrivener Greek New Testament, it seems safe to assume this should be translated as "And".

euthos = "Straightaway", "immediately", "forthwith", or "straight". The most common translational meaning of euthos is, collectively, some meaning of immediacy - an incident taking place directly following another.

pneuma = Literally implies a movement of air, like breath or wind. Thus, by extension, this means the spirit, sice - scripturally, the spirit is the 'breath of life'.

ekballo = "To drive out", "To cast out", "To send out". All, usually implying sending away, coupled with acts of violence. Or, for example, "to drive out" as in to defecate.

Autos = "He", "she", "it", "himself", "herself", "themselves". It is fairly safe to assume that, since Jesus is the focus of the passage, that "him" is the accurate translation here.

Eis = "Into", "unto", "towards", or "among"... or, sometimes "for". Most likely translation is "into", since the passage continues, in the next verse, with Jesus' adventures in the desert.

Eremos = "Desert", "wilderness", "uncultivated place", or somewhere that is solitary, lonely or desolate. Fairly safe to assume this means "Desert".



So - we have, directly from the Greek, "And, Immediately, (the) Spirit Drove Him Out Into (the) Desert"

Argue against it, if you can...

guess what? i shot jesus!

Thank you, by the way - for at least attempting to address the point.

You are, however, and unsurprisingly - utterly wrong. Partly, I suspect, because you are reading the wrong verse...

It's not my fault that you read an inferior translation of scripture... so let us just do away completely with translational copies, shall we?

Let's start with my KJV.. Okay - Mark 1:12-3 "And IMMEDIATELY the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness......And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him".

Seems pretty clear to me... but, let's check shall we?

Mark 1:12 "kai euthos pneuma ekballo Autos Eis Eremos".

Okay, word-for-word:

kai = "And", "also", "likewise", or "but". Based on the 1894 Scrivener Greek New Testament, it seems safe to assume this should be translated as "And".

euthos = "Straightaway", "immediately", "forthwith", or "straight". The most common translational meaning of euthos is, collectively, some meaning of immediacy - an incident taking place directly following another.

pneuma = Literally implies a movement of air, like breath or wind. Thus, by extension, this means the spirit, sice - scripturally, the spirit is the 'breath of life'.

ekballo = "To drive out", "To cast out", "To send out". All, usually implying sending away, coupled with acts of violence. Or, for example, "to drive out" as in to defecate.

Autos = "He", "she", "it", "himself", "herself", "themselves". It is fairly safe to assume that, since Jesus is the focus of the passage, that "him" is the accurate translation here.

Eis = "Into", "unto", "towards", or "among"... or, sometimes "for". Most likely translation is "into", since the passage continues, in the next verse, with Jesus' adventures in the desert.

Eremos = "Desert", "wilderness", "uncultivated place", or somewhere that is solitary, lonely or desolate. Fairly safe to assume this means "Desert".



So - we have, directly from the Greek, "And, Immediately, (the) Spirit Drove Him Out Into (the) Desert"

Argue against it, if you can...



I bow to your logic!

Jesus isn't fictional
Prove it.

Don't insult Jesus ... he is real regardless whether you believe it or not. I'm not here to argue with you ... just to inform you of the truth. Now it is up to you to investigate the truth of his existance or not.
You make the claim that he's real, so it's up to you, and no one else, to prove it.

Firstly, the New Testament was written by his disciples who for your information were eye-witnesses. Also, I seriously doubt that there are any other books of the Bible, or letters, so are that have been excluded for political purposes. If anything they either don't exist b/c they were destroyed sometime during or before Roman rule or they simply never existed.

We don't demand that you take it as true, un like atheists teaching what they believe in schools as true, we are simply trying to say that we believe that it is true b/c there is evidence.
You think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by disciples? Mark, the first gospel, was writtn 30 years after Jesus' supposed death. The last gospel, Luke, was written around 150 CE. Yet, all the disciples were dead within 30 years of Jesus's supposed death.

Exactly.

You take a car accident, for example - and you review the witness statements. One of the reasons police like to make so MANY statements after Road Traffic Accidents, is that it is almost impossible to correlate the facts.

License plates become confused, witnesses argue over who hit who, which car came from where, what COLOUR an offending vehicle might have been... and that's not shade... that's like one witness says "blue", another says "red".

You leave a situation like that for a while... you let the witnesses debate about the details, and you find that, all of a sudden, they are all concrete on the events, and have much LOWER amounts of conflict between stories... and this is true of people that were not truly 'witnesses'... i.e. someone who was ACTUALLY facing the other way, becomes a verifiable eyewitness.

Now- examine the bible... they can't decide the colour of the car, or who hit who... and yet we are supposed to believe we are dealing with eyewitnesses - and long-term associates, at that?

What the New Testament LOOKS LIKE, is a group of people writing about a story they had heard. Second-hand witnesses, so to speak - hence all the different embellishments.

Also - which of the Gospel writers actually "witnessed" Jesus' birth? And yet, we have a 'testament' of how it transpired...
What all of this gets at is that the bible is falable at the very least. That means that the bible cannot be trusted, because we have no way of knowing which parts are inspired by god and which parts are the mistake of falable man.

Thank you, by the way - for at least attempting to address the point.

You are, however, and unsurprisingly - utterly wrong. Partly, I suspect, because you are reading the wrong verse...

It's not my fault that you read an inferior translation of scripture... so let us just do away completely with translational copies, shall we?

Let's start with my KJV.. Okay - Mark 1:12-3 "And IMMEDIATELY the Spirit driveth him into the wilderness......And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan; and was with the wild beasts; and the angels ministered unto him".

Seems pretty clear to me... but, let's check shall we?

Mark 1:12 "kai euthos pneuma ekballo Autos Eis Eremos".

Okay, word-for-word:

kai = "And", "also", "likewise", or "but". Based on the 1894 Scrivener Greek New Testament, it seems safe to assume this should be translated as "And".

euthos = "Straightaway", "immediately", "forthwith", or "straight". The most common translational meaning of euthos is, collectively, some meaning of immediacy - an incident taking place directly following another.

pneuma = Literally implies a movement of air, like breath or wind. Thus, by extension, this means the spirit, sice - scripturally, the spirit is the 'breath of life'.

ekballo = "To drive out", "To cast out", "To send out". All, usually implying sending away, coupled with acts of violence. Or, for example, "to drive out" as in to defecate.

Autos = "He", "she", "it", "himself", "herself", "themselves". It is fairly safe to assume that, since Jesus is the focus of the passage, that "him" is the accurate translation here.

Eis = "Into", "unto", "towards", or "among"... or, sometimes "for". Most likely translation is "into", since the passage continues, in the next verse, with Jesus' adventures in the desert.

Eremos = "Desert", "wilderness", "uncultivated place", or somewhere that is solitary, lonely or desolate. Fairly safe to assume this means "Desert".



So - we have, directly from the Greek, "And, Immediately, (the) Spirit Drove Him Out Into (the) Desert"

Argue against it, if you can...
Got out the greek manuscripts. That's freakin hardcore! I can get deep, but I don't like to go so far as to mess with origin languages.

Mistaken by whom? his disciples? the Bible is an accurate account of what Jesus said. (if you need me to go into it i will)


Well that depends on the reliability of the source and in the case of the New Testiment the reliability is about 0. How you may ask? Well allow me to explain :
1. None of the books were written on paper until 200 years after the last Apostle was dead... most were written even later than that. which means everythign was spread by word of mouth ( picture playing telephone for 200 years +)

2. Most of the latter books were based off of the teacheings of Paul ( Saul) who completely restructured the actual teachigns of Jesus ( created the immortal soul , refered to people goign too heaven instead of living on earth also creating a few rituals)

3. When the emporer Constantine made his conversion and the Catholic Church was born they re-wrote the before mentioned inaccurate works anyway. ommitting and adding wherever they saw fit. TOo this day the Vatican holds original holy documents in its libraries which shall enver see print because they actualyl speak of Jesus's message instead of the churches message.

4. The church goes against Jesus's teaching every chance they get and wil continue too do so until the end of time. Jesus was not a proponent of organized religion .

None of this means that Jesus did not ahve a good message what it means is that his message was totally missed by the majority of Christians.
More people have died in teh name of religion than anything else somethign too remember when you are being intolerent of others and calling them nuts and what not.

guess what? i shot jesus!


You bastard.

Theres no option D: "iN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THE SON OF "GOD".

What happened to the option: Jesus could have been a very well-intentioned individual who tried to share his wisdom and ended up being killed for all the wrong reasons, as often happens to the enlightened?

I do believe that Jesus was killed for a lame reason... i.e he was killed for who he was but i don't think that was your point.

Again i know that you may disagree with my point but it comes from the Bble which i happen to believe and trust... In Jesus' trial he was asked whether he was the Son of God and he replied "yes", if you trust that account you would have to say that Jeus' was killed for who he claimed to be... did that help? if not i'll answer anything more specific... :)

You bastard.

Theres no option D: "iN NO WAY, SHAPE OR FORM THE SON OF "GOD".

Uh well you could have chosen liar or lunatic...

I bow to your logic!

Why, thank you, kind sir.

Morning, Mr Thrust. :)

You think Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written by disciples? Mark, the first gospel, was writtn 30 years after Jesus' supposed death. The last gospel, Luke, was written around 150 CE. Yet, all the disciples were dead within 30 years of Jesus's supposed death.

Very true. Good point, well made.

ANd yet, there are STILL some people that insist - despite evidence to the contrary - that large parts of the New Testament were written 'there and then' somehow.

Ignoring, apart from any other concern, that the average person in THAT place, at THAT time, was likely illiterate.

What all of this gets at is that the bible is falable at the very least. That means that the bible cannot be trusted, because we have no way of knowing which parts are inspired by god and which parts are the mistake of falable man.

Exactly. Even if the Bible IS inspired by the word of god (and I have seen no evidence to support why it SHOULD have been) - it is still a text crafted by human hands, with conflicts and inconsistencies.

And, in the light of doubtful provenence, the RESPONSIBLE student, MUST seek corroboration in separate sources.

And, since there IS no independent corroboration for the 'mystical' record of Jesus, there is no ultimately defensible reason to believe in it.

Got out the greek manuscripts. That's freakin hardcore! I can get deep, but I don't like to go so far as to mess with origin languages.

