NationStates Jolt Archive

Since there are so many religious threads and related threads I just wanted to make this interesting poll.

On a note I believe he was a major messenger of God (or very spiritual high being that realized the spiritual reality sometimes called God)

He's kinda like the tooth fairy.

mythical founder of christianity.

A fusion of pagan saviour deities with Jewish messianic prophecies, probably with some additional influence from various people claiming to be the messiah during the Roman occupation. Add a generation or two where nobody writes anything down and voila.

He's kinda like the tooth fairy.

That serial killer from the Thomas Harris books?

Possibly a real man who gained some followers a few thousand years back.
Based on the Bible I can not call him especially good, nor especially bad. We would have had plenty of disagreements if we met, but possibly some nice debates as well.

Which polloption should I pick ?

That serial killer from the Thomas Harris books?

The very same.

A fusion of pagan saviour deities with Jewish messianic prophecies, probably with some additional influence from various people claiming to be the messiah during the Roman occupation. Add a generation or two where nobody writes anything down and voila.

You forgot the major influence of the Egyptian pantheon ;)

A fairly interesting fellow who went overboard.

Without meaning to debate the merits of each point, a strict Trinitarian view would hold that the first two poll options are mutually compatible.

Since you strongly imply that the first option is intended to reflect classic Nicean/Chalcedonian Trinitarian theology, you presumably intend the second option to be an Arian theological option whereby the Son is inferior to, and not co-substantial with, the Father.

Many people posting in this thread will probably think that an irrelevant point as regards their own worldview, but I thought it worth noting in passing given the intended nature of the thread.

A figure of the same historical veracity as someone like the Buddha; an amalgam of historical personage(s) with myth and legend, diluted, altered and appropriated by many different peoples over the years.

The character of Jesus, as featured in the modern Bible, promotes an interesting and largely palatable message.

A fairly interesting fellow who went overboard.

But I thought he could walk on water. :wink:

Jesus.. he's just this guy ey?


(you who have read hitchhikersguide will get it)

Great poker player, Cheetos fanatic, and wonderful taste in liquor. *nod*

A figure engineered by Paul of Tarsus and many others up to the Council of Nycaea and even later, based on a real-life jewish preacher (quite a good guy; probabily part of a splinter sect of judaism) who attempted to reform the jewish religion about 2000 years ago.

He's kinda like the tooth fairy.

The tooth fairy at least leaves coin. Jesus left a bunch of nutters. Don't diss the tooth fairy with the association.

But I thought he could walk on water. :wink:

Theoretically. :confused:

Nothing in between "good man" and "never existed" ?
I would have voted for something along the lines of "Overrated guy who most likely lived about 2k years ago. If he was around today he would probably be quite alienated by the various tradiditions that claim to be based on his teachings. He'd probably dislike most of his fan clubs and would strongly disagree with the things that happened (and keep happening) in his name."

The tooth fairy at least leaves coin. Jesus left a bunch of nutters. Don't diss the tooth fairy with the association.
Sorry to have tainted her good name.

Theoretically. :confused:

Oh, bummer. Guess he should have tested his theory.

He is a disgusting, cannibalistic, rotting Zombie. Sorry but eating flesh and drinking blood is disgusting and not fit for the modern world. Go be Cavemen somewhere else.

The tooth fairy at least leaves coin. Jesus left a bunch of nutters. Don't diss the tooth fairy with the association.

Actually when I was a kid I was told by my parents that Father Christmas and Baby Jesus brought the Christmas presents.

Then I grew out of it and realised that there's no Baby Jesus. Just Father Christmas.

He is a disgusting, cannibalistic, rotting Zombie. Sorry but eating flesh and drinking blood is disgusting and not fit for the modern world.
I was unaware that Jesus himself takes part in the Sacrament of Communion...

I was unaware that Jesus himself takes part in the Sacrament of Communion...

Is encouraging others to do so really any better ;) ?
Still, zombies are cute.

He is a disgusting, cannibalistic, rotting Zombie. Sorry but eating flesh and drinking blood is disgusting and not fit for the modern world. Go be Cavemen somewhere else.

Huh? I'm not a Neanderthal.

I was unaware that Jesus himself takes part in the Sacrament of Communion...

Dunno, but it's likely that he ate the bread and drank the wine during the Last Supper, isn't it?

I was unaware that Jesus himself takes part in the Sacrament of Communion...

no you just eat him. he's made of crackers and wine. that's why people can't find him they ate him

I will not say he isn't the Son of God, but to me he was more of an enlightened being, a teacher of spirituality. Someone worth emulating.

A possibly non-existent man, based on some truth, who caused one of the Great Plagues of Mankind. (Christianity) Seems like a nice guy though.

no you just eat him. he's made of crackers and wine. that's why people can't find him they ate him

I'm glad I'm not made of crackers and wine. That's a hell of a sacrifice to turn yourself into crackers and wine for your friends and followers. Don't belittle His generosity. :p

no you just eat him. he's made of crackers and wine. that's why people can't find him they ate him
I'd suggest you look into the history of the doctrine of transubstantiation, and its rejection by the Protestant church.

Atheistic buzzwords are fun, but you seem to be taking these ones too literally; more literally, incidentally, than the majority of Christians.

screw that i'm just gonna smoke a bowl instead

By many strict Trinity believing Christians only 2 peoples so far are assured of their Salvation and ticket to Heaven out of 17 who took this poll. Everyone else is not assured of their Salvation, or at the very least "lost".

Aerion you're trolling.
And you can't win against someone clearly medicated on the best herb ever.

By many strict Trinity believing Christians only 2 peoples so far are assured of their Salvation and ticket to Heaven out of 17 who took this poll. Everyone else is not assured of their Salvation, or at the very least "lost".

Well, for sure I wouldn't like to spend eternity with Christians.

By many strict Trinity believing Christians only 2 peoples so far are assured of their Salvation and ticket to Heaven out of 17 who took this poll. Everyone else is not assured of their Salvation, or at the very least "lost".
how very sad to not get salvation that i dont believe exists.

Trinitarianism only came about as a way of excluding all the other little Christian churches that were threatening the power of the orthodox church during the time just prior to the Council of Nicea.

By many strict Trinity believing Christians only 2 peoples so far are assured of their Salvation and ticket to Heaven out of 17 who took this poll. Everyone else is not assured of their Salvation, or at the very least "lost".

http://images.cafepress.com/image/22199693_125x125.jpg

Aerion you're trolling.
And you can't win against someone clearly medicated on the best herb ever.

Basil? :confused:

By many strict Trinity believing Christians only 2 peoples so far are assured of their Salvation and ticket to Heaven out of 17 who took this poll. Everyone else is not assured of their Salvation, or at the very least "lost".
by many non-strict trinitarian christians everyone on the poll is just fine.

funny how that works.

by many non-strict trinitarian christians everyone on the poll is just fine.

funny how that works.

I live in the Bible Belt but most Christians I know would think all are lost who do not believe the Trinity. Of course the two biggest denominations in my area are Church of Christ (the conservative kind) and Baptists.

Being someone who does care about spirituality I find it somewhat offensive how many Christians think everyone outside of that paradigm is incapable of mysticism or any spiritual development.

screw that i'm just gonna smoke a bowl instead

Aerion you're trolling.
And you can't win against someone clearly medicated on the best herb ever.

Big whoop! You smoke green.

I live in the Bible Belt but most Christians I know would think all are lost who do not believe the Trinity. Of course the two biggest denominations in my area are Church of Christ (the conservative kind) and Baptists.

Being someone who does care about spirituality I find it somewhat offensive how many Christians think everyone outside of that paradigm is incapable of mysticism or any spiritual development.

They are just insecure about the size of Jesus' dick. Back in Jesus' time, people fought all the time about the size of dicks; especially their gods' dicks. Jesus then tried to teach that it wasn't the size of one's dick that mattered, it was how you used it. Many Christians now take that as proof that Jesus had the biggest dick. Jesus isn't happy about that either. :tongue:

They are just insecure about the size of Jesus' dick. Back in Jesus' time, people fought all the time about the size of dicks; especially their gods' dicks. Jesus then tried to teach that it wasn't the size of one's dick that mattered, it was how you used it. Many Christians now take that as proof that Jesus had the biggest dick. Jesus isn't happy about that either. :tongue:

You are now my favourite theologian.

screw that i'm just gonna smoke a bowl instead

There are no two thing more compatable than getting high and conemplating the nature of the god and the universe. If you haven't realized that then your not smoking the best herb ever. Infact if you get high enough even the trinity makes perfect sense.

