Happy birthday Jesus
usamamasan1
Posts: 4,695
It's super dope you were born and did what you did! I think (with my capacity which is solid) that more than anyone ever born on this planet YOU have been the man when it comes to loving, sharing, forgiving, & helping to promote destruction of evil.
Thanks Christ, for being born.
You're birthday is always winning
Emoticon
Thanks Christ, for being born.
You're birthday is always winning
Emoticon
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
I am Catholic however I do support everyone and anyone's decision to follow another faith or not follow a faith at all. All about choices. One of your comments got me to really thinking though....about Jesus' impact. Even when people choose not to believe or believe in another faith they will still celebrate the Holidays. Maybe not in a Christian way but there is still a celebration. Such an impact he has had.
B. This fact alone demonstrates who won "the war on christmas"
C. It's still really fun to get together with family and celebrate on the 25th of December.
D. Merry Christmas
"..That's One Happy Fuckin Ghost.."
“..That came up on the Pillow Case...This is for the Greek, With Our Apologies.....”
there's many myths that have come close.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
Except there's no evidence he ever actually lived. None whatsoever.
...and up until a few hundred years ago the whole World's population believed the World was flat. Just sayin.
What does that have to do with the fact that there's zero evidence Jesus ever existed?
There's not zero evidence.
Provide it then.
Don't you mean Santa's birthday?
However, there is no chance his birthday was actually December 25th.
Hope everybody had a great holiday though!
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
The mention by Tacitus was written in 116, almost 90 years after the supposed death of Jesus.
Try harder.
Granted, my research this morning was far from complete but I did not find any source indicating Tacitus was a forgery. And that is about as hard as I am willing to try.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
Firstly, Tacitus wrote this in 115 A.D - 80 years after Jesus' supposed death. Secondly, his information was second-hand, and there is no evidence that he aquired this information from any independent sources, but that he simply repeated what Christians at the time were saying.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on ... te_note-32
'Those critical of the passage's authenticity argue that early Christian writers likely would have sought to establish the historicity of Jesus via secular or non-Christian documents, and that their silence with regard to the Annals in this manner may suggest that the passage did not exist in early manuscripts. Furthermore, because the earliest surviving manuscript containing the passage is an 11th century Christian scribal copy, skeptics of the passage's authenticity argue that it may be the result of later Christian editing.'
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... jesus.html
'The next major ancient historian who supposedly mentions Jesus, and thus provides us with evidence that he was an historical character is Tacitus. Cornelius Tacitus wrote his Annals after 117 A.D. Their exact date of composition is not known, but we do know that it was at least 70 years after Jesus' supposed crucifixion. Jesus is not mentioned by name anywhere in the extant works of Tacitus. There is one mention of "Christus" in Book XV, Chapter 44, as follows:
"Nero looked around for a scapegoat, and inflicted the most fiendish tortures on a group of persons already hated by the people for their crimes. This was the sect known as Christians. Their founder, one Christus, had been put to death by the procurator Pontius Pilate in the reign of Tiberius. This checked the abominable superstition for a while, but it broke out again and spread, not merely through Judea, where it originated, but even to Rome itself, the great reservoir and collecting ground for every kind of depravity and filth. Those who confessed to being Christians were at once arrested, but on their testimony a great crowd of people were convicted, not so much on the charge of arson, but of hatred of the entire human race."(D.R. Dudley's translation)
While we know from the way in which the above is written that Tacitus did not claim to have firsthand knowledge of the origins of Christianity, we can see that he is repeating a story which was then commonly believed, namely that the founder of Christianity, one Christus, had been put to death under Tiberius. There are a number of serious difficulties which must be answered before this passage can be accepted as genuine. There is no other historical proof that Nero persecuted the Christians at all. There certainly were not multitudes of Christians in Rome at that date (circa 60 A.D.). In fact, the term "Christian" was not in common use in the first century. We know Nero was indifferent to various religions in his city, and, since he almost definitely did not start the fire in Rome, he did not need any group to be his scapegoat. Tacitus does not use the name Jesus, and writes as if the reader would know the name Pontius Pilate, two things which show that Tacitus was not working from official records or writing for non-Christian audiences, both of which we would expect him to have done if the passage were genuine.