Sometimes you have to... because some people (like my estimable adversary, Teckor) will maintain the CHURCH version of a matter, over scriptural.

So - we have people arguing that such-and-such is only in scripture because 'the translation is bad'. Teckor claims that "immediately" is not scriptural, because it doesn't appear in his/her copy of the Bible.

If you can pull out a pre-translation reference, and show HOW and WHY a given translation is right, or wrong... you have a much more supportable argument than yor opponents assertion that it 'must be true', with NO evidence.

Sometimes you have to... because some people (like my estimable adversary, Teckor) will maintain the CHURCH version of a matter, over scriptural.

So - we have people arguing that such-and-such is only in scripture because 'the translation is bad'. Teckor claims that "immediately" is not scriptural, because it doesn't appear in his/her copy of the Bible.

If you can pull out a pre-translation reference, and show HOW and WHY a given translation is right, or wrong... you have a much more supportable argument than yor opponents assertion that it 'must be true', with NO evidence. Translations vary not only in the words used but the punctuation! Change few commas round and whole sentences can change meaning! As the original texts were not punctuated it can be confusing!

Dear readers,

I have not read every single entry in this "thread." The inititiator of it asked for our perspective on Jesus.

Reciting the Apostles' Creed as shown on page 881 of the United Methodist Hymnal shows part of my perspective. I will do that, and then I will note a bit more.

I believe in God the Father Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth;

And in Jesus Christ, His only Son, our Lord:
who was conceived by the Holy Spirit,
born of the Virgin Mary,
suffered under Pontius Pilate,
was crucified, dead, and buried;
He descended into hell.
He ascended into heaven,
and sitteth at the right hand of God the Father Almighty;
from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Spirit,
the holy catholic (universal) church,
the communion of saints,
the forgiveness of sins,
the resurrection of the body
and the life everlasting. Amen.

There has been some discussion about how the Holy Bible came into being. Many of the books of the current text probably began as verbal recitations passed from one generation to the next, perhaps as songs or poems to reduce the amount of distortion as they continued through the telling.

Every book of the Bible is the inspired word of God, shared with humans to help us in this current dimension of reality where we exist. Just as the rules of quantum physics defy the laws of traditional physics, we must understand that the ways of the world are contrary to the metaphysical existence we will all come to know at our earthly lives' end.

Hence, God gave us Jesus to reconcile us with Him for our sins.

While the essence of Christianity is relatively simple, living as a Christian presents challenges to each of us every second.

Every human has a choice. He or she can seek to be with God, or to reject Him. I choose to accept that God is with me. I have faith that He sent Jesus to our world to help us understand life, and to give us a means of forgiveness, so that our souls can be in heaven with God forever after we leave our mortal bodies.

My prayer for all of you readers is this:

Dear God,
You are the almighty, omniscient, omnipotent, immortal one who created all that exists, existed and will exist. Please forgive me for my weak words, although I have faith that you know the intention of my heart. Your will is what is right. Please help all of these readers know that You are with them. Let them understand right from wrong. Please let them repent from their sins in the name of Jesus, and help them to sin no more. Forgive us all for our sins, in the name of Jesus. Thank you for providing for our needs. Please let these readers gain insight from this attempt by me to help them come to Jesus.
I make this prayer in Your name, God, and in the name of Jesus, and in the name of the Holy Ghost. Amen.

Translations vary not only in the words used but the punctuation! Change few commas round and whole sentences can change meaning! As the original texts were not punctuated it can be confusing!

Very, very true. Punctuation was developed slowly, and didn't really take off in a big way until the development of printing. Different Bibles are punctuated differently. There is, for example, a "Catholic comma" and a "Protestant comma" in one of the accounts of the crucifixion, where Jesus says to the two thieves who are being crucified alongside him: "I tell you this day you shall be with me in heaven". The Catholic punctuation is, "I tell you this day, you shall be with me in heaven" (i.e. you will get to heaven, but after some unspecified time in Purgatory). The Protestant punctuation is, "I tell you, this day you shall be with me in heaven" (i.e. straight in there with no prior buggering about in some celestial boot camp). Both sets of punctuation were not established until the 16th century -- some 1,500 years after the death of Jesus. Were the punctuators "inspired by God"? If so, which ones?

I don't have any objection to faith. I do have an objection to fixated, ignorant and unquestioned belief. This obsession with "what the Bible says", while ignoring the history and development of the many, many different versions of the book, amounts to nothing more than an idolatry of text, an obsessive worship of one rigid form where Absolute Truth is believed to be something that can be owned by this or that little sect, cult or crazy individual.

I don't personally believe in Absolute Truth. But I do think that, if there is some sort of transcendent Reality out there, it really would have to be that which surpasseth all understanding -- that is, not contained within or limited by mundanities such as What Actually Happened in some sandy one-camel burg long, long ago. If I were ever to feel the need to believe in God I don't think I would need to insist that all the stories in this or that big old book were literal accounts. I know that Jesus didn't walk on water, in the same way that I know Beowulf didn't fight a dragon. I know Jesus didn't rise from the dead, in the same way I know that Arthur doesn't lie sleeping in Avalon. And I honestly can't see for the life of me why the literality of these fables would matter, to anyone with real faith.

Very, very true. Punctuation was developed slowly, and didn't really take off in a big way until the development of printing. Different Bibles are punctuated differently. There is, for example, a "Catholic comma" and a "Protestant comma" in one of the accounts of the crucifixion, where Jesus says to the two thieves who are being crucified alongside him: "I tell you this day you shall be with me in heaven". The Catholic punctuation is, "I tell you this day, you shall be with me in heaven" (i.e. you will get to heaven, but after some unspecified time in Purgatory). The Protestant punctuation is, "I tell you, this day you shall be with me in heaven" (i.e. straight in there with no prior buggering about in some celestial boot camp). Both sets of punctuation were not established until the 16th century -- some 1,500 years after the death of Jesus. Were the punctuators "inspired by God"? If so, which ones?

I don't have any objection to faith. I do have an objection to fixated, ignorant and unquestioned belief. This obsession with "what the Bible says", while ignoring the history and development of the many, many different versions of the book, amounts to nothing more than an idolatry of text, an obsessive worship of one rigid form where Absolute Truth is believed to be something that can be owned by this or that little sect, cult or crazy individual.

I don't personally believe in Absolute Truth. But I do think that, if there is some sort of transcendent Reality out there, it really would have to be that which surpasseth all understanding -- that is, not contained within or limited by mundanities such as What Actually Happened in some sandy one-camel burg long, long ago. If I were ever to feel the need to believe in God I don't think I would need to insist that all the stories in this or that big old book were literal accounts. I know that Jesus didn't walk on water, in the same way that I know Beowulf didn't fight a dragon. I know Jesus didn't rise from the dead, in the same way I know that Arthur doesn't lie sleeping in Avalon. And I honestly can't see for the life of me why the literality of these fables would matter, to anyone with real faith.
Eats, shoots and leaves eh?

Eats, shoots and leaves eh?

Bingo! We have a winner. :)

Dear God,
You are the almighty, omniscient, omnipotent,
Is not almighty the same as omnipotent?

Sometimes you have to... because some people (like my estimable adversary, Teckor) will maintain the CHURCH version of a matter, over scriptural.

So - we have people arguing that such-and-such is only in scripture because 'the translation is bad'. Teckor claims that "immediately" is not scriptural, because it doesn't appear in his/her copy of the Bible.

If you can pull out a pre-translation reference, and show HOW and WHY a given translation is right, or wrong... you have a much more supportable argument than yor opponents assertion that it 'must be true', with NO evidence.
I've found that when a christian has his back to a wall on scripture, he will usually use an ad hoc argument such as "bad translation" or "out of context". Not that he actually researched or believes these arguments, he simply has no other defense and has to make one up that he's heard successfullly used many times before and is very difficult to falsify. Of course, if he meets someone who knows the bible well, as well as the origin languages, that christian is left with nothing else except "you just gotta have faith" and "I'll pray for you". The latter is a passive aggressive way of saying "f*ck you".

Every book of the Bible is the inspired word of God, shared with humans to help us in this current dimension of reality where we exist. Just as the rules of quantum physics defy the laws of traditional physics, we must understand that the ways of the world are contrary to the metaphysical existence we will all come to know at our earthly lives' end.

The bible is the inspired word of god? Yet, it has been muddled through every translation and reprint, therefore it is untrustworthy. Why can't god write a book that can't be mistranslated? Why has his one book resulted in something like 85,000 different beliefs? Can't god write a book that's a little more clear?

You know what would convince me that the bible was the word of god? If every "true" bible was indestructable. God is omnipotent, as you said later, so why can't he do it? Rather, why WON'T he do it? If he truly wants us to know him, then he has no other reason then maliciousness and the desire to send people to hell.

Hence, God gave us Jesus to reconcile us with Him for our sins.

So, god sacrificed himself, to himself to appease himself of a rule that we broke that he wrote for us to break. Do you realize how silly that sounds?

Dear God,
You are the almighty, omniscient, omnipotent, immortal one who created all that exists, existed and will exist.
If God is omnipotent, then why is there evil?
If God is omniscient, then how can freewill exist?
The rest is passive aggressive attacks against non-christians that I take great offense to. Further, only hypocrites pray in public:

Mat 6:5 And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward.

Be a good christian and pray in private:

Mat 6:6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

*does not see "reformer" as a choice

*sees thread has 850+ posts

*types up pointless post and posts it

*runs away

I've found that when a christian has his back to a wall on scripture, he will usually use an ad hoc argument such as "bad translation" or "out of context". Not that he actually researched or believes these arguments, he simply has no other defense and has to make one up that he's heard successfullly used many times before and is very difficult to falsify. Of course, if he meets someone who knows the bible well, as well as the origin languages, that christian is left with nothing else except "you just gotta have faith" and "I'll pray for you". The latter is a passive aggressive way of saying "f*ck you".

Beautiful. In a nutshell.

Vynnland, I salute you.

Speaking of God...

Why were the Israilites his cosen people? I mean there were chinese, egyptians, indians, africans, etc. all living around the same time. Why was this minority "special". If we are to believe in that everyone is created equal as God said, why did he have a "chosen" people. Also, why does the bible go from death and destruction to reborn and happiness? Don't tell me it's time because if we are to believe God is immortal then time dosen't matter to him. If your immortal then there is no need for time. It changed because people wanted it to change. Besides, some of the first books of the old testament wriiten by Moses are out right copies of Hindu and other texts. He read them at the Great Library of Alexandria then adopted them for his own use.