Without meaning to debate the merits of each point, a strict Trinitarian view would hold that the first two poll options are mutually compatible.

Since you strongly imply that the first option is intended to reflect classic Nicean/Chalcedonian Trinitarian theology, you presumably intend the second option to be an Arian theological option whereby the Son is inferior to, and not co-substantial with, the Father.

Many people posting in this thread will probably think that an irrelevant point as regards their own worldview, but I thought it worth noting in passing given the intended nature of the thread.

You do have a point- the Trinity concept has been the subject of several heresies (some of which actually are not bad, so if you belong to a faith in this list, do not be offended as it is merely a traditional Christian perspective, does not say anything negative about one's faith, intellect, or character): Arian, Gnostic, Ebionite, and Cathars (all ancient and currently too small to mention).

Also heretical movements include Unitarian Universalist, Anabaptist (includes modern day Amish and Mennonite communities), Mormons, and FLDS (separated these two out of respect for the fact that LDS hates being lumped with FLDS and Rev. Warren Jeffs) (all modern, and large).

You are now my favourite theologian.

I do owe some credit to George Carlin's "My God has a bigger dick than your God!" rant. I merely expanded on it. :)

A man. Same as anyone else - somethimes good, somethimes bad. He definentley existed though, we have enough evidence to prove that.

A man. Same as anyone else - somethimes good, somethimes bad. He definentley existed though, we have enough evidence to prove that.

Really? I seem to recall that we (NSG) came to a different conclusion a while back... (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=545783)

A man. Same as anyone else - somethimes good, somethimes bad. He definentley existed though, we have enough evidence to prove that.

Do we? Can you show me this evidence?

Do we? Can you show me this evidence?

There's a death warant somewhere. There's quite a lot of anecdotal evidence (the Bible) as well. It's pretty likely he did exist, though most likely as a local holy man in Jeruselem.

There's a death warant somewhere. There's quite a lot of anecdotal evidence (the Bible) as well. It's pretty likely he did exist, though most likely as a local holy man in Jeruselem.

The Bible can't hardly be taken as anecdotal evidence.

There's a death warant somewhere. There's quite a lot of anecdotal evidence (the Bible) as well. It's pretty likely he did exist, though most likely as a local holy man in Jeruselem.

That might not have been for the real ju5u5.



NOTE- I'm u5ing 5'5 in5ead of 5'5 co5 my keyboard'5 fucked.

The Bible can't hardly be taken as anecdotal evidence.

It is a historical account, admitadly a massively inacurate one.

It is a historical account, admitadly a massively inacurate one.

It'5 Oushikoso.

It is a historical account, admitadly a massively inacurate one.

Therein lies why we can't take it as anecdotal evidence. It's quite innacurate.

It'5 Oushikoso.

Do you want another kitty-spanking, Kentian? <_<

Do you want another kitty-spanking, Kentian? <_<

Hell yeah!

Hell yeah!

Bend over!

Who's Oshikoso, hm?

That might not have been for the real ju5u5.

NOTE- I'm u5ing 5'5 in5ead of 5'5 co5 my keyboard'5 fucked.

It was for a Jesus though. And even without it we could assume he did exist at some point - we do that regularly with people theres equally little evidence for. All we have of Julius Ceaser is statues, and a few documents relating to his exploits. That's what we have for Jesus. All that is left of Gengis Khan is a name - we have no tomb, and very few Mongol documents survive. No one doubts they existed though. The reason we doubt Jesus' existence is because of the religous conatations - we assume that as one aspect is untrue, all of it is untrue.

Bend over!

Who's Oshikoso, hm?

Argh! *take the beating like a man*

Therein lies why we can't take it as anecdotal evidence. It's quite innacurate.

As are most historical accounts. Like the battle were the Romans killed 100,000 Britons - roughly the population of Britain at the time.

It was for a Jesus though. And even without it we could assume he did exist at some point - we do that regularly with people theres equally little evidence for. All we have of Julius Ceaser is statues, and a few documents relating to his exploits. That's what we have for Jesus. All that is left of Gengis Khan is a name - we have no tomb, and very few Mongol documents survive. No one doubts they existed though. The reason we doubt Jesus' existence is because of the religous conatations - we assume that as one aspect is untrue, all of it is untrue.

Exactly, 5ome guy5 made up 5ome oshikoso and u5ed to get po3er.

irrk u5ing 3'5 in5eadt of double u'5

Therein lies why we can't take it as anecdotal evidence. It's quite innacurate.

Herodotus says Africans have black sperm, but his book is still considered history.

As are most historical accounts. Like the battle were the Romans killed 100,000 Britons - roughly the population of Britain at the time.

The things with these historical accounts you make reference to is that they were written by the historians of these civilizations. Mostly right after the things happened. The Bible, the part that mentions Jesus (NT), was written what, 200 years after the crucifixion of the Cristos?

The things with these historical accounts you make reference to is that they were written by the historians of these civilizations. Mostly right after the things happened. The Bible, the part that mentions Jesus (NT), was written what, 200 years after the crucifixion of the Cristos?

No; much of it was written by those who personally knew Jesus. Luke never knew him, which is why his book is so absurd.

The things with these historical accounts you make reference to is that they were written by the historians of these civilizations. Mostly right after the things happened. The Bible, the part that mentions Jesus (NT), was written what, 200 years after the crucifixion of the Cristos?

Actually the acount of the battle in question (I'm tryin to remeber it's name) was also writen the best part of two hundred years later. My point is we have just as much evidence that Jesus existed as many other historical figures, and yet only question his existence. Either we show him the same leway we do Ceaser and Gengis, among others, or we deny any of there existences. The accounts of their exploits are equally inacurate, one sided and written just as long after.

It was for a Jesus though. And even without it we could assume he did exist at some point - we do that regularly with people theres equally little evidence for. All we have of Julius Ceaser is statues, and a few documents relating to his exploits. That's what we have for Jesus. All that is left of Gengis Khan is a name - we have no tomb, and very few Mongol documents survive. No one doubts they existed though. The reason we doubt Jesus' existence is because of the religous conatations - we assume that as one aspect is untrue, all of it is untrue.

No. We have words written by Julius Caesar himself (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commentarii_de_Bello_Gallico).

Let us not forget also the DNA evidence showing how a large percentage of the population of Asia is descended from Genghis Khan.

No; much of it was written by those who personally knew Jesus. Luke never knew him, which is why his book is so absurd.

According to Wiki:

The exact composition of the Bible is dependent on the religious traditions of specific denominations.

The New Testament was written primarily in Koine Greek in the early Christian period, though a minority argue for Aramaic primacy.

The books of the New Testament were written in Koine Greek, the language of the earliest extant manuscripts, even though some authors often included translations from Hebrew and Aramaic texts. Certainly the Pauline Epistles were written in Greek for Greek-speaking audiences. See Greek primacy. Some scholars believe that some books of the Greek New Testament (in particular, the Gospel of Matthew) are actually translations of a Hebrew or Aramaic original. Of these, a small number accept the Syriac Peshitta as representative of the original. See Aramaic primacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible#Christian_Bible

No; much of it was written by those who personally knew Jesus.

Like ?

It is a historical account, admitadly a massively inacurate one.

Did you read that before hitting "submit reply"?

Did you read that before hitting "submit reply"?

I'm sure he did not.

I'm sure he did not.

If he's thinking his statement actually supports his position, he's greatly mistaken.

If he's thinking his statement actually supports his position, he's greatly mistaken.

I know. I'm still waiting on a response.

Did you read that before hitting "submit reply"?