Perhaps most damning to the authenticity of this passage is the fact that it is present almost word-for-word in the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus (died in 403 A.D.), where it is mixed in with obviously false tales. At the same time, it is highly unlikely that Sulpicius could have copied this passage from Tacitus, as none of his contemporaries mention the passage. This means that it was probably not in the Tacitus manuscripts at that date. It is much more likely, then, that copyists working in the Dark Ages from the only existing manuscript of the Chronicle, simply copied the passage from Sulpicius into the manuscript of Tacitus which they were reproducing.
McDowell is on even shakier ground when he tries to promote the short mention of "Chrestus" in Suetonius. First, any scholar ought to learn to at least spell the name of the person he is writing about correctly. McDowell spells it incorrectly as "Seutonius." Then he makes the unforgivable and dishonest statement that "Chrestus" is "another spelling of Christus." This is not correct. "Chrestus" means 'The Good" in Greek, while "Christus" means "The Messiah." Actually, Chrestus was not an uncommon name in ancient Rome. Since Jesus was admittedly not in Rome instigating the Jews, we are almost definitely talking about someone other than Jesus here. I should mention that the entire relevant quotation from Suetonius which is involved here reads as follows: "As the Jews were making constant disturbances at the instigation of one Chrestus, he expelled them from Rome." The "he" is Claudius. As just mentioned, not even McDowell claims that Jesus was at Rome in 55 AD, when this incident is alleged to have occurred. It is also difficult to see why Jews would be led by Jesus. That is pretty strong evidence that this passage does not refer to Jesus of Nazareth at all, and so is irrelevant to our discussion of whether Jesus ever lived. We can, however, add the lack of a mention of Jesus in Suetonius to our list of "negative" evidence for the existence of Jesus as an historical person. The reference in Suetonius is Life of the Caesars (Claudius 25:4).
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
I did edit my first post as at first I confused the mention of Jesus in the 'Annals' of Tacitus for the mention of Jesus in the writings of Josephus, which were found to be a later interpolation by the early Church Fathers, i.e, a forgery. I then realised my mistake and corrected it.
Fair enough.
But even if Tacitus was writing after the fact, if his account cannot be proven to be a fraud then it does indicate at least one bit of evidence for the existence of Jesus.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
so we're sighting lack of evidence against as evidence for now? although I guess that's basis of all religions.
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
How could people be so dumb? All you have to do is look up into the sky and see that everything is round!DUH
A man that stands for nothing....will fall for anything!
All people need to do more on every level!
I am the wrong guy to be arguing this because frankly I don't care one or the other what anyone believes. Or, come to think of it even, whether or not Jesus did or did not exist. But Byrnzie stated that there was zero evidence. Tacitus, to my mind, counts as evidence so there is not zero evidence.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
neither do I, but I personally don't think that counts as evidence. it's 1500 year old hearsay. that's not "evidence".
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
But by that same token we could then say there is no evidence that Julius Caesar or Augustus existed either. Roman historians - and Roman histories that survived antiquity and still exist in the modern age - are never going to live up to our standards of evidence and/or scholarship.
I say it is evidence. If you want to argue it is not "proof", that is a different story.
"...I changed by not changing at all..."
i do believe jesus existed
but research has indicated he was born in the spring/summer of about 4-5 BC
"what a long, strange trip it's been"
link?
Fargo 2003
Winnipeg 2005
Winnipeg 2011
St. Paul 2014
I don't have to. You're the person questioning it's validity and it's your right to do it. On the other hand millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and millions and million and millions, etc of people worldwide believe in a higher power and certainly you on a PJ message board is not going to convince myself or anyone else that believes into not believing. I can guarantee you that.
Read my last post.
Yes we can, because there is contemporary evidence of Julius Caesar's life, and Augustus's life. Contemporary, concrete evidence. Whereas in the case of Jesus there is none. Zilch. Not one mention of him, including no mention of him in the comprehensive 'Histories' of the period by Josephus http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus
You would have thought that someone, somewhere would have noticed Jesus at the time of his supposed existence, right? But there was no mention of him. And many people believe he was simply an invention by certain Christian sects, an invention based largely on the already ancient Mediterranean mystery religions which recognized a similar, almost identical figure: viewtopic.php?f=13&t=144037&hilit=+tacitus
Still, It makes perfect sense why Americans living in the 21st Century would base their beliefs and outlook on life on 2000 year old Middle Eastern cult, right? :think:
Whatever gets you through the day.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hCeuNUWJzmk&sns=em