Speaking of God...

Why were the Israilites his cosen people? I mean there were chinese, egyptians, indians, africans, etc. all living around the same time. Why was this minority "special". If we are to believe in that everyone is created equal as God said, why did he have a "chosen" people. Also, why does the bible go from death and destruction to reborn and happiness? Don't tell me it's time because if we are to believe God is immortal then time dosen't matter to him. If your immortal then there is no need for time. It changed because people wanted it to change. Besides, some of the first books of the old testament wriiten by Moses are out right copies of Hindu and other texts. He read them at the Great Library of Alexandria then adopted them for his own use.

Are you positive? I think that Moses wrote these books long before Hinduism emerged or the Library of Alexandria was built. Weren't the books of Moses dated back to uber BCs?

PS: This thread needs to die or becontinued in a different one. Its gotten way too long for anyone to even hope to read it.

You can't kill something that is eternal.

Douglas Adams kicks ass.

Are you positive? I think that Moses wrote these books long before Hinduism emerged or the Library of Alexandria was built. Weren't the books of Moses dated back to uber BCs?

It is VERY unlikely (and not supported by any evidence), that Moses wrote ANY of the biblical texts.

Especially since one of them clearly describes his funeral.

It is VERY unlikely (and not supported by any evidence), that Moses wrote ANY of the biblical texts.

Especially since one of them clearly describes his funeral.

That doesn't mean he didn't write them, it just means he didn't write his funeral.

Sweeping generalization fallacy I believe.

Speaking of God...

Why were the Israilites his cosen people? I mean there were chinese, egyptians, indians, africans, etc. all living around the same time. Why was this minority "special". If we are to believe in that everyone is created equal as God said, why did he have a "chosen" people. Also, why does the bible go from death and destruction to reborn and happiness? Don't tell me it's time because if we are to believe God is immortal then time dosen't matter to him. If your immortal then there is no need for time. It changed because people wanted it to change. Besides, some of the first books of the old testament wriiten by Moses are out right copies of Hindu and other texts. He read them at the Great Library of Alexandria then adopted them for his own use.
JHVH was directly lifted (without even a name change) from Canaanite mythology. JHVH was a war god, thus the intolerant and bloody OT. The NT isn't nicer, but it isn't about bloodshed and conquering neighbors, it's about subjegating everyone to God's will through head games. It's only recently that a friendly face has been attempted to be painted on the bible. Undoubtedly there are some nice things said, but that doesn't make it a nice book any more then Ted Bundy was a nice guy for saying a couple of nice things from time to time.

JHVH was directly lifted (without even a name change) from Canaanite mythology. JHVH was a war god, thus the intolerant and bloody OT. The NT isn't nicer, but it isn't about bloodshed and conquering neighbors, it's about subjegating everyone to God's will through head games. It's only recently that a friendly face has been attempted to be painted on the bible. Undoubtedly there are some nice things said, but that doesn't make it a nice book any more then Ted Bundy was a nice guy for saying a couple of nice things from time to time.

I beg to differ. Lets get one thing staight, the OT isn't just about blood and guts, plenty of the minor prophets weep and moan at the punishment that will come to God's people as a result of their disobedience.

I apologize. Getting tired and said Hindu instead of The Epic of Gilgamesh. If you compare the Epic with the OT they are very similar. Even if there was not a "great library" at the time the pharoh who Moses worked for would have had one of the best book collections of the ancient world. Speaking of evidence there is no evidence at all for any writers of the OT.

That doesn't mean he didn't write them, it just means he didn't write his funeral.

Sweeping generalization fallacy I believe.

Not at all.

The first five books are referred to as Mosaic texts - and yet, the last contains his funeral - therefore, it is safe to assume that the so-called 'Mosaic' texts, are not ENTIRELY the work of their supposed author.

Which calls into question... why assume that ANY of the Mosaic text is written by Moses?

Ignoring the fact, that he was likely illiterate, and had a terrible speech impediment, so couldn't easily have even dictated...

I apologize. Getting tired and said Hindu instead of The Epic of Gilgamesh. If you compare the Epic with the OT they are very similar. Even if there was not a "great library" at the time the pharoh who Moses worked for would have had one of the best book collections of the ancient world. Speaking of evidence there is no evidence at all for any writers of the OT.

Most likely, the Hebrews 'borrowed' most of their material during their time in Babylon, which would definitely have had a wealth of Mesopotamian scripture.

Hence, the astounding similarity between the Eden and Noah myths, and their Mesopotamian couterparts.

If the Bible is accepted at face value, Jesus was certainly a lunatic. Look at some of the things he said... that whole "you say I cannot testify on my own behalf, and that you require two witnesses. Well, I'm one witness and my father in heaven is the other. See? The law is satisfied" fiasco especially springs to mind. What rational person would say something like that?

However, the Bible is pretty clearly bollocks... the Gospel accounts contradict heavily (Luke says Jesus was born 6 AD; Matthew says he was born 6 BC. Rectify that, I dare you. Don't believe me? Google "The Quirinius Problem") and were written around 50 years after the events described took place. Completely unreliable.

Oh, and the "so comforting, he must have been sane" argument doesn't make any sense. Dostoevsky was insane, but he was still one hell of a good writer -- said a lot cooler things than Jesus ever did, that's for sure.

in the torah it says that that a young woman gave birth to a child. The word young woman in hebrew was stretched to mean virgin. This is how the idea of a child born to a virgin came about. Also, i think he was mistaken. He never said "hey i'm the son of God" people just thought that 300 years after he died

I do believe that Jesus was killed for a lame reason... i.e he was killed for who he was but i don't think that was your point.

Again i know that you may disagree with my point but it comes from the Bble which i happen to believe and trust... In Jesus' trial he was asked whether he was the Son of God and he replied "yes", if you trust that account you would have to say that Jeus' was killed for who he claimed to be... did that help? if not i'll answer anything more specific... :)



jesus was killed on a passover roundup. the romans would go out on the high holidays and roundup jews to kill. The jewish people would be able to save 3 of the people and they didn't choose jesus becasue he disagreed with moses.

everyone's gonna hate me after that, but its the truth

I have a rahter large file on this Jesus of Nazareth....seems in about 28 A.D he went about the Galilean countryside telling its citizen that they should repent right away because the end of the world was coming in thier lifetimes...the world is still here.
Actually he was born about 6-10 BC and died at 32 so do the math. Though there are scholars that believe the calendar was actually out +- 4 years from his death. Since there was alot of upheaval at the time accurate recording are unreliable since they based their calendar around their leaders and could be out by months across the empire. There are however Roman records that prove he was born in the city of David Nazereth (sp).

JHVH was directly lifted (without even a name change) from Canaanite mythology. JHVH was a war god, thus the intolerant and bloody OT.

Jehovah was the latin name for God. The jews called him Yahweh. Consequentially, they couldn't have copied this other God you refer to. Even Yahweh was not what hey believed to be his real name, but they thought that noone as worthy to speak his true name.

I apologize. Getting tired and said Hindu instead of The Epic of Gilgamesh. If you compare the Epic with the OT they are very similar. Even if there was not a "great library" at the time the pharoh who Moses worked for would have had one of the best book collections of the ancient world. Speaking of evidence there is no evidence at all for any writers of the OT.

There are also similarities with Greek mythology (IE Great FLood) as well as other religions back then. That tells me that some of things in the Bible were probably real and that different religions had different interpretations of these happenings.

If the Bible is accepted at face value, Jesus was certainly a lunatic. Look at some of the things he said... that whole "you say I cannot testify on my own behalf, and that you require two witnesses. Well, I'm one witness and my father in heaven is the other. See? The law is satisfied" fiasco especially springs to mind. What rational person would say something like that?


Quantum physicists must be lunatics. I don't understand much of quantum physcics therefore they have to be nuts! :D

Actually he was born about 6-10 BC and died at 32 so do the math. Though there are scholars that believe the calendar was actually out +- 4 years from his death. Since there was alot of upheaval at the time accurate recording are unreliable since they based their calendar around their leaders and could be out by months across the empire. There are however Roman records that prove he was born in the city of David Nazereth (sp).

Not true.

There are no contemporary records that prove his birth - only his legal problems with the roman authorities.

Furthermore, conflicts in Biblical accounts, coupled with the discrepency between scripture and secular history - leaves Jesus' birth anytime between ABOUT 6BC and 6AD.

Actually he was born about 6-10 BC and died at 32 so do the math. Though there are scholars that believe the calendar was actually out +- 4 years from his death. Since there was alot of upheaval at the time accurate recording are unreliable since they based their calendar around their leaders and could be out by months across the empire. There are however Roman records that prove he was born in the city of David Nazereth (sp).Why 6-10 BC, and why 32 AD? The estimation of 30 AD was based on a birth date around 0, and the fact that Rabbis do not begin teaching until they are 30. If he was a Rabbi and born in 0, therefore, he would have begun teaching in 30, and the text has him dying about 2 years later... so 32. Reason for 6-10 BC is because, according to AMatt Herod the Great died "soon after" ordering all baby boys under the age of 2 to be killed, based on the date the magi had told him. Herod the Great died in 4 BC, and that puts the birth of Jesus to 4-7 BC.

However, and this is a big however, Luke says that Jesus' parents went to Bethlehem due to a census issued by Quirinius, and even specifies "this was the first census issued while Quirinius was governor of Syria." Good, solid historical data, for which I commend Luke... Quirinius was a celebrated officer and governor, and we know a lot about him. The problem, however, is that Quirinius was not governor of Syria until 6 AD. Therefore, if Luke's gospel is taken to be true, Jesus must have been born in 6 AD, which puts his death at about 38 AD, as opposed to the 26 AD we can glean as an estimated date of death from Gospel according to "Matthew."

Also, there are no Roman records proving that. In fact, Nazareth didn't even exist at the time (which isn't that important, since you meant Bethlehem, anyway). Put down that apologetics book and pick up a history book some time, you might find it useful.

Extant extrabiblical historical records about Jesus: Tacitus and Flavius Josephus. The passage in Tacititus was found to be a forgery, however, and the passage in Josephus is recording a rumour... "Jesus who people called the Christ." All the Josephus shows is that Christians were active enough in the 1st century to be on the radar of the historians, but since Josephus was writing significantly after Paul, it does not defuse the common theory that Paul invented the religion.