I did. My point is that while the Bible is innacurate, biased, written for a specific purpose, it is still a historical account, and can't be ignored. Most 'proper' historical sources - such as the works of Tactisu for example - are equally inacurate and biased. Yet we still use them as historical sources despite these flaws, and it would be wrong to judge the bible diferently just as it is a relegious tome.

Yet we still use them as historical sources despite these flaws, and it would be wrong to judge the bible diferently just as it is a relegious tome.

That's because the Bible IS a religious tome, codex, book. It's the book by which Christians live by, what they follow. It is not a historical account.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible
The Bible is the central religious text of Judaism and Christianity.

I did. My point is that while the Bible is innacurate, biased, written for a specific purpose, it is still a historical account, and can't be ignored. Most 'proper' historical sources - such as the works of Tactisu for example - are equally inacurate and biased. Yet we still use them as historical sources despite these flaws, and it would be wrong to judge the bible diferently just as it is a relegious tome.

Name some things in the bible that have been shown conclusively to be historically accurate.

Ted Neeley.

Name some things in the bible that have been shown conclusively to be historically accurate.

How aobut the setting of it? It is entirely accurate of the period - the mentioned peoples and nations (ie- the Galatians) are historicaly accurate. Augustus' census happened. Pontius Pilate was the prefect of Judea. The places mentioned all existed.

I chose part of the Trinity of course. The poll needs an A,B,C,D, and E of the above.

God/of the same essence as (Trinity view) ->yes
Son of God -> Yes
A Messenger of God -> Yes
A prophet/spiritually enlightened teacher -> yes
A Good Man -> Yes

never existed historically -> No
some totally different figure (Describe below) -> No, or I can not think of valid answer not already covered above.

How aobut the setting of it? It is entirely accurate of the period - the mentioned peoples and nations (ie- the Galatians) are historicaly accurate. Augustus' census happened. Pontius Pilate was the prefect of Judea. The places mentioned all existed.

It's the things that happend in the bible that didn't.

How aobut the setting of it? It is entirely accurate of the period - the mentioned peoples and nations (ie- the Galatians) are historicaly accurate. Augustus' census happened. Pontius Pilate was the prefect of Judea. The places mentioned all existed.

You make some excellent points. Thank you for joining the discussion.

How aobut the setting of it? It is entirely accurate of the period - the mentioned peoples and nations (ie- the Galatians) are historicaly accurate. Augustus' census happened. Pontius Pilate was the prefect of Judea. The places mentioned all existed.

On the historical accuracy of the Bible, by Dr. Farell Till:
Such a claim as this is almost too absurd to deserve space for publication, because archaeology could prove the inerrancy of the Bible only if it unearthed undeniable evidence of the accuracy of every single statement in the Bible. If archaeological confirmation of, say, 95% of the information in the Bible should exist, then this would not constitute archaeological proof that the Bible is inerrant, because it would always be possible that error exists in the unconfirmed five percent.

The Moabite Stone, for example, corroborates the biblical claim that there was a king of Moab named Mesha, but the inscription on the stone gives a different account of the war between Moab and the Israelites recorded in 2 Kings 3. Mesha's inscription on the stone claimed overwhelming victory, but the biblical account claims that the Israelites routed the Moabite forces and withdrew only after they saw Mesha sacrifice his eldest son as a burnt offering on the wall of the city the Moabites had retreated to (2 Kings 3:26-27). So the Moabite Stone, rather than corroborating the accuracy of the biblical record, gives reason to suspect that both accounts are biased. Mesha's inscription gave an account favorable to the Moabites, and the biblical account was slanted to favor the Israelites. The actual truth about the battle will probably never be known.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

As for the settings. All the settings that appear on the stories of the Fianna of Ireland, exist and have been proven to exist. That, however, does not prove that Fionn MacChuimal and his warriors ever existed.

On the historical accuracy of the Bible, by Dr. Farell Till:




http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

As for the settings. All the settings that appear on the stories of the Fianna of Ireland, exist and have been proven to exist. That, however, does not prove that Fionn MacChuimal and his warriors ever existed.

You're using allot of uotes today, ya just 3ant someone to argue for you don't you.

Like ?

Most of Mark and John.

Most of Mark.

Mark's a dude, ain't he?

Mark's a dude, ain't he?

Also a book.

From a Wikipedia article, concerning The Book of John: "Most modern experts conclude that the author was an unknown non-eyewitness.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

A heretical rabbi, and a good man.

You're using allot of uotes today, ya just 3ant someone to argue for you don't you.

Nope, I'm just responding to what NSG asks for. Back your shit up.:wink:

Also a book.

So this bloke is a book? Chritianity is fucked up.

From a Wikipedia article, concerning The Book of John: "Most modern experts conclude that the author was an unknown non-eyewitness.[17]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel_of_John

Which, yet again, makes the Bible one hell of an innacurate account.

Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.

http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

On the historical accuracy of the Bible, by Dr. Farell Till:




http://www.theskepticalreview.com/tsrmag/982front.html

As for the settings. All the settings that appear on the stories of the Fianna of Ireland, exist and have been proven to exist. That, however, does not prove that Fionn MacChuimal and his warriors ever existed.

It all depends upon what parts of the Bible you are speaking of. Roman mythology is not particularly historically accurate, but Livy's history if full of mythology, yet is considered fairly accurate in many parts.

Most of Mark and John.

You mean we know for certain who wrote those texts ? That's big news ! WHen will the article be published ?

Nope, I'm just responding to what NSG asks for. Back your shit up.:wink:

No3 that just sounds 3rong.

It all depends upon what parts of the Bible you are speaking of. Roman mythology is not particularly historically accurate, but Livy's history if full of mythology, yet is considered fairly accurate in many parts.

You're referring to mythology, myth being the key word there.

Which, yet again, makes the Bible one hell of an innacurate account.

It certainly is not 100% accurate; I would say that certain books offer a good, rough sketch. For instance, it is mentioned that after Mary was pregnant, Joseph was going to a divorce her until a dream changed his mind. This is not too far-fetched. And it is later implied Christ bears a grudge toward his mother, since he refused to see her. Christ also is said to be a rabbi, which would explain his knowledge of the Old Testament (he could read).

It certainly is not 100% accurate; I would say that certain books offer a good, rough sketch. For instance, it is mentioned that after Mary was pregnant, Joseph was going to a divorce her until a dream changed his mind. This is not too far-fetched. And it is later implied Christ bears a grudge toward his mother, since he refused to see her. Christ all is said to be a rabbi, which would explain his knowledge of the Old Testament (he could read).

And yet, when one comes right down to it, we have a historical record hand picked and nit-picked by the Council of Nicea, 300 years or so after the death of Jesus. That says a lot for accuracy.

You're referring to mythology, myth being the key word there.

I am saying that although there are loads of shit about supernatural intervention in Livy's works, they are still considered historical in many respects.

It has a lot to do with the age of the work. The further back you look in the Bible, the less accurate it will be.

On the historical accuracy of the Bible, by Dr. Farell Till:

Other archaeological discoveries haven't just cast doubt on the accuracy of some biblical information but have shown some accounts to be completely erroneous. A notable example would be the account of Joshua's conquest and destruction of the Canaanite city of Ai. According to Joshua 8, Israelite forces attacked Ai, burned it, "utterly destroyed all the inhabitants," and made it a "heap forever" (vs:26-28). Extensive archaeological work at the site of Ai, however, has revealed that the city was destroyed and burned around 2400 B. C., which would have been over a thousand years before the time of Joshua. Joseph Callaway, a conservative Southern Baptist and professor at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, spent nine years excavating the ruins of ancient Ai and afterwards reported that what he found there contradicted the biblical record.


Wich supports my point. We regularly use biased and inacurate sources and documents as historical evidence, despite such faults. We should do the same with the Bible if we are to be consistent. If we require higher standards from the Bible just because it's a relgious tome then we are bad historiaons, and bad debaters.

It certainly is not 100% accurate; I would say that certain books offer a good, rough sketch. For instance, it is mentioned that after Mary was pregnant, Joseph was going to a divorce her until a dream changed his mind. This is not too far-fetched. And it is later implied Christ bears a grudge toward his mother, since he refused to see her. Christ also is said to be a rabbi, which would explain his knowledge of the Old Testament (he could read).

I thought he 3as a carpenter, make your mind up.


The dream ain't so farfetched, it's the immaculate conseption that is a load of shyte.

The dream ain't so farfetched, it's the immaculate conseption that is a load of shyte.

Agreed. But that's no reaosn to declare it all bullshit.

And yet, when one comes right down to it, we have a historical record hand picked and nit-picked by the Council of Nicea, 300 years or so after the death of Jesus. That says a lot for accuracy.

You might want to take a look at Durant's work on the period. He takes apart the New Testament's parts on Christ, and compares them with each other, with laws, human nature, and language alterations to determine accuracy. One thing he says is that Jesus was tied, not nailed, to the cross.

Agreed. But that's no reaosn to declare it all bullshit.

That is a perfectly good reason. If the basis of the religion is shyte then the rest is. Mary as just a dirty slut.

Someone who may or may not have existed historically who had some pretty good ideas about loving everyone no matter what race, sex, creed, status, or lifestyle they were, helping the poor, and fighting the power.

That is a perfectly good reason. If the basis of the religion is shyte then the rest is. Mary as just a dirty slut.

Einstein refused to believe in an expanding universe. Does that mean all his work in physics must be wrong?

I thought he 3as a carpenter, make your mind up.

His father was a carpenter, therefore many of us assume he was. If he was not a rabbi then he would be nothing, short of fiction since few Jews could read or quote the OT like he could.

He is referred to as rabbi numerous times in the NT (although fuckers often translate it as "teacher", which is what rabbi meant).


The dream ain't so farfetched, it's the immaculate conseption that is a load of shyte.

Sure, superstitious humans like to add fiction and meaning to things.

I thought he 3as a carpenter, make your mind up.


The dream ain't so farfetched, it's the immaculate conseption that is a load of shyte.

He was handy with a hammer and nails. A handyman might be a better description.

That is a perfectly good reason. If the basis of the religion is shyte then the rest is. Mary as just a dirty slut.

So Livy is all bullshit?

Einstein refused to believe in an expanding universe. Does that mean all his work in physics must be wrong?

Possibly. Is the basis of that other work wellgrounded ? Did he "show his work" ?

Einstein refused to believe in an expanding universe. Does that mean all his work in physics must be wrong?
Acctually a fe of his theorie have been disproven. It's stubbon people like him that hold up science.
His father was a carpenter, therefore many of us assume he was. If he was not a rabbi then he would be nothing, short of fiction since few Jews could read or quote the OT like he could.

He is referred to as rabbi numerous times in the NT (although fuckers often translate it as "teacher", which is what rabbi meant).


So you can't even deside amongst yourselevs?

So you can't even deside amongst yourselevs?

Who are "ourselves", precisely?

Acctually a fe of his theorie have been disproven. It's stubbon people like him that hold up science.
...

That's nice.

Now, do you believe that all of his work is wrong?

Well he's the Son of God to me, that's what the Bible says. Some Christians consider him to be God himself though, so I don't know. The most important thing is that Jesus was a very wise and good man and an inspiration to leading a good life. That's what I think :)

Who are "ourselves", precisely?

Religious peeps.

Religious peeps.

I think you have pigeon-holed me wrong.

His father was a carpenter, therefore many of us assume he was.

IIRC, don't the Hebrew (or is it Aramaic?) words for Rabbi and carpenter sound similar?

Religious peeps.

I wouldn't call myslef relegious. I got thrown out of my RE class for insulting Yahwe - my teacher was a bit of a fundy.

I wouldn't call myslef relegious. I got thrown out of my RE class for insulting Yahwe - my teacher was a bit of a fundy.

Please elaborate.

IIRC, don't the Hebrew (or is it Aramaic?) words for Rabbi and carpenter sound similar?

The NT was written in Greek. I think John (or whoever the hell he was) could differentiate the two.

As a devout Roman Catholic, I believe that Christ is the Son of God and is God at the same time, as according to the Trinity.

Please elaborate.

Oh I was just generaly disrepectful, and constantly made my disdain for relegion obvious. Plus I laughed when the 'documentary' he showed us featured a beardy guy from alabama who was trying to persuade us that abortion was evil and that god punishes non-christians with aids, which was funny as he consistently failed to back up his claims with evidence beyond the good book.

Oh I was just generaly disrepectful, and constantly made my disdain for relegion obvious. Plus I laughed when the 'documentary' he showed us featured a beardy guy from alabama who was trying to persuade us that abortion was evil and that god punishes non-christians with aids, which was funny as he consistently failed to back up his claims with evidence beyond the good book.

And you got kicked out for that? The teacher was out of order.

And you got kicked out for that? The teacher was out of order.

As I said, he was a fundy. And I was extremely disruptive in the process. Constantly questoning his authority and arguing with him. But then he was teaching us nothing but the good book, and was a terible teacher.

But then he was teaching us nothing but the good book

Isn't that illegal?

I'm sure that if I had met the person, I would have had moments when I appreciated his wit, but I doubt that I would have liked him much - self-righteous people have that effect on me. But, since I haven't met him (and given when he is reported to have lived, I won't), he's really nothing to me.

And I was extremely disruptive in the process. Constantly questoning his authority

This is why you got kicked out. You were being juvenile. Dont try and pretend that it was because you werent religious. You were upset that you had to take a religion class and so threw a fit and were removed for being disruptive.

I'm sure that if I had met the person, I would have had moments when I appreciated his wit, but I doubt that I would have liked him much - self-righteous people have that effect on me. But, since I haven't met him (and given when he is reported to have lived, I won't), he's really nothing to me.

He claimed he would not take another sip of wine until he returned, so he must be somewhat thirsty. I imagine you could get a free ticket to Heaven if you take him to a decent pub when he visits--he will probably lighten-up a bit, too.

I think you have pigeon-holed me wrong.

I wouldn't call myslef relegious. I got thrown out of my RE class for insulting Yahwe - my teacher was a bit of a fundy.
Sorry Parkus and Bel, but hy defend it, if ya don't believe it/
As a devout Roman Catholic, I believe that Christ is the Son of God and is God at the same time, as according to the Trinity.
Isn't that incest?
Oh I was just generaly disrepectful, and constantly made my disdain for relegion obvious. Plus I laughed when the 'documentary' he showed us featured a beardy guy from alabama who was trying to persuade us that abortion was evil and that god punishes non-christians with aids, which was funny as he consistently failed to back up his claims with evidence beyond the good book.

ROFL. I ued to do the same. I had the most arrogant teacher ever.

A man who mistakenly followed old-hat religious doctrines (as was custom in his time), and who was crucified b/c he was thought of as a threat to Roman Power. After this, a bunch of absurd folktales and legends were made up about him and used by a despotic and fascist Church to control people, which sadly still continues today.

Isn't that illegal?

Nope. Not if your the head of department, and get the course from a really obscure welsh exam board that usually only operates in Wales. As long as you cover other relgions previously you can do nothing but Christianity at GCSE. I took the exam anyway, and got an A. I made sure he was aware of that.

Nope. Not if your the head of department, and get the course from a really obscure welsh exam board that usually only operates in Wales. As long as you cover other relgions previously you can do nothing but Christianity at GCSE. I took the exam anyway, and got an A. I made sure he was aware of that.

Oh, you're in Wales. Well that explains a lot.

OH, you're in Wales. Well that explains a lot.



You live right next to them don't ya?

I thought he 3as a carpenter, make your mind up.


The dream ain't so farfetched, it's the immaculate conseption that is a load of shyte.

Now, the Immaculate Conception is something from the Catholic Tradition.

Sorry Parkus and Bel, but hy defend it, if ya don't believe it/

1: I enjoy taking the contrary opinion.

2: I think parts of it are true, just most of it (especially the Old Testament) has to be taken with a grain of salt. I do not have to believe Christ rose from the grave to think he was a person who existed.

Sorry Parkus and Bel, but hy defend it, if ya don't believe it?

Because I'm capable of putting aside my relgious beliefs (or lack of - Zorastor doesn't count) and recognize when somethigns a bad argument. There is just as much evidence for Jesus as many other historical figures, and personaly I believe he existed as a religous leader who, tohugh misguided, was real. Saying he didn't exist becasue god doesn't exist is a bad logic.