Quantum physicists must be lunatics. I don't understand much of quantum physcics therefore they have to be nuts! :DThere's a fine line between flat out contradicting yourself and doing quantum physics.

Not at all.

The first five books are referred to as Mosaic texts - and yet, the last contains his funeral - therefore, it is safe to assume that the so-called 'Mosaic' texts, are not ENTIRELY the work of their supposed author.

Which calls into question... why assume that ANY of the Mosaic text is written by Moses?

Ignoring the fact, that he was likely illiterate, and had a terrible speech impediment, so couldn't easily have even dictated...

Hold on, Moses was an Egyptian Prince. This so-called "speech impediment" was a fear of public speaking according to the Bible.

But does it really matter whether or not Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch? Just because it wasn't Moses doesn't mean it wasn't inspired by God.

How do you know that what you are saying is true? How can you know whether or not the Bible is false? And what if you're wrong?

Hold on, Moses was an Egyptian Prince. This so-called "speech impediment" was a fear of public speaking according to the Bible.

But does it really matter whether or not Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch? Just because it wasn't Moses doesn't mean it wasn't inspired by God.

How do you know that what you are saying is true? How can you know whether or not the Bible is false? And what if you're wrong?

The speech impediment was actually most likely a very severe hare-lip, according to scripture... I don't see where you got 'fear of public speaking' from... or how you make that match up with the later elements of the Moses story.

Moses was ONLY an Egyptian Prince if you believe the bible. There is no verifiable historic record of the case, nor of a reason why an Egyptian Prince (even an adopted one) would have a Hebrew name.

Why should I believe that the Pentatauch was inspired by god? The claim that Moses wrote the whole body of work is a lie, so why should I believe any of the rest of it? ESPECIALLY when that account differs from other contemporary records?

What if I am wrong? What if Moses DID write the book? Other than being very clever (enough to write despite illiteracy, and describe HIS OWN funeral), it would still not verify the religious connotations of the work.

I beg to differ. Lets get one thing staight, the OT isn't just about blood and guts, plenty of the minor prophets weep and moan at the punishment that will come to God's people as a result of their disobedience.
No, the OT isn't ALL about blood and guts, but you can't deny that there is a WHOLE LOT of blood and guts in it. Then read the laws given to the jewish people in Exidus, Deuteronomy and Leviticus. Almost every breaking of every law demands death, even being disobediant to one's parents or wearing clothes that mixes different fibers (linen and wool).

Actually he was born about 6-10 BC and died at 32 so do the math. Though there are scholars that believe the calendar was actually out +- 4 years from his death. Since there was alot of upheaval at the time accurate recording are unreliable since they based their calendar around their leaders and could be out by months across the empire. There are however Roman records that prove he was born in the city of David Nazereth (sp).
There was no town of Nazareth when Jesus lived, it didn't exist until after Jesus' death. There was however, a group of Nazarines, who were basically nomadic rabbis and holymen.

There are also similarities with Greek mythology (IE Great FLood) as well as other religions back then. That tells me that some of things in the Bible were probably real and that different religions had different interpretations of these happenings.
That doesn't make the flood real. Ancient peoples lived on flood plains, because of the highly fertile land. Living on a flood plain makes it practically inevitable that there's going to be a nasty flood. There's a chinese flood myth, but through engineering and hard work, they defeated the flood. How could they have possibly defeated a deluge that submerged the rest of the world?

Not true.

There are no contemporary records that prove his birth - only his legal problems with the roman authorities.

Furthermore, conflicts in Biblical accounts, coupled with the discrepency between scripture and secular history - leaves Jesus' birth anytime between ABOUT 6BC and 6AD.
I've never heard of roman records of Jesus' legal problems. Can you produce them?

I beg to differ. Lets get one thing staight, the OT isn't just about blood and guts, plenty of the minor prophets weep and moan at the punishment that will come to God's people as a result of their disobedience.
You're committing the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof. YOU assert that moses wrote the Torah, therefore it is up to you and anyone else who makes that assertion to prove it. It is not anyone's job to disprove it, that sets up one to "prove a negative", which is logically fallicious and nearly impossible to do.

Hold on, Moses was an Egyptian Prince. This so-called "speech impediment" was a fear of public speaking according to the Bible.

But does it really matter whether or not Moses actually wrote the Pentateuch? Just because it wasn't Moses doesn't mean it wasn't inspired by God.

How do you know that what you are saying is true? How can you know whether or not the Bible is false? And what if you're wrong?
If the bible is the inspired word of god, then why did god allow his word to become corrupted, muddled, mistranslated, self-contradicting and morally reprehensable. If god wants us to know him, why not inspire the bible to be written in such a way that none of such things could happen to his word?

wow...i got nine pages into the thread before skipping to the last page...but anyway-

It's a charming debate, especially the part about truth being faith, or faith being truth, I honestly forget the wording. I've heard this argument a lot. But it runs into a problem. If faith is truth, theres a lot of different truths out there. I'm a pagan, and a believer in deities directly by faith, not by questionable literature. To clarify, I am in no way saying it makes it any better, just saying my religious convictions are based on faith. Yet I doubt if I told most conservative christians I had a lot of faith in Goddess so it was true that they would have a lot of nice things to say about me. Just a thought on that argument.

The poll is obviously derived from the classic Trilemma concerning Jesus.

It says that since jesus claimed to be the messiah, there can be only three options:

1. He was telling the truth.
2. He was lying.
3. He was a lunatic.

The argument then goes on to say that since Jesus died for this belief, and no one would willingly die for a lie, that possibility must logically be discounted.

Also he could not have been a lunatic as he often spoke intelligently and lucidly.

Therefore jesus must be the Lord and Savior.

This arguments falls apart when one considers the underlying assumptions:

1. The Bible is factually true concerning all aspects of the life of Jesus.
2. It has remained so over the last two thousand years.

The earliest gospels were written about 40 years after the supposed crucifixion, and all have been translated, copied, edited, purged, rewritten and reinterpreted.

To maintain the two above assumptions in the face of logic requires the utmost faith.

The other huge assumption is that there can be only 3 possible hypotheses as to the words of Jesus. Other possible explanations come to mind:

1. He was a mystic.
2. He was a pantheist.

And of course, there is the very real possibility that he never existed. No contemporary historian mentions him, except for one questionable paragraph from Josephus. Not to mention the fact that there is no proof that Nazareth existed in the years when jesus supposedly walked the Earth.

I've never heard of roman records of Jesus' legal problems. Can you produce them?

I'll look into it... I recall something about a citation (or some equivalent document) for a rabble-rouser and demagogue, by the name of Jesus.

Of course, that doesn't mean it was necessarily the SAME Jesus - or reinforce ANY of the miracle stories.

It's not MUCH of an argument, when the ONLY external source is a criminal record...

Some within my circle of friends and mentors hold Jesus to be a High Adept, and a skilled kabalist (sp?). Just another possibility, roughly following the idea of a mystic.

I'll look into it... I recall something about a citation (or some equivalent document) for a rabble-rouser and demagogue, by the name of Jesus.

Of course, that doesn't mean it was necessarily the SAME Jesus - or reinforce ANY of the miracle stories.

It's not MUCH of an argument, when the ONLY external source is a criminal record...
What you're thinking of is the Josephus passage. The original document is lost, but we have two citations of it. The one historians accept as likely similar to the original is this:
At this time there was a wise man who was called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. And many people from among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. And those who had become his disciples did not abandon their loyalty to him. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion, and that he was alive. Accordingly they believed that he was the Messiah, concerning whom the Prophets have recounted wonders.Another is as follows, with the lines believed to be interpolations by contemporary Christians in caps.Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man IF IT BE LAWFUL TO CALL HIM A MAN, for he was a doer of wonders, A TEACHER OF SUCH MEN AS RECEIVE THE TRUTH WITH PLEASURE. He drew many after him BOTH OF THE JEWS AND THE GENTILES. HE WAS THE CHRIST. When Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men among us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him, FOR HE APPEARED TO THEM ALIVE AGAIN THE THIRD DAY, AS THE DIVINE PROPHETS HAD FORETOLD THESE AND THEN THOUSAND OTHER WONDERFUL THINGS ABOUT HIM, and the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day

The important line, of course, is "Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die." This is, however, not a Roman record (such as a court transcript or a list of people who were executed), and the earliest copy of this text we have is from the 11th century CE, so it's far from reliable.

The poll is obviously derived from the classic Trilemma concerning Jesus.

It says that since jesus claimed to be the messiah, there can be only three options:

1. He was telling the truth.
2. He was lying.
3. He was a lunatic.

The argument then goes on to say that since Jesus died for this belief, and no one would willingly die for a lie, that possibility must logically be discounted.

Also he could not have been a lunatic as he often spoke intelligently and lucidly.

Therefore jesus must be the Lord and Savior.

This arguments falls apart when one considers the underlying assumptions:

1. The Bible is factually true concerning all aspects of the life of Jesus.
2. It has remained so over the last two thousand years.

The earliest gospels were written about 40 years after the supposed crucifixion, and all have been translated, copied, edited, purged, rewritten and reinterpreted.

To maintain the two above assumptions in the face of logic requires the utmost faith.

The other huge assumption is that there can be only 3 possible hypotheses as to the words of Jesus. Other possible explanations come to mind:

1. He was a mystic.
2. He was a pantheist.

And of course, there is the very real possibility that he never existed. No contemporary historian mentions him, except for one questionable paragraph from Josephus. Not to mention the fact that there is no proof that Nazareth existed in the years when jesus supposedly walked the Earth.

That's stupid since Messiah just means "annointed one". Messiah does not mean Son of God, or anything similar. So why if you accept him as the Messiah (as Muslims do) must you have to accept him as Son of God? You don't. It's just bullshit reasoning.

I'll look into it... I recall something about a citation (or some equivalent document) for a rabble-rouser and demagogue, by the name of Jesus.

Of course, that doesn't mean it was necessarily the SAME Jesus - or reinforce ANY of the miracle stories.

It's not MUCH of an argument, when the ONLY external source is a criminal record...
There were plenty of guys running around named Jeshua (or Joshua), it was a common name. Even if you stick in "son of Joseph", there were still lots of guys named Joseph. It narrows it down a bit, but that's like saying "Michael, son of John" in today's world. There are TONS of people with those names.