IIRC, don't the Hebrew (or is it Aramaic?) words for Rabbi and carpenter sound similar?

They do, same as Satan and saitan (obstacle) do.

Now, the Immaculate Conception is something from the Catholic Tradition.
Spain's catholic, isin't it?
1: I enjoy taking the contrary opinion.

2: I think parts of it are true, just most (especially the Old Testament) have to be taken with a grain of salt.

Parts of it are true, parts of it are exagerated, and parts of it never happened

There is just as much evidence for Jesus as many other historical figures

Actually, no there isnt.

Because I'm capable of putting aside my relgious beliefs (or lack of - Zorastor doesn't count) and recognize when somethigns a bad argument. There is just as much evidence for Jesus as many other historical figures, and personaly I believe he existed as a religous leader who, tohugh misguided, was real. Saying he didn't exist becasue god doesn't exist is a bad logic.

Now, if Jesus existed, saying he was misguided is a bit... pretentious of you.

Spain's catholic, isin't it?

Yes, the country is mainly (or used to be) Catholic.

Parts of it are true, parts of it are exagerated, and parts of it never happened

Right, so saying it is pure fiction is wrong.

Right, so saying it is pure fiction is wrong.

So is saying it is a historically accurate account.

Oh, you're in Wales. Well that explains a lot.

London actually. He just picked a welsh course so he could teach nothing but Christianity.

Because I'm capable of putting aside my relgious beliefs (or lack of - Zorastor doesn't count) and recognize when somethigns a bad argument. There is just as much evidence for Jesus as many other historical figures, and personaly I believe he existed as a religous leader who, tohugh misguided, was real. Saying he didn't exist becasue god doesn't exist is a bad logic.

I ala3ts thought it as called Zarathushtra.

Now, if Jesus existed, saying he was misguided is a bit... pretentious of you.

He started by preaching a message of peace, then his followers corrupted him in believing himself the Son of God.

He started by preaching a message of peace, then his followers corrupted him in believing himself the Son of God.

Proof?

Right, so saying it is pure fiction is wrong.
...
So is saying it is a historically accurate account.

Now, if Jesus existed, saying he was misguided is a bit... pretentious of you.

I was refering to the beleiving he was the son of god thing. Jesus had a bit of a god complex y'know.

Actually, no there isnt.

He said many not any.

...

I never said it was a totally historically accurate account.

Jesus is Lord. Nuff said.

This is Jesus for me.

http://www.combustibleorange.com/images/comics/11.gif

I was refering to the beleiving he was the son of god thing. Jesus had a bit of a god complex y'know.

Once again, you don't know if Jesus actually said he was the son of God. Those you say he did were put to writing centuries after Jesus's alleged crucifixion.

Once again, you don't know if Jesus actually said he was the son of God. Those you say he did were put to writing centuries after Jesus's alleged crucifixion.

Josephus mentions him as saying that.

You live right next to them don't ya?

No. http://maps.google.co.uk/ Look for Bristol.

Josephus mentions him as saying that.

And Josephus wrote the account that appears on the Bible himself?

I will not say he isn't the Son of God, but to me he was more of an enlightened being, a teacher of spirituality. Someone worth emulating.

^^ This

By many strict Trinity believing Christians only 2 peoples so far are assured of their Salvation and ticket to Heaven out of 17 who took this poll. Everyone else is not assured of their Salvation, or at the very least "lost".

Depends on your definition of Heaven. Honestly if the Evangelical Fundies made it to Heaven, then maybe Hell won't be so bad. ;)

They are just insecure about the size of Jesus' dick. Back in Jesus' time, people fought all the time about the size of dicks; especially their gods' dicks. Jesus then tried to teach that it wasn't the size of one's dick that mattered, it was how you used it. Many Christians now take that as proof that Jesus had the biggest dick. Jesus isn't happy about that either. :tongue:

Teach me your ways master.

Do you want another kitty-spanking, Kentian? <_<

I want a spanking.

The things with these historical accounts you make reference to is that they were written by the historians of these civilizations. Mostly right after the things happened. The Bible, the part that mentions Jesus (NT), was written what, 200 years after the crucifixion of the Cristos?

I thought they wrote it down 40 years after the event of Christ

Now, the Immaculate Conception is something from the Catholic Tradition.

I thought all traditions believe that Mary and Yahweh got it on one night.

London actually. He just picked a welsh course so he could teach nothing but Christianity.

But how can you use a Welsh course in England?

And Josephus wrote the account that appears on the Bible himself?

No; the point is that there are sources besides the Bible that describe Christ as calling himself the Son of God.

But how can you use a Welsh course in England?

There both in the UK, and it came in english and welsh. I half expected him to put me in for the welsh exam as punishment for my heresy.

Jesus is just all right with me.

Jesus is just all right with me.

Are you two going steady?

I think he's someone people waste too much time on.

I think he's someone people waste too much time on.

He probably ranks among the top ten most influential individuals in history.

No. http://maps.google.co.uk/ Look for Bristol.

Geez! You were actually looking at my house. Are you stalking me?

EDIT: You're not as far north as I thought. You're virtually in line with me.


EDIT2: How did you know my post code?

He probably ranks among the top ten most influential individuals in history.

I know, it's ridiculous.

I ranked No.1

-- snip -

I didn't think you were supposed to say that any more, lol.

I know, it's ridiculous.

Let us see you do better.

No; the point is that there are sources besides the Bible that describe Christ as calling himself the Son of God.

Sources that are either apocryphal or other religious tomes.

-snips-

You might want to edit that unless you want the Mod to get involved.

Sources that are either apocryphal or other religious tomes.

Argh! More big scary words!

Argh! More big scary words!

Google it! Do your homework, Kentian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

Are you two going steady?

He's my friend, yeah.

Google it! Do your homework, Kentian.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apocrypha

It's the school holidays, I'm supposed to be resting my weary brain.

It's the school holidays, I'm supposed to be resting my weary brain.

I'm on sick leave, mate. That's no excuse for being lazy.:wink:

Let us see you do better.

What do you mean by that? In my opinion I don't need to do better, I just wanna do things my way.

There both in the UK, and it came in english and welsh. I half expected him to put me in for the welsh exam as punishment for my heresy.

But don't the 2 countries have different education systems?

It's the school holidays, I'm supposed to be resting my weary brain.

That explains the posts in the middle of the day.

I'm on sick leave, mate. That's no excuse for being lazy.:wink:
Yeah, but you're off for a whole year! It'll be ages before I get any more time off cos I got exams so I think I'm entitled to a small break, don't you? You're so lucky, you've got time off to lounge around in the sun, while I have fucking exams.
What do you mean by that? In my opinion I don't need to do better, I just wanna do things my way.

That explains the posts in the middle of the day.

Huh?

btw, HOW THE FUCK DID YOU FIND OUT MY POST CODE!?

Yeah, but you're off for a whole year! It'll be ages before I get any more time off cos I got exams so I think I'm entitled to a small break, don't you? You're so lucky, you've got time off to lounge around in the sun, while I have fucking exams.

I wish I was back home, to be quite honest. But that's not what's being discussed here.

But don't the 2 countries have different education systems?

Not really. There are some diferences, but exam boards are interchangeable.

I wish I was back home, to be quite honest. But that's not what's being discussed here.

Really? You wish you were back at work? I'll swap. ;)

Really? You wish you were back at work? I'll swap. ;)

Maybe not at work, no, but back in Spain? Fuck yeah.

btw, HOW THE FUCK DID YOU FIND OUT MY POST CODE!?

I didn't.

I didn't.

That map you linked was pointing at my house and it had my post code written in the search bar.

That map you linked was pointing at my house and it had my post code written in the search bar.

I think NNLDI was just referring to you making posts on NSG in the middle of the day, RoI.

I think NNLDI was just referring to you making posts on NSG in the middle of the day, RoI.

With a map?

With a map?

I didn't see that map, though. If there was a map as you say, ask him to edit it.

That map you linked was pointing at my house and it had my post code written in the search bar.

Oh right. Have you, or a member of your family set your postcode as the default location for Google maps? Because if you have that'd be why.

Without meaning to debate the merits of each point, a strict Trinitarian view would hold that the first two poll options are mutually compatible.

Since you strongly imply that the first option is intended to reflect classic Nicean/Chalcedonian Trinitarian theology, you presumably intend the second option to be an Arian theological option whereby the Son is inferior to, and not co-substantial with, the Father.

Many people posting in this thread will probably think that an irrelevant point as regards their own worldview, but I thought it worth noting in passing given the intended nature of the thread.

I wanted to vote that he was all of the first four options... as the first option really would include them all.

Multiple choices would've made it better IMO.

I'm a Christian, so, obviously I believe He is God, and He is of God.

Oh right. Have you, or a member of your family set your postcode as the default location for Google maps? Because if you have that'd be why.

Nah, I'm not bothered anyway, it's just kinda weird.

I know, it's ridiculous.

lolwut?

Why is it ridiculous? Do you mean you disagree with His existence/message/divinity? Even so... why would you find His influence ridiculous? That viewpoint makes no sense. Hitler was extremely influential, both in Germany, and abroad, I don't agree with many of his beliefs... but I understand why he was so influential.

Moreover, Jesus taught a message of love, and compassion, why should such a person not be influential? Perhaps His message should be more influential?

Nah, I'm not bothered anyway, it's just kinda weird.

Well I swear that I didn't put your postcode in. I just linked to maps.google.co.uk

Let us see you do better.

Didn't the Beatles try that once? And the fictional Simpson's band the B Sharps?

Both seem to have ended with slightly less influence than Jesus....

:tongue:

Well I swear that I didn't put your postcode in. I just linked to maps.google.co.uk

I believe you man, it just freaked me out.

Didn't the Beatles try that once? And the fictional Simpson's band the B Sharps?

Both seem to have ended with slightly less influence than Jesus....

:tongue:

Yup. Even when the agnostic Bonaparte was told how powerful he was, he said he was nothing compared to Christ.

Yup. Even when the agnostic Bonaparte was told how powerful he was, he said he was nothing compared to Christ.

It's kinda embarrassing that all these people are dwarfed by a fictional character.

It's kinda embarrassing that all these people are dwarfed by a fictional character.

Embarrassing that a warmongering Emperor-General, and a British rock group are dwarfed by the central figure in one of the biggest religions of the world, regardless of His historical relaity?

Again, citing Jesus' message of love and compassion, His reality doesn't even seem necessary, but His message is still valuable.

It's kinda embarrassing that all these people are dwarfed by a fictional character.

Why do you think he is fictional? Tacitus notes him in a non-religious way.

Embarrassing that a warmongering Emperor-General, and a British rock group are dwarfed by the central figure in one of the biggest religions of the world, regardless of His historical relaity?

Again, citing Jesus' message of love and compassion, His reality doesn't even seem necessary, but His message is still valuable.

Bonaparte thought he was fictional, but later changed his mind.

Why do you think he is fictional? Tacitus notes him in a non-religious way.

Does he? And anyway Tacitus talks a lot of bullshit.

Embarrassing that a warmongering Emperor-General, and a British rock group are dwarfed by the central figure in one of the biggest religions of the world, regardless of His historical relaity?

Again, citing Jesus' message of love and compassion, His reality doesn't even seem necessary, but His message is still valuable.

How do you know it is actually valuable ? Most Christians base that conclusion on their belief that Jesus was resurrected by God, signifying to them that a supreme omniscient and in their eyes benevolent being approved.

Without the resurrection it is just one out of many morality systems. A system that does not clarify all of its underlying reasoning, and -maybe as a result of that- seems to contain contradictions. A system that also contains quite a few things people will not immediately associate with "love" or "compassion" even.

So why assume it is more valuable than e.g. the teachings of Kant, Bentham, Plato or even the morals of 8 year old Jimmy ?

Embarrassing that a warmongering Emperor-General, and a British rock group are dwarfed by the central figure in one of the biggest religions of the world, regardless of His historical relaity?

Again, citing Jesus' message of love and compassion, His reality doesn't even seem necessary, but His message is still valuable.

What about his message of unthiking loyalty? That's not a great idea.

Does he?

No. He mentions Christians though.

A deluded egomaniac trickster with a messiah complex :tongue:

Does he?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus

And anyway Tacitus talks a lot of bullshit.

As do most (especially ancient) historians. If we put aside all of the works of Tacitus as lies, there goes a massive chunk of Roman history. Who is next? Herodotus? Livy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Jesus


Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus

That sounds fairly convincing.

That sounds fairly confusing.

"Christus, from [which the name of the Christian religion] had its origin."

He says there was a man named called Christ who founded the Christian religion, and was subsequently crucified by Pontius Pilate.

However the Bible depicts Christ, it sounds to me like he existed.

"Christus, from [which the name of the Christian religion] had its origin."

He says there was a man named called Christ who founded the Christian religion, and was subsequently crucified by Pontius Pilate.

However the Bible depicts Christ, it sounds to me like he existed.

I meant convincing, sorry. I was having a dyslexic moment.

Jesus was God, in human form. He died, in human form for our sins. He may, or may not, have been resurrected. Those are my beliefs in a nutshell.

I meant convincing, sorry. I was having a dyslexic moment.

Oh, sorry. Anyway, I accept that Christ existed, but I agree his life-story is debatable, and much left to conjecture. I think the most dependable book would be John, followed awhile behind by Matthew. Both contain some nonsense, and cannot be seen as historical documents, but I will continue to use them for informal discussions.

Jesus is a great meal ticket.

As long as people want what he's got, which I institutionally control, with God as my witness, I'll never go hungry.

I've always liked C.S. Lewis's take on the subject(among others):

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or He would be the devil of hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

I've always liked C.S. Lewis's take on the subject(among others):

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or He would be the devil of hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

I think him a great human teacher up to the point in which he speaks of himself as the son of God.

Saying he didn't exist becasue god doesn't exist is a bad logic.

Agreed, just like saying that "they got the setting right" doesn't not mean that the bible is a "historical account".

I live in the Bible Belt but most Christians I know would think all are lost who do not believe the Trinity. Of course the two biggest denominations in my area are Church of Christ (the conservative kind) and Baptists.

Being someone who does care about spirituality I find it somewhat offensive how many Christians think everyone outside of that paradigm is incapable of mysticism or any spiritual development.
aye

and it can be annoying to live in an area where one brand of christianity dominates all theological thought. especially if you dont subscribe to that theory.

thats why i find it helpful to realize that there are dozens of reasonable theological approaches to christianity and any believer can find a church that come close to their own line of thinking.

A smart slightly anarchistic liberal pacifist philosopher who went around giving speeches to people about how nicely they should treat each other and how they should live there lives. He hung around with his carpenter dad, mum, a group of like-minded and occassionally back-stabbing men, the occassional prostitute and some tax-collecters. Pissed off the conservative church leaders and political empire of the time and in the end lost the popularity vote of the people and got nail to a bit of tree. His followers were a bit hysterical, went underground to worship him after the political leaders decided things had gone out of control and wanted the group to follow their gods instead and we eventually ended up with the Christian church. By the way has anyone actually ever listened what the priest says. That whole "when we eat my body and drink my blood, remember me" stuff. How do certain people have a way of making even the most extreme thing sound boring and dull! It's beyond me.

No; the point is that there are sources besides the Bible that describe Christ as calling himself the Son of God.
no there arent.

unless you are talking about ancient gospels that dont appear in the bible for whatever reason.

Someone who may or may not have existed historically who had some pretty good ideas about loving everyone no matter what race, sex, creed, status, or lifestyle they were, helping the poor, and fighting the power.

This is what I was trying to say.