Let's also keep in mind that there were lots of "messiahs" running around. Apalonius is a guy that comes to mind. He walked through walls, healed the sick, brought a man back from the dead, was crucified and arose 3 days later . . . according to his followers who said they witnessed these acts. With that in mind, it is more likely that Apalonius was the messiah, since there were first hand reports of him, unlike for Jesus.

Jesus might have existed ... this is true

but come on guys....

god does not exist, and neither does satan. RELIGION is stupid


... :) :mp5:

There were plenty of guys running around named Jeshua (or Joshua), it was a common name. Even if you stick in "son of Joseph", there were still lots of guys named Joseph. It narrows it down a bit, but that's like saying "Michael, son of John" in today's world. There are TONS of people with those names.

Let's also keep in mind that there were lots of "messiahs" running around. Apalonius is a guy that comes to mind. He walked through walls, healed the sick, brought a man back from the dead, was crucified and arose 3 days later . . . according to his followers who said they witnessed these acts. With that in mind, it is more likely that Apalonius was the messiah, since there were first hand reports of him, unlike for Jesus.

I seem to recall there are early incarnations of the Buddha myth that also predate Jesus, and match the same Messianic prophecies - just 600 years earlier. (Even down to the number of disciples, and the resurrection stories...)

So - it looks like Christianity is based on a story that was already 600 years old when the alleged life of Jesus took place.

Another reason that I believe in God is actually Satan himself. While you may say there is not overwhelming evidence for a God, it seems to me that there is more than enough to suggest a devil. Thus Satan, himself, defines God by being his antithesis. If you read Baudaliere, he pick up on this a little bit. In on of his prose poems where tha main character is conversing with Satan, Satan says something like "the devil's greatest weapon in to convince you he doesn't exist." Thats not an exact quote but something like that. Anyway, just kind of the classic philosophical "can you have good if there is no evil" arguement. But anyway the, for me at least, the more I see Satan at owrk, the stronger I believe in God.

Another reason that I believe in God is actually Satan himself. While you may say there is not overwhelming evidence for a God, it seems to me that there is more than enough to suggest a devil. Thus Satan, himself, defines God by being his antithesis. If you read Baudaliere, he pick up on this a little bit. In on of his prose poems where tha main character is conversing with Satan, Satan says something like "the devil's greatest weapon in to convince you he doesn't exist." Thats not an exact quote but something like that. Anyway, just kind of the classic philosophical "can you have good if there is no evil" arguement. But anyway the, for me at least, the more I see Satan at owrk, the stronger I believe in God.

Really? I can't think of any real proof for a 'devil' figure or a 'god' figure... maybe you are more open to suggestion than my cynical mind...

I seem to recall there are early incarnations of the Buddha myth that also predate Jesus, and match the same Messianic prophecies - just 600 years earlier. (Even down to the number of disciples, and the resurrection stories...)

So - it looks like Christianity is based on a story that was already 600 years old when the alleged life of Jesus took place.
Buddhism is written in Sanscrit, and the first Buddah had no disciples, nor was he devine. A great many Buddhists are also atheists.

Buddhism is written in Sanscrit, and the first Buddah had no disciples, nor was he devine. A great many Buddhists are also atheists.

I have a great deal of respect for you, thus far - but you are only looking at one version of the Buddha myth.

In the Middle East, there are Buddha myths stretching back half a millenium before Jesus:

"Buddha:
Although most people think of Buddha as being one person who lived around 500 B.C.E., the character commonly portrayed as Buddha can also be demonstrated to be a compilation of godmen, legends and sayings of various holy men both preceding and succeeding the period attributed to the Buddha.

The Buddha character has the following in common with the Christ figure:

Buddha was born of the virgin Maya, who was considered the "Queen of Heaven."
He was of royal descent.
He crushed a serpent's head.
Sakyamuni Buddha had 12 disciples.
He performed miracles and wonders, healed the sick, fed 500 men from a "small basket of cakes," and walked on water.
He abolished idolatry, was a "sower of the word," and preached "the establishment of a kingdom of righteousness."
He taught chastity, temperance, tolerance, compassion, love, and the equality of all.
He was transfigured on a mount.
Sakya Buddha was crucified in a sin-atonement, suffered for three days in hell, and was resurrected.
He ascended to Nirvana or "heaven."
Buddha was considered the "Good Shepherd", the "Carpenter", the "Infinite and Everlasting."
He was called the "Savior of the World" and the "Light of the World."

http://www.truthbeknown.com/origins.htm

Well, I'm pretty certain that Jesus existed. And I think he had some good ideas, pacifism etc. But I'm also pretty sure he was a nacissistic, egotistical megalomaniac.

If he'd kept his big mouth shut he wouldn't have been executed.

And Der Lieben, are you on medication? If not you need some. You can actually see the works of the devil?

Some people are just nasty, devil not included.

I forgot to take my pills last night. :D

Seriously, though, even just the everyday subtle, almost unnoticible evils are the ones that Satan is evidenced in the most.

AHA! this is a sad little poll eh? basicly you're options are, you're either with jesus ir against him, shows you opinions very openly too" "well, if they dont share an opinion with me, then they hate my opinion" if you expect that they hate your opinion, you automatically hate theirs.

i can't choose any of those as i believe he wasn't,The Son of God, A lunatic or A liar

but i think what he was was some one that believed something alot/too much (how ever you want to put it) but in the end isn't that all that matters

Let me clear up a few things:

A) It isn't Jesus who was predated 500 years by another legend, thats Moses. The story of Moses was predated about 3-5 centuries by the legend of Sargon the Great, including references to Sargon's being found in a basket in a river in the midst of reeds, to his being raised first as a shepherd, and eventually becoming king and freeing his people. It is supposed that when the Jews were enslaved by the Babylonians, they came across this myth and eventually it was incorporated back into Judaism, however the exact reason for the usage of Egypt instead of Babylon (where they had been enslaved) isn't known. It is clear however that the story of Moses has almost identical characteristics to the older story of Sargon.

B) The other Jewish/Old Testament story picked up in Babylon was that of the Flood. The exact legend has been lost, but references to it are found in many Sumerian texts, especially Gilgamesh, which predates the Jewish texts by centuries. This legend is also supposed to have been picked up by the Jews while they were in Babylon.

Let me state one thing very clearly: Back in these days (1300-400 BC) religion was an extremely variable thing. Religions added gods as new faiths were encounted, legends were added and changed as new people's and their stories were encountered, etc.

Buddhism: The first Buddha (that is non-reincarnating Buddha, such as the one you find in Tibetan Buddhism, with a long line of Buddhas), was supposed to have born around the exact same time as Jesus. There is little to no evidence that the two faiths are in any way derived from each other. The fact is, the three greatest ancient religious figures, Buddha, Jesus, and Confucious (technically religious), all existed within a century of each other. There is no plausible reasoning for any of the three to have influenced the faiths that came from the others.

My problem's with Jesus.

A) He didn't fill the Messianic prophecies laid out in the Old Testament. I don't see how you can claim he's the Messiah if he didn't in fact set up the Kingdom of Heaven, and all the various other things Isiah and the other prophets said he would.

B) Looking at him relatively, the fact he was crucified is far from a surprise, and there is in fact no way to blame the Jews. Look at it this way, Jesus challenged an entire faith, said everyone else was wrong, made the outrageous claim of being God's son, and then refused to actually fulfill the prophecies of the one whom he claimed he was.

Let me clear up a few things:

A) It isn't Jesus who was predated 500 years by another legend, thats Moses. The story of Moses was predated about 3-5 centuries by the legend of Sargon the Great, including references to Sargon's being found in a basket in a river in the midst of reeds, to his being raised first as a shepherd, and eventually becoming king and freeing his people. It is supposed that when the Jews were enslaved by the Babylonians, they came across this myth and eventually it was incorporated back into Judaism, however the exact reason for the usage of Egypt instead of Babylon (where they had been enslaved) isn't known. It is clear however that the story of Moses has almost identical characteristics to the older story of Sargon.

and jesus was predated by mithras. and horus. and krishna, really.

Buddhism: The first Buddha (that is non-reincarnating Buddha, such as the one you find in Tibetan Buddhism, with a long line of Buddhas), was supposed to have born around the exact same time as Jesus. There is little to no evidence that the two faiths are in any way derived from each other. The fact is, the three greatest ancient religious figures, Buddha, Jesus, and Confucious (technically religious), all existed within a century of each other. There is no plausible reasoning for any of the three to have influenced the faiths that came from the others.

1. ther lamas in tibet are not reincarnations of buddha. for one thing, buddha is a title meaning enlightened one, there can be many buddhas.
2. siddhartha gautama was born in 563 bce, more than 500 years before jesus is supposed to have been born. source (http://www.religioustolerance.org/buddhism5.htm)

These are the types of attitudes and judgemental nonsense that made me run away from Christianity in my teens... :headbang:

Now that I'm a happy Eclectic Pagan Mix (with some Buddhist theory thrown in), I also go the route of "We're all sons and daughter of The Divine." But, in my fundamentalist Protestant Christian upbringing, I was taught that Catholicism was a cult, New Age was the work of the devil, and the only way to be saved was to believe EXACTLY what the church leaders told you to...

There's more than enough room in this earth for many different religions. It just takes a little tolerance.

I have a great deal of respect for you, thus far - but you are only looking at one version of the Buddha myth.

Thankyou, but I suspect that you're thinking of Krishna.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

Also, the link you provide misrepresents a few concepts. Nirvana is not heaven, it is a state of being. There is no "hell" in Buddhism. The first Buddah, Siddartha, was literally born to a king's wife, Jesus was not the descendant of a king. The geneology given to Jesus traced Joseph's lineage, but Joseph was not Jesus' father. Siddartha's birth was not a virgin birth.

Let me clear up a few things:

A) It isn't Jesus who was predated 500 years by another legend, thats Moses.

Are you sure? What about Krishna, Mythra, Horus, or Zoaster, just to name a few?