A smart, liberal, pacifist, philosopher who went around giving speeches to people about how nicely they should treat each other and how they should live there lives. He was raised by his young carpenter dad and mum (2000+ years on and there's still a big of a question hanging over her head about how her son was conceived). As a kid he quite often liked to go to debates in his local church. As an adult he travelled quite a lot; told a lot of parables and held regular oratory and public philosophy sessions. He hung around with a group of like-minded and occassionally back-stabbing men, the occassional prostitute and some tax-collecters. He pissed off the conservative church leaders and political empire of the time. In the end, he lost the popularity vote of the people and got nail to a bit of tree. His followers were understandably upset and a bit hysterical after his death. They went underground to worship him (after all the political leaders and church decided things had gone out of control and wanted the group to follow their gods instead) and we eventually ended up with the Christian church. All that stuff about him being the son of God, the virginity claims regarding his mother etc were probably made up by his followers and to give them a bit of credibility with the local religions when they were trying to spread their message.

no there arent.

unless you are talking about ancient gospels that dont appear in the bible for whatever reason.

Josephus.

And I suppose those gospels the conspiracy-theorists love would work, too.

Josephus.

And I suppose those gospels the conspiracy-theorists love would work, too.
josephus is problematical, eh?

certainly by the time he wrote his history there were christians who claimed jesus to be the son of god. but "so and so told me that these people say that this guy claimed to be divine" isnt a good source of the words of jesus.

I've always liked C.S. Lewis's take on the subject(among others):

"A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic — on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg — or He would be the devil of hell. You must make a choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to."

^This

Great find.

josephus is problematical, eh?

certainly by the time he wrote his history there were christians who claimed jesus to be the son of god. but "so and so told me that these people say that this guy claimed to be divine" isnt a good source of the words of jesus.

I suppose. So you think Christ was a just a peace-loving rabbi who was executed for...?

I suppose. So you think Christ was a just a peace-loving rabbi who was executed for...?

He was executed because he angered the Sanhedrin and they used the Romans to get Him out of the way by characterizing His teachings as sedition.

He was executed because he angered the Sanhedrin and they used the Romans to get Him out of the way by characterizing His teachings as sedition.

But why were they seditious if Christ never claimed to be the Son of God and new King of the Jews?

I suppose. So you think Christ was a just a peace-loving rabbi who was executed for...?
i think that jesus was a myth and that any resemblance to actual jewish rabble rousers of the early 1st century is a co-incidence.

none of the verifiable incidents in the new testament are true.

i think that jesus was a myth and that any resemblance to actual jewish rabble rousers of the early 1st century is a co-incidence.

So Tacitus was full of it when he mentioned a man named Christ who founded Christianity, and was later crucified by Pilate?

none of the verifiable incidents in the new testament are true.

Christ, the founder of Christianity, was crucified; that is verifiable, and that is true.

i think that jesus was a myth and that any resemblance to actual jewish rabble rousers of the early 1st century is a co-incidence.

none of the verifiable incidents in the new testament are true.

Eh? Which verifiable incidents are you talking about, and where have they been proven false?

Also, I think Occam's Razor would lead one to assume that some man existed roughly in Jesus' time, who roughly said the same sort of stuff, regardless of whether he really was the son of God or not.

Eh? Which verifiable incidents are you talking about, and where have they been proven false?

Also, I think Occam's Razor would lead one to assume that some man existed roughly in Jesus' time, who roughly said the same sort of stuff, regardless of whether he really was the son of God or not.
well, obviously you arent going to find evidence at this point of a young girl pregnant before she got married who gave birth in difficult circumstances. you arent going to find evidence of a precocious 12 year old preaching at the temple. that no contemporary jotted down that an extremely popular (on that day) preacher rode into town on a donkey and ended up badly by the end of the week is not surprising. that yet another jewish rabble rouser ended up executed wasnt worth wasting precious parchment on.


the mundane details of jesus' life are not verifiable. its too long ago in too illiterate a time.

the lack of such evidence is neither here not there since it cannot be expected to exist.

but there ARE details in the life of jesus that should be verifiable.... was there a star? no. are there any existing writings of "wise men" who ever went to jerusalem in search of a messiah? no. is there evidence that herod ordered the murder of male babies under 2 years old? no. was there a census that covered the roman world and required all people to go to their ancestral homes (whatever that would mean in rome)? no. we could ask if there was ever a zombie invasion of jerusalem but that is expecting far too much reality from the story of the crucifiction.

such verifications extend even to the lives of the apostles as indicated in the book of acts.

even if you take the bible as evidence, it contradicts itself in many of the stories of jesus. if you look at the birth of jesus you get 2 different stories, 2 different geneologies, the 2 stories take place 8ish years apart. if you look at the crucifiction you get different accounts of when it happened, who was there, who went to the tomb on the 3rd day and what they found there. what does it mean that the writers of the gospel do not have the same details of the life of jesus? who is right, if anyone?

there were many messianic preachers in the 1st century jerusalem area. there is no way to know if any of the things any of them preached are recorded in the bible. there is no way to know which one is "jesus", if any. there may be some germ of truth to the new testament but there is no way to know what is made up whole cloth and what small bit actually happened.

but there ARE details in the life of jesus that should be verifiable.... was there a star? no

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/12/27/star.coverup/index.html

http://archives.cnn.com/2001/TECH/space/12/27/star.coverup/index.html
didnt read it. didnt need to.

how does a star come to rest over a particular location?

even if you take the bible as evidence, it contradicts itself in many of the stories of jesus. if you look at the birth of jesus you get 2 different stories, 2 different geneologies, the 2 stories take place 8ish years apart. if you look at the crucifiction you get different accounts of when it happened, who was there, who went to the tomb on the 3rd day and what they found there. what does it mean that the writers of the gospel do not have the same details of the life of jesus? who is right, if anyone?

I think the contradictions in the Gospels show the writers weren't concerned with literal, historical accuracy. That's not unusual, that theory of history is fairly recent.
So I guess what I'm saying is the Gospels can't be used as definitive proof, true, but their literal falseness can't be use as disproof, either.

didnt read it. didnt need to.

how does a star come to rest over a particular location?

I never said anyone "followed" it, I am just saying that explains mention of the star, and of many Jews thinking of Christ as the Messiah if he was born about the time the New Testament implies.

I do not now know what makes you think rabbis were frequently executed by the Romans. Crucifixion was a rare punishment used only on the worst of criminals, and was condemned by many Romans, such as Cicero.

Tacitus says the founder of the Christian religion was crucified, so Christ must have said some damn extreme things.

I think the contradictions in the Gospels show the writers weren't concerned with literal, historical accuracy. That's not unusual, that theory of history is fairly recent.
So I guess what I'm saying is the Gospels can't be used as definitive proof, true, but their literal falseness can't be use as disproof, either.
oh very true.

the new testament is a religious book not an historical book.

i agree with you that the inconsistencies cant be used as proof that its all made up. but it sure can be used as proof that we cant know the truth of the life of jesus if there is any literal truth in it at all.

oh very true.

the new testament is a religious book not an historical book.

i agree with you that the inconsistencies cant be used as proof that its all made up. but it sure can be used as proof that we cant know the truth of the life of jesus if there is any literal truth in it at all.

I agree we can't know everything about the literal life of Jesus. Even if you treat the Gospels as fiction, there are still important, true messages that can be gleaned from them (as it is with all fiction).
And there are some things I personally am banking are literally true, e.g., crucifixion. As a Christian, I'd sort of be missing the point if I denied it.

I agree we can't know everything about the literal life of Jesus. Even if you treat the Gospels as fiction, there are still important, true messages that can be gleaned from them (as it is with all fiction).
And there are some things I personally am banking are literally true, e.g., crucifixion. As a Christian, I'd sort of be missing the point if I denied it.

That is true, since Tacitus confirms it. Even if all else is a lie, the founder of your religion was crucified.

I never said anyone "followed" it, I am just saying that explains mention of the star, and of many Jews thinking of Christ as the Messiah if he was born about the time the New Testament implies.

I do not now know what makes you think rabbis were frequently executed by the Romans. Crucifixion was a rare punishment used only on the worst of criminals, and was condemned by many Romans, such as Cicero.

Tacitus says the founder of the Christian religion was crucified, so Christ must have said some damn extreme things.
you didnt have to say it. the bible says it. in truth, its as silly to use the star as an example of non-verifiability as it is to use the zombie invasion of jerusalem. its not meant to be literally believed because it cannot possibly be literally true. "stars" cannot guide anyone to a particular location.

as i understand it there are examples of other messiahs who got executed including one who was instrumental in the destruction of jerusalem and the temple by the romans.

tacitus wasnt alive when jesus would have been crucified so he isnt a great source of anything but what was believed to be true about jesus (by believers) at the time he wrote it.

I agree we can't know everything about the literal life of Jesus. Even if you treat the Gospels as fiction, there are still important, true messages that can be gleaned from them (as it is with all fiction).
And there are some things I personally am banking are literally true, e.g., crucifixion. As a Christian, I'd sort of be missing the point if I denied it.
i have a problem with believing that god had to send a part of himself to live in an obscure corner of the world to live and die virtually unnoticed in order to fix a mistake god made at the beginning of human existence.

well, obviously you arent going to find
but there ARE details in the life of jesus that should be verifiable.... was there a star? no.

People saw a star, was there really a star there? Or was God merely manipulating the minds of the people who saw it? That's not verifiable.


are there any existing writings of "wise men" who ever went to jerusalem in search of a messiah? no.

So, these wise men are also unverifiable.


is there evidence that herod ordered the murder of male babies under 2 years old? no.

Again, so that means it hasn't been verified. That doesn't mean it is false.


was there a census that covered the roman world and required all people to go to their ancestral homes (whatever that would mean in rome)? no.

Do you mean no, as in there is no evidence it existed? Or no, there is PROOF that it never happened. If so, can I see this proof?


even if you take the bible as evidence, it contradicts itself in many of the stories of jesus. if you look at the birth of jesus you get 2 different stories, 2 different geneologies, the 2 stories take place 8ish years apart. if you look at the crucifiction you get different accounts of when it happened, who was there, who went to the tomb on the 3rd day and what they found there. what does it mean that the writers of the gospel do not have the same details of the life of jesus? who is right, if anyone?


OK.


there were many messianic preachers in the 1st century jerusalem area. there is no way to know if any of the things any of them preached are recorded in the bible. there is no way to know which one is "jesus", if any.

That, doesn't mean, none of them are.


there may be some germ of truth to the new testament but there is no way to know what is made up whole cloth and what small bit actually happened.

I agree. But you specifically stated that most of the verifiable information in the New Testament is false, you've only presented information that hasn't been verified, or can't be verified (except possibly the census bit). I'm just asking for this verifiable information that has shown to be false, I'm aware that much exists in the NT, but in the context you seemed to be talking about information that would lead one to presume that Jesus never existed.

you didnt have to say it. the bible says it. in truth, its as silly to use the star as an example of non-verifiability as it is to use the zombie invasion of jerusalem. its not meant to be literally believed because it cannot possibly be literally true. "stars" cannot guide anyone to a particular location.

I never said it "guided" them.

as i understand it there are examples of other messiahs who got executed including one who was instrumental in the destruction of jerusalem and the temple by the romans.

But were they the ones who founded Christianity?

tacitus wasnt alive when jesus would have been crucified so he isnt a great source of anything but what was believed to be true about jesus (by believers) at the time he wrote it.

Tacitus would not be using Christians as his source; I think he could check Roman records. As far as an historian goes, he tends to rely much less on rumor then his predecessors did.

People saw a star, was there really a star there? Or was God merely manipulating the minds of the people who saw it? That's not verifiable.



So, these wise men are also unverifiable.



Again, so that means it hasn't been verified. That doesn't mean it is false.



Do you mean no, as in there is no evidence it existed? Or no, there is PROOF that it never happened. If so, can I see this proof?



OK.



That, doesn't mean, none of them are.



I agree. But you specifically stated that most of the verifiable information in the New Testament is false, you've only presented information that hasn't been verified, or can't be verified (except possibly the census bit). I'm just asking for this verifiable information that has shown to be false, I'm aware that much exists in the NT, but in the context you seemed to be talking about information that would lead one to presume that Jesus never existed.
can you think of other things mentioned in the gospels that should have some independent verification?

roman censuses are verifiable. none existed with the details provided by luke. herod is a well known king whose life is detailed.

i have a problem with believing that god had to send a part of himself to live in an obscure corner of the world to live and die virtually unnoticed in order to fix a mistake god made at the beginning of human existence.

Fair enough, I was just trying to make the point that there are ideas which have been fairly consistent in Christianity since the beginning, even as plenty changed from AD 33 to when the Gospels were written.

I never said it "guided" them.

again, the bible says it. that is the important part.


But were they the ones who founded Christianity?

no but you should keep track of what i was responding to.



Tacitus would not be using Christians as his source; I think he could check Roman records. As far as an historian goes, he tends to rely much less on rumor then his predecessors did.

what roman records? there is no independent proof that nero ever blamed the christians for the great fire. other historians talking about that time never mention christians in connection with the fire.

Fair enough, I was just trying to make the point that there are ideas which have been fairly consistent in Christianity since the beginning, even as plenty changed from AD 33 to when the Gospels were written.
yeah its a fascinating time where this whole "christ" idea blossomed. there were quite a few different versions of the christ, some where he was the man jesus, some where he was purely spirit. some where he was the begotten son of god from the get go, some where he became god's favored son at his baptism. some where he was a man, some where he was a god. all kinds of competing notions existed. the christianity we know now is the one that won out for various reasons.

can you think of other things mentioned in the gospels that should have some independent verification?


Eh? Why are you asking me this?


roman censuses are verifiable. none existed with the details provided by luke.

You mean none were found. Or have they been verified to not exist? If so, source?


herod is a well known king whose life is detailed.

There are sources that say that him murdering children under two would fit well with his general approach, it is acknowledged that he was a brutal murderer.

Eh? Why are you asking me this?



You mean none were found. Or have they been verified to not exist? If so, source?



There are sources that say that him murdering children under two would fit well with his general approach, it is acknowledged that he was a brutal murderer.
i am asking you this so we can discuss it. none other came to my mind at that moment but im wondering about the spring outside the city gates that healed people.... i wonder if i can look that up....

I never said it "guided" them.

But were they the ones who founded Christianity?

Tacitus would not be using Christians as his source; I think he could check Roman records. As far as an historian goes, he tends to rely much less on rumor then his predecessors did.

can you think of other things mentioned in the gospels that should have some independent verification?

roman censuses are verifiable. none existed with the details provided by luke. herod is a well known king whose life is detailed.

Fair enough, I was just trying to make the point that there are ideas which have been fairly consistent in Christianity since the beginning, even as plenty changed from AD 33 to when the Gospels were written.

again, the bible says it. that is the important part.

no but you should keep track of what i was responding to.

what roman records? there is no independent proof that nero ever blamed the christians for the great fire. other historians talking about that time never mention christians in connection with the fire.

Well …

There certainly were Roman records available to Tacitus, a man who rose to the highest civilian posts in the Empire. They don’t exist now in anything other than references in various writings. I see no reason to doubt Tacitus’ statement that the fire at Rome under Nero was blamed by the authorities on the followers of “Chrestus” and that Christians are meant by that.

A Roman census was not (technically) concerned with levying taxes in the provinces, though they were sometimes conducted there. Under the Republic it was an official verification of a man’s – a citizen’s - status in the societal hierarchy. That is, were his personal assets worth enough to entitle him to membership in the Senate or in the Knights, was his character sufficiently upright to entitle him to membership in those bodies, etc. I’m pretty sure that taxation in the provinces was not based on a head count but more on the Senate’s estimate of what the provinces could pay. So it does look as if the author of Luke got that bit wrong. Actually, the most telling point against the Nativity story in Luke is that Joseph and Mary did not live in the Roman province of Judaea and so would not have been obliged to go anywhere to be counted. They were citizens of the state ruled by whichever of Herod’s sons got Gallilee.

As for plenty changing between AD 33 and when the Gospels were written, the gap is not that large, only about 30 to 35 years for Mark – generally thought to have been written between 65 and 75 – with the Gospel of John dating perhaps to around 100. Saint Paul’s letters are held to date to the early 60s. So the span between Jesus’ death and when the sotries were written down isn’t the years and years and years people sometimes assume.