Buddhism: The first Buddha (that is non-reincarnating Buddha, such as the one you find in Tibetan Buddhism, with a long line of Buddhas), was supposed to have born around the exact same time as Jesus. There is little to no evidence that the two faiths are in any way derived from each other. The fact is, the three greatest ancient religious figures, Buddha, Jesus, and Confucious (technically religious), all existed within a century of each other. There is no plausible reasoning for any of the three to have influenced the faiths that came from the others.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/B/Buddha.asp
According to this, the first Buddha probably lived 563-483 BCE.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/C/Confuciu.asp
According to this, Confucius probably lived 551-479 BCE. Neither of these dates are within a century of Jesus.

Thankyou, but I suspect that you're thinking of Krishna.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jckr1.htm

Also, the link you provide misrepresents a few concepts. Nirvana is not heaven, it is a state of being. There is no "hell" in Buddhism. The first Buddah, Siddartha, was literally born to a king's wife, Jesus was not the descendant of a king. The geneology given to Jesus traced Joseph's lineage, but Joseph was not Jesus' father. Siddartha's birth was not a virgin birth.

Not sure what you are saying is wrong, really... There is evidence that supports Buddhism in the same area of the world as Jesus, but 5 centuries earlier...

Yes, there may be no intrinsic heaven or hell constructs in Buddhism, as accepted, but the same was pretty much true of the Hebrew faith, until it's close proximity with the Greco-Roman model. Siddartha was not the only 'incarnation' of "Buddha", Jesus is supposed to be of the 'house of David', according to the bible - although I don't actually 'buy' that one either.

The site misrepresents nothing MORE than such things are accepted as being misrepresented...

Are you sure? What about Krishna, Mythra, Horus, or Zoaster, just to name a few?



And, of course, Serapis - from whom, even our modern image of what Jesus 'looks' like, was derived.

Ok, I'm a Christian and i just want to know what everyone else's opinion's on Jesus are? I'm really curious so that I know who I'm arguing with...

You clearly made the poll, and think that people that do not belive in a historical Jesus figure existed are stupid.

I can provide a dozen examples of where the Jesus story was cribbed from other religions that pre-date Christianity...so he fits really nicely into what people at the time liked to believe.

Can you provide ANY factual evidence of Jesus's existence outside of the Bible? The shroud and the tomb cover thing are not authenticated enough - you have to "believe" them since the historians do not.

So - your proof that we whgo see no evidence are stupid please?

Are you sure? What about Krishna, Mythra, Horus, or Zoaster, just to name a few?

Zoroastrian mythology has virtually no similiarity to Christ, it is various Old Testament features that are the same (no surprise considering the Jews and the Zoroastrians were both in the same area, at the same time, were enslaved by the Babylonians close to the same time as each other, etc)

Horus also has very little similiarity. Again, Horus is most alike to Sargon's myth, but even then there is little to no similiarity as Horus is a definite historical figure, founder of the first dynasty of Egypt.

Mythra I will admit has some similiarities, however that is again largely due to the proximity of the two religions. Again, most religions at the time borrowed from one another, so its no surprise some of the features are similiar.

Krishna is totally unrelated. Have you seen the stories about Krishna? There is nothing even vaguelly making Krishna out to be a man-god, Krishna was, and is, most certainly a deity of the highest order, with little resemblance to Christ in any way.

Serapis: The only reason people really make this claim is due to Serapis' nature as a reincarnation of other gods (depending on the time frame it was Osiris, Ptah, and other gods), and the fact that Isis reincarnated him (some people make completely absurd claims that Isis=the Virgin Mary, yet we won't go into such trivial BS as that), and she was Osiris' wife. In reality, the myths surrounding Serapis bear no real resemblance to Christ.



http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/B/Buddha.asp
According to this, the first Buddha probably lived 563-483 BCE.

http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/C/Confuciu.asp
According to this, Confucius probably lived 551-479 BCE. Neither of these dates are within a century of Jesus.
This is what happens when I take two paragraphs, merge them into one, and then don't bother to read what I wrote. Where I wrote Jesus, I meant to write Zoroaster, however my brain decided to take a vacation...


Here is what I meant to say

Buddhism: The first Buddha (that is non-reincarnating Buddha, such as the one you find in Tibetan Buddhism, with a long line of Buddhas), was supposed to have born around the exact same time as Confucius, Socrates, and Zoroaster. This is why this period is known as the beginning of modern philosophic, and religious, thought. The fact is, the three greatest ancient religious figures, Buddha, Zoroaster, and Confucious (technically religious), all existed within a century of each other. There is no plausible reasoning for any of the three to have influenced the faiths that came from the others.


Now as for Jesus, seeing as Buddha predated Jesus, it doesn't make sense they'd influence each other. There is little to no evidence that the two faiths are in any way derived from each other. The same holds true for Zoroastrianism, which instead did influence Judaism somewhat, nor Confucian thought, which never truly reached the West.

Again, this is why I need to proof-read, but why bother in a place as random as this?

The Heretical Monks have pondered upon the significance of the poll question, "Who do you think Jesus was/is?"

Upon brief reflection, they immediately recognized the "Fallacy of Excluded Choice". The poll maker had neglected a choice such as "None of the Above", or "Something Else Entirely"....or both.

The Monks know intimately from the stories of antiquity that Jesus was a good Jewish boy, played nicely with his brother James, and generally respected his parents as God had taught through Moses. But it is their opinion, being of course heretics, that although Jesus chose excellent companions, he had no voice in the matter of his legacy.

For some reason those that called themselves Christians forgot that Jesus was a heretical Jew, as he was constantly quibbling and kvetching with the priests. That he was addressed as "rabbi" and were he not married to a good Jewish girl, well, that would most certainly have been noted in the Scriptures!

Those that came later, especially Paul, who tried to make him into a Gentile are in error. Besides, who writes in Koine Greek except revisionist scholars?

So sayeth the Heretics.

You clearly made the poll, and think that people that do not belive in a historical Jesus figure existed are stupid.

I can provide a dozen examples of where the Jesus story was cribbed from other religions that pre-date Christianity...so he fits really nicely into what people at the time liked to believe.

Can you provide ANY factual evidence of Jesus's existence outside of the Bible? The shroud and the tomb cover thing are not authenticated enough - you have to "believe" them since the historians do not.

So - your proof that we whgo see no evidence are stupid please?
Actually there is historical Roman documents that have proven the existance of Jesus, don't forget there just "happened" to be a mandatory census going on at the time! Kinda convinient eh? Must have been an coincidence, eh?!?!
For some reason those that called themselves Christians forgot that Jesus was a heretical Jew, as he was constantly quibbling and kvetching with the priests. That he was addressed as "rabbi" and were he not married to a good Jewish girl, well, that would most certainly have been noted in the Scriptures!

Those that came later, especially Paul, who tried to make him into a Gentile are in error. Besides, who writes in Koine Greek except revisionist scholars?No we Christians have not forgotten how he challenged the Jewish faith. In fact our Faith is based on the new covenant he began with mankind, including Gentiles. No he was not a Rabbi and no he was not married. Though he did suppport marriage between a man and a woman. No one ever changed history to try and make him a Gentile. Paul was a Gentile bent on destroying the Christians before being struck blind by God and then being cared for by Christians. He then accepted Christ as his saviour and was healed of his blindness. Paul was best versed in the Greek and so were the majority of the churches that he visited. Paul was never a revisionist.

Actually there is historical Roman documents that have proven the existance of Jesus, don't forget there just "happened" to be a mandatory census going on at the time! Kinda convinient eh? Must have been an coincidence, eh?!?!
No we Christians have not forgotten how he challenged the Jewish faith. In fact our Faith is based on the new covenant he began with mankind, including Gentiles. No he was not a Rabbi and no he was not married. Though he did suppport marriage between a man and a woman. No one ever changed history to try and make him a Gentile. Paul was a Gentile bent on destroying the Christians before being struck blind by God and then being cared for by Christians. He then accepted Christ as his saviour and was healed of his blindness. Paul was best versed in the Greek and so were the majority of the churches that he visited. Paul was never a revisionist.

Just as a point of interest... was it god or satan that caused that census to be taken. Scripture blames each one, depending on the verse you read.

Although you are missing a point there, anyway... Jesus wasn't recorded in the Census, was he?

Prove that Jesus wasn't married.

A young Hebrew man who could walk on water would be unusual - so much so, that it would be worth recording, right?

Well, a 30 year old Hebrew male who was NOT married would have been extremely unusual as well... it would have meant he was a publically acknowledge eunuch (which SHOULD have been mentioned any, don't you think?... I'd have thought the Bible would have mentioned the Castration of Christ)... or he must have been homosexual - which should ALSO have been worthy of mention, I would have thought.

So - the only remaining option... that makes any sense in the time and context... is that he was married.. and thus, no mention need be made.

We KNOW he was accompanied constantly by a woman - and at least one of the apocryphal texts describes how he would 'kiss her on the mouth'...

Seems more than likely that your 'messiah' took a whore to bride.

Actually there is historical Roman documents that have proven the existance of Jesus, don't forget there just "happened" to be a mandatory census going on at the time! Kinda convinient eh? Must have been an coincidence, eh?!?!

A census? Herod's census? Historically, Herod was dead before Jesus was born. You didn't get that from any Roman documents, you got that from the bible. You're using the bible to prove the bible, that's circular.

Should've had more choices!

There are not enough options on your poll. As a non-christian I acknowledge that Christians view Jesus as their savior, but as a non-christian, I do not see him as my savior. To be honest I vote that he was a person who influenced others.

Actually there is historical Roman documents that have proven the existance of Jesus, don't forget there just "happened" to be a mandatory census going on at the time! Kinda convinient eh? Must have been an coincidence, eh?!?!
No we Christians have not forgotten how he challenged the Jewish faith. In fact our Faith is based on the new covenant he began with mankind, including Gentiles. No he was not a Rabbi and no he was not married. Though he did suppport marriage between a man and a woman. No one ever changed history to try and make him a Gentile. Paul was a Gentile bent on destroying the Christians before being struck blind by God and then being cared for by Christians. He then accepted Christ as his saviour and was healed of his blindness. Paul was best versed in the Greek and so were the majority of the churches that he visited. Paul was never a revisionist.

Jesus was a Jew. And he did not challenge the faith, he challenged how the faith was dictated, in other words, he challenged the dogma.

Also, I think you should check your definition of "gentile." Here's the American Heritage Dictionary's definition:

n. often Gentile
1. One who is not of the Jewish faith or is of a non-Jewish nation.
2. A Christian.
3. Archaic. A pagan or heathen.
4. Mormon Church. A non-Mormon.
and gentile
and WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University's definition:

adj : belonging to or characteristic of non-Jewish peoples n 1: a person who does not acknowledge your God [syn: heathen, pagan, infidel] 2: a person who is not a member of one's own religion; used in this sense by Mormons and Hindus [syn: Gentile] 3: in this sense `Gentile' denotes a Christian as contrasted with a Jew; `goy' is a derogatory word for Christians used by Jews [syn: Gentile, non-Jew, goy].

And as far as the marriage thing goes, could you please quote something from the Gospels? Most man/woman supporters tend to quote the epistles (letters).

Ok, I'm a Christian and i just want to know what everyone else's opinion's on Jesus are? I'm really curious so that I know who I'm arguing with...

I voted for "Didn't exist", because it was the best option of those four. I would have voted "A nice guy/teacher" if I had a choice..

I don't think that Jesus was a son of God, because I don't think that there is a god and if there was, I don't think it (s/he) could have a Son or a Daughter.. After all gods are supernatural..

He was not a lunatic or a liar. Actually I think there are many things that he has been said to have said, that make sense and are true.

And I do think that Jesus existed, but was he like the Bible tells us? I don't think so.. hence the vote!

I voted for "Didn't exist", because it was the best option of those four. I would have voted "A nice guy/teacher" if I had a choice..

I don't think that Jesus was a son of God, because I don't think that there is a god and if there was, I don't think it (s/he) could have a Son or a Daughter.. After all gods are supernatural..

He was not a lunatic or a liar. Actually I think there are many things that he has been said to have said, that make sense and are true.

And I do think that Jesus existed, but was he like the Bible tells us? I don't think so.. hence the vote!

I agree.

There were too few choices to get an accurate poll on this topic. I think that the poll taker was being to narrow in their thinking and was not willing to give those who think Jesus was just a guy who was trying to teach a "new" religion to the people, and in effect became a martyer for the cause, a chance to be clear with what they think.

I don't care whether other religions have the same or similar stories. My opinion is that all religions, themselves are man made, they do not seek the truth, they only seek to force man's ideals upon others.

Of course the poll was lacking, the creator of it was trying to set up the "lunatic, liar or savior" argument. He HAS to limit your choices in order to make this argument efficiently, because he only will allow a couple of choices which are easy to discount and will leave you with only one choice left. He gave another choice "didn't exist", but qualified that as a "stupid" choice INSIDE THE POLL. This individual was clearly not interested in finding out what people think and for what reason, but to push a belief and belittle those who don't share it.

A census? Herod's census? Historically, Herod was dead before Jesus was born. You didn't get that from any Roman documents, you got that from the bible. You're using the bible to prove the bible, that's circular.

How do you know? No body actually knows the set date of Jesus's death so it might have been two or three years before Herod died. Also, there is still evidence which supports the Bible, outside evidence.

Seems more than likely that your 'messiah' took a whore to bride.

Exactly. Would make for a much better story, too. The upstart bastard son of a virgin wife marries a hooker with a golden heart and dies bringing hope to a repentant criminal.

And then Zeus turns in to a mongoose and has sex with everyone.

Well given that there is no empirical evidence outside the bible to suggest that he existed I would vote that he didn't. However, just to avoid the baggage that would come with such a debate I'll just say that he started the religion but wasn't the Son of God and wasn't resurrected.

He is in the roman census's 3 of 'em :p

You clearly made the poll, and think that people that do not belive in a historical Jesus figure existed are stupid.

I can provide a dozen examples of where the Jesus story was cribbed from other religions that pre-date Christianity...so he fits really nicely into what people at the time liked to believe.

Can you provide ANY factual evidence of Jesus's existence outside of the Bible? The shroud and the tomb cover thing are not authenticated enough - you have to "believe" them since the historians do not.

So - your proof that we whgo see no evidence are stupid please?
He is in the roman census's 3 of 'em

Ack...who dug this thread up from the grave? LET IT DIE!

i cant pick an option =/ i dont think hes the son of god, a lunatic, a lier and i do think he existed

He is in the roman census's 3 of 'em
Strange that no non-christian historian has ever seen these census'.

You clearly made the poll, and think that people that do not belive in a historical Jesus figure existed are stupid.

I can provide a dozen examples of where the Jesus story was cribbed from other religions that pre-date Christianity...so he fits really nicely into what people at the time liked to believe.

Can you provide ANY factual evidence of Jesus's existence outside of the Bible? The shroud and the tomb cover thing are not authenticated enough - you have to "believe" them since the historians do not.

So - your proof that we whgo see no evidence are stupid please?

There is conclusive evidence that Jesus DID exist e.g. Jewish historian Josephus. Why on earth would he make up a story about Jesus - he didn't believe that he was the Messiah - he was a Jew!

Also, why would the Gospel writers make it up??? Have they got nothing better to do than to invent a person??? And surely, if Jesus didn't exist, Christianity would hardly be the world's largest religion?? There is NO doubt taht he existed.

Nor is there any doubt that he was crucified. Apart from historical documents testfying that, the Jewish Messianic expectations at the time did not accomodate the concept of Crucified Christ. The crucifixion of Jesus would have been an extreme embarrassment to his followers, who would have expected a political or militiristic messiah to lead a rebellion against the Romans. They thus would not have made up that he was killed!

*Drags thread through the streets of Rome, puts it on a cross in Gulgotha, stabs its hands to the cross, and then procedes to stab it repeatedly with a spear.*

JUST DIE THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!

There is absolutely no proof that everything written in the Bible is factual, let alone factually based. So, no, I don't believe that Jesus was the son of god, or a liar or a lunatic for that matter. I don't believe he claimed to be the son of god.

What I do believe is that Jesus was a revolutionary. a politician. a socialist. and i believe he was killed for his political standpoint. end of story.

This comes as close to my own view as you can get, although I'll pass a small comment on the claims to be the Son of God. He spent a lot of time with the people who were shut out from their religion, and becoming their champion. His time spent with the lepers and prostitutes and so on marks his refusal to accept these people should be spiritually condemned. By calling himself the son of god, I believe this could have had a more metaphorical purpose, in that he was cementing the spiritual rights of every member of society to have equal status - a "we're all the children of god" kinda statement.

But as you say, there's no proof that any of it is true, so it's all opinion at best.

Which Jesus are you talking about? I have a friend called Jesus and he has the best sould voice I ever heard.
There are loads of them. In Latin countries nearly every other bloke is called Jesus.


Does anybody care what happened two thousand and five years ago?

Which Jesus are you talking about? I have a friend called Jesus and he has the best sould voice I ever heard.
There are loads of them. In Latin countries nearly every other bloke is called Jesus.


Does anybody care what happened two thousand and five years ago?

Archaeologists do!

To the OT/OP:

I chose didn't exist because all of your other options were incorrect. Jesus was a man, a rabbi, and a very charasmatic and intelligent/wise one. He has a lot of good philosophy in his teachings and is someone whom I would encourage others to emmulate.

He was not the son of G-d. He was not a lunatic. He was most certainly not a liar. That he get's painted as any one or all of these three is the fault of the church that built around his teachings and not truly his own.

To the OT/OP:

I chose didn't exist because all of your other options were incorrect. Jesus was a man, a rabbi, and a very charasmatic and intelligent/wise one. He has a lot of good philosophy in his teachings and is someone whom I would encourage others to emmulate.

He was not the son of G-d. He was not a lunatic. He was most certainly not a liar. That he get's painted as any one or all of these three is the fault of the church that built around his teachings and not truly his own.
Seriously...LET IT DIE!!!!! *please*

Or start a new, fresh thread and put a decent poll up...

Seriously...LET IT DIE!!!!! *please*

Or start a new, fresh thread and put a decent poll up...


Then quit coming back to it and reading it...

There is conclusive evidence that Jesus DID exist e.g. Jewish historian Josephus. Why on earth would he make up a story about Jesus - he didn't believe that he was the Messiah - he was a Jew![/quote

actually, the passage regarding jesus in josephus' writings is a 4th century forgery.

[quote]Also, why would the Gospel writers make it up??? Have they got nothing better to do than to invent a person??? And surely, if Jesus didn't exist, Christianity would hardly be the world's largest religion?? There is NO doubt taht he existed.

why did disney do a remake of snow white and the seven dwarves?

they heard a story they liked, set it in their age and made it all exciting. the story of jesus is basically the story of mithras...

hey, i did a little research on wether there was historical evidence or not for a Jesus of Nazereth. thought you guys might be interested.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html#4

I put lunatic. Not because he thought himself this or that but for the same reason everyone who worships him is a lunatic.

Thus, by definition... :D

There is conclusive evidence that Jesus DID exist e.g. Jewish historian Josephus. Why on earth would he make up a story about Jesus - he didn't believe that he was the Messiah - he was a Jew!


Are you talking about that ONE paragraph, surrounded by unrelated material, which tells christians EVERYTHING they need to hear, in a different style of handwriting then the surrounding text, which was supposedly written by a guy who lived 30 years after Jesus' death? THAT Josephus?

Also, why would the Gospel writers make it up??? Have they got nothing better to do than to invent a person??? And surely, if Jesus didn't exist, Christianity would hardly be the world's largest religion?? There is NO doubt taht he existed.

The gospel writers, the guys who wrote the gospels 30-100 years after Jesus' death?

Nor is there any doubt that he was crucified. Apart from historical documents testfying that, the Jewish Messianic expectations at the time did not accomodate the concept of Crucified Christ. The crucifixion of Jesus would have been an extreme embarrassment to his followers, who would have expected a political or militiristic messiah to lead a rebellion against the Romans. They thus would not have made up that he was killed!

What historical documents? Why haven't any non-christian historians ever seen these documents?

Further, Jesus HAD to die, so of course they would have made that up. A messiah who does not die for the sins of the world isn't theologically any good.

Dude, I would have liked, "Existed but bought into a form of mass delusion", but I guess "A lunatic" will have to do.

*Drags thread through the streets of Rome, puts it on a cross in Gulgotha, stabs its hands to the cross, and then procedes to stab it repeatedly with a spear.*

JUST DIE THREAD DIE!!!!!!!!!
Congratulations, you just bumped it and kept it alive!

If you don't like this thread, then DON'T POST IN IT. Try ignoring it and looking at other threads. I'm sure you'd be SLIGHTLY annoyed if I went into a thread that you were enjoying, and demanded that it die. Go troll else where.

Are you talking about that ONE paragraph, surrounded by unrelated material, which tells christians EVERYTHING they need to hear, in a different style of handwriting then the surrounding text, which was supposedly written by a guy who lived 30 years after Jesus' death? THAT Josephus?

The gospel writers, the guys who wrote the gospels 30-100 years after Jesus' death?

What historical documents? Why haven't any non-christian historians ever seen these documents?

Further, Jesus HAD to die, so of course they would have made that up. A messiah who does not die for the sins of the world isn't theologically any good.

The gospels were most likely not written 30-100 years most of the disciples didn't live to see 100 and two many died shortly afterwards by the Romans, etc. (maybe 20-40 years after Christs death). You can't porve Jesus never existed. We can't prove without really using the Bible and other refferences that he was alive but with the Bible and other references such as Roman historic records, then we can prove the circumstances. Also, Jesus did have to die. The penalty of sin (any sin) is death. Another being then had to die physically for us then. Jesus, since he's perfect, could accomplish that. I haven't heard of any historical records that tell of Jesus's death but there are records of rulers, how they did things, what was going on, etc. Using the Bible and these references, the Bible cna be proven in many areas to be true.

Ok ive allready posted this on another thread but i think it warrants a second go

I worship George Orwell, Franz Kafka, Socrates and John Stewart Mill, they’ve all impacted the world more than Jesus ever did, as I keep saying Jesus did jack all to found the Christian religion (great thing that was too) he came he said a few things he got nailed to a piece of wood died them came back for a weekend then flew off. Way to found a religion, Abraham and Mohammed were way more practical, go out and find lots of people, ok Jesus may of done this a bit, but he picked the hick part (Galilee) of a hick province (judea) that no one in the roman empire cared about, wow convert a few hicks, and his disciples, useless bunch of layabouts, hell they all run away when he gets arrested, and keep falling asleep when he talks to them, and their involvement in the early church, most people think they wrote the gospels that’s wrong, Is it weren’t for pragmatic people like St. Paul who took it by the balls and lead it to the capitals of the roman empire, hell it would have stayed as a Jewish cult.
Jesus was a lazy bum, who only picked mediocre challenges, hell he basically stuck to a home crowd till the last week of his life. Then the Jeruslalem crowd dosent like him, beg the romans to nail him to a chuck off wood. So he sits there waiting to drown in his own lung fluid, he could magic him self off and maybe give it another try, hell he knows his disiples have gone and pissed off. No he just dies, and maybe makes one or two fans on the way out of his guards. It then takes him 3 days or so to motivate himself to get off his ass again, then he only bums about for a few days before going home to dad.
Jesus = Bum FACT!

this is what happens when you let a Socalist Take theology

Ack...who dug this thread up from the grave? LET IT DIE!

Tell me though, even if it was to die, what are the chances that something similar to it would be started again sometime in the near future (if this game continues which it probably will)? I'd say yes. You can kill an arguement. But the idea will remain alive as long as someone believes it.

Ok ive allready posted this on another thread but i think it warrants a second go

I worship George Orwell, Franz Kafka, Socrates and John Stewart Mill, they’ve all impacted the world more than Jesus ever did, as I keep saying Jesus did jack all to found the Christian religion (great thing that was too) he came he said a few things he got nailed to a piece of wood died them came back for a weekend then flew off. Way to found a religion, Abraham and Mohammed were way more practical, go out and find lots of people, ok Jesus may of done this a bit, but he picked the hick part (Galilee) of a hick province (judea) that no one in the roman empire cared about, wow convert a few hicks, and his disciples, useless bunch of layabouts, hell they all run away when he gets arrested, and keep falling asleep when he talks to them, and their involvement in the early church, most people think they wrote the gospels that’s wrong, Is it weren’t for pragmatic people like St. Paul who took it by the balls and lead it to the capitals of the roman empire, hell it would have stayed as a Jewish cult.
Jesus was a lazy bum, who only picked mediocre challenges, hell he basically stuck to a home crowd till the last week of his life. Then the Jeruslalem crowd dosent like him, beg the romans to nail him to a chuck off wood. So he sits there waiting to drown in his own lung fluid, he could magic him self off and maybe give it another try, hell he knows his disiples have gone and pissed off. No he just dies, and maybe makes one or two fans on the way out of his guards. It then takes him 3 days or so to motivate himself to get off his ass again, then he only bums about for a few days before going home to dad.
Jesus = Bum FACT!

this is what happens when you let a Socalist Take theology

Firstly, the Romans hated the Christians for a long time afterwards. There's a book (i can't remember the name) but it talks about all the horrors that the Romans did to the Christians. Also, Jesus really died. Find his body for instance. You can't. There are two explainations. One) He really died, rose again and was God. Two) It's a big fat lie although that wouldn't make sense then as to why people put their lives on the line for it. Thirdly, the Twelve disciples did write the gospels, otherwise who did? And why would they name them after the disciples? Matthew, Mark, Luke, they were all disciples. Letters were written from disciples, such as Romans from Peter, John 1,2,3, and Revelation from John. There are probably many others that I've missed but I hope that's enough.

You say Jesus=Bum Fact
I say Jesus=Son of God

Who's right? When we're dead then we'll know.

Oh ya, not to mention that if Jesus was on the cross, he wouldn't have been brought down unless he was dead and e wouldn't have been able to get out of the tomb. 1) Romans stabed ppl. on crosses to see if water flowed (lack of blood movement causes fuilds like water to settle). 2) rock in front of tomb took I believe it was 10 strong men to move. 3) There were Roman legionaires I believe it was, gaurding the tomb to make sure no one ran off with the body and said he rose again.

Firstly, the Romans hated the Christians for a long time afterwards. There's a book (i can't remember the name) but it talks about all the horrors that the Romans did to the Christians. Also, Jesus really died. Find his body for instance. You can't. There are two explainations. One) He really died, rose again and was God. Two) It's a big fat lie although that wouldn't make sense then as to why people put their lives on the line for it. Thirdly, the Twelve disciples did write the gospels, otherwise who did? And why would they name them after the disciples? Matthew, Mark, Luke, they were all disciples. Letters were written from disciples, such as Romans from Peter, John 1,2,3, and Revelation from John. There are probably many others that I've missed but I hope that's enough.

You say Jesus=Bum Fact
I say Jesus=Son of God

Who's right? When we're dead then we'll know.

Oh ya, not to mention that if Jesus was on the cross, he wouldn't have been brought down unless he was dead and e wouldn't have been able to get out of the tomb. 1) Romans stabed ppl. on crosses to see if water flowed (lack of blood movement causes fuilds like water to settle). 2) rock in front of tomb took I believe it was 10 strong men to move. 3) There were Roman legionaires I believe it was, gaurding the tomb to make sure no one ran off with the body and said he rose again.

A chalenger. Yay!
One) He really died, rose again and was God.
Or some birds/coyotes ect ate him, he did die of passover afterall and you cant bury people on passover :(

It's a big fat lie although that wouldn't make sense then as to why people put their lives on the line for it.[\QUOTE]
Lots and lots and lots of people died in the name of Juche (north koreas philosophy) in the Korean war, i could go on with examples but escape from New York is on.

[QUOTE=Teckor]
Oh ya, not to mention that if Jesus was on the cross, he wouldn't have been brought down unless he was dead and e wouldn't have been able to get out of the tomb. 1) Romans stabed ppl. on crosses to see if water flowed (lack of blood movement causes fuilds like water to settle). 2) rock in front of tomb took I believe it was 10 strong men to move. 3) There were Roman legionaires I believe it was, gaurding the tomb to make sure no one ran off with the body and said he rose again.
Well this isunt really a point more of a preach but, hell im feeling frisky
Name a source OTHER than the bible that documents this, youll strugle to find one trust me, No roman sources have it i belive, and the man who most of our knowledge of 1st centuary palestine the Jewish historian Josephus fails to mention it.

And the coup d' grace
Who's right? When we're dead then we'll know.
Wow great reason for belife in god, becuase if you dont when you die he might be upset, what a shallow reason, hell if your gonna belive in him do so for no reason.

Point set and match, now time to watch escape from New York

Thirdly, the Twelve disciples did write the gospels, otherwise who did? And why would they name them after the disciples? Matthew, Mark, Luke, they were all disciples. Letters were written from disciples, such as Romans from Peter, John 1,2,3, and Revelation from John. There are probably many others that I've missed but I hope that's enough.


WHOA i missed this gem. You could not be more wrong, simply. Ask any I mean any Biblical scholar of distintion if the gospels were written by the disiples and he/she will laugh in your face.
Theres a myraid of ways i could wittle this down really there is, Not only becuase there were hundreds of gospels, Thouse 4 where the ones that made it in, outside Historical sources also date their writing from i think its mark in about 60 ad, then mathew about 70-80, ten luke finaly about 90+, and John some where after or slighlty before that. You mean to say John lived to about 120 or more, uh huh, yes sure he did.

Then theres the synoptic problem, read mathew mark and luke, all basically the same thing with more bells and wistels added from mark to mathew to luke. Then theirs John, hell jesus isunt even human in that, hes a super man who shoots lasers and has mind control powers (slight exageration ok) but hes a complete diffrent charater and the natarions completely diffrent.
Know why, becuase it and all the other 'John' stuff was written by the johnanine community in damacus I think. A bunch of Gnostics pursacuted as heratics then assimilated into the church by including their gospel into the new testament.

Bah thats enough for one bout, dont make me get my notes out.

WHOA i missed this gem. You could not be more wrong, simply. Ask any I mean any Biblical scholar of distintion if the gospels were written by the disiples and he/she will laugh in your face.
Theres a myraid of ways i could wittle this down really there is, Not only becuase there were hundreds of gospels, Thouse 4 where the ones that made it in, outside Historical sources also date their writing from i think its mark in about 60 ad, then mathew about 70-80, ten luke finaly about 90+, and John some where after or slighlty before that. You mean to say John lived to about 120 or more, uh huh, yes sure he did.


Marry Magdelene (SP?) apparently also wrote a gosple, but it didn't make the final edit of the bible - perhaps something to do with keeping women in their place?.

There where loads, that might be the one where he dosent die, (the guy who carries the cross for him goes up instead, he sails off to france starts a familiy)
basically that dan brown or whatever stole its plot for the da vinci code