Was christianity a hoax?

B nice

you'd think the fucker would know the world was round or the earth circled the sun or some shit

jesus=myth
or
jesus=dumbass

take your pick

Last Exodus

B nice wrote:

you'd think the fucker would know the world was round or the earth circled the sun or some shit

jesus=myth
or
jesus=dumbass

take your pick

The answer could very well be none of the above.

deadnothingbetter

Last Exodus wrote:

But on this issue im with qte. There is absolutely zero evidence of the life of Jesus outside of the new testament and that book is not history. It's myth, maybe even fantasy. You don't even have any written record of the new testament for almost a full century after Jesus's purported death. Now im not saying the guy didnt live. He probably did. There is just nothing to support any of the claims in the new testament. A big fat nothing. So you say have faith. Of course, you'd have to have faith because there ain't no proof. Christianity came into being more out of politics then out of religion. That's not meant as an attack so don't start shoutin at me again board. It's just fact.

I take issue with any religion that holds itself in higher esteem than others. And some christians do believe that unless you go with Jesus your doomed to burn. That shit is so middle ages it's ridiculous. It's high time all of the world's major religions gave it a hard think and looked to a more global and univeral message. Think of all the lives that would be saved if we all dropped the bullshit about our own respective religions or branches of religions. It's stagerring when you think about.

well, it seems to me like you have already formed your owned convictions and beliefs based on what society has influenced in you. But i am not supporting Christianity. (True, this is called "Was christianity a hoax".) I am only fitting my own perspective into this because.... well, I do believe in the Bible. I've always argued with other christians that even Jesus did not form a religious organization called Christianity. It is something as you say "coming more out of politics" and even out of religion. The bible even condemns religion. I agree with most of the things you say and I understand why the majority of people would not believe in the Bible and just rule it as a "myth" or "fable".

But you could not be even any more right when you say that I need faith because I don't have any evidence. According to the Bible, when Jesus resurrected, Thomas did not believe that he arose from the dead. So he pleads that unless he touches the wounds of Jesus he will not believe that this man that is standing in front of him is Jesus. Jesus then tells him to touch the wounds of his hands and the side of his rib to see that he was flesh and blood and not a ghost. Finally, Thomas believes. Jesus then says, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

And yet there are numerous of other scriptures that say. "no one has ever seen God at any time," and still,"without faith it is impossible to please God." In summary, I'm glad I have no evidence. Paul also said, "what is hope if we see it? For we hope for what we don't see."

All I can say to you is, this is just a personal quest that some choose to follow. It is not a quest of things that are tangible. If this were tangible we would be able to do with it as we please.

deadnothingbetter

B nice wrote:

you'd think the fucker would know the world was round or the earth circled the sun or some shit

jesus=myth
or
jesus=dumbass

take your pick

is this in reference to me??? cause if it is, well, b nice.

Last Exodus

deadnothingbetter wrote:

well, it seems to me like you have already formed your owned convictions and beliefs based on what society has influenced in you. But i am not supporting Christianity. (True, this is called "Was christianity a hoax".) I am only fitting my own perspective into this because.... well, I do believe in the Bible. I've always argued with other christians that even Jesus did not form a religious organization called Christianity. It is something as you say "coming more out of politics" and even out of religion. The bible even condemns religion. I agree with most of the things you say and I understand why the majority of people would not believe in the Bible and just rule it as a "myth" or "fable".

But you could not be even any more right when you say that I need faith because I don't have any evidence. According to the Bible, when Jesus resurrected, Thomas did not believe that he arose from the dead. So he pleads that unless he touches the wounds of Jesus he will not believe that this man that is standing in front of him is Jesus. Jesus then tells him to touch the wounds of his hands and the side of his rib to see that he was flesh and blood and not a ghost. Finally, Thomas believes. Jesus then says, "blessed are those who have not seen and yet believe."

And yet there are numerous of other scriptures that say. "no one has ever seen God at any time," and still,"without faith it is impossible to please God." In summary, I'm glad I have no evidence. Paul also said, "what is hope if we see it? For we hope for what we don't see."

All I can say to you is, this is just a personal quest that some choose to follow. It is not a quest of things that are tangible. If this were tangible we would be able to do with it as we please.

I liked it. I actually have no opinion really on the topic of Jesus. I agree there is nothing to suggest he had any intent to form his own religion. This was something done by his followers after his untimely death. That said, I think religion can serve valuable purposes if channeled correctly. It is also capable of bringing about great evil..

angelica

Last Exodus wrote:

I actually have no opinion really on the topic of Jesus. I agree there is nothing to suggest he had any intent to form his own religion. This was something done by his followers after his untimely death. That said, I think religion can serve valuable purposes if channeled correctly. It is also capable of bringing about great evil..

I thought I'd jump right on this opportunity to completely agree with you for the first time! (the first time with your current username anyway! )

Last Exodus

angelica wrote:

I thought I'd jump right on this opportunity to completely agree with you for the first time! (the first time with your current username anyway! )

Well thats comforting. So what was my old user name? So many theories abound....As long as were not bashing Israel im pretty civillized.

angelica

Last Exodus wrote:

Well thats comforting. So what was my old user name? So many theories abound....

I have no clue--but you've certainly made enough comments to implicate yourself.

As long as were not bashing Israel im pretty civillized.

That's not always true. I've not once opened my mouth and uttered one negative word against Israel on this board...ever. Yet we've had "words". I've seen you get a little riled over....hmmmmm....censorship--both for and against; Byrnzie; and Al Qaeda, too!

Last Exodus

angelica wrote:

I have no clue--but you've certainly made enough comments to implicate yourself.

That's not always true. I've not once opened my mouth and uttered one negative word against Israel on this board...ever. Yet we've had "words". I've seen you get a little riled over....hmmmmm....censorship--both for and against; Byrnzie; and Al Qaeda, too!

Well Byrnzie gets my goat and sometimes I get his. Since you always back him up,,,, I can see where I may have lurched at ya. Apologies. Youre always well mannered in your opinions, whereas my manners sometimes escape me here.

cornnifer

Last Exodus wrote:

But on this issue im with qte. There is absolutely zero evidence of the life of Jesus outside of the new testament and that book is not history. It's myth, maybe even fantasy. You don't even have any written record of the new testament for almost a full century after Jesus's purported death. .

Um, false.

the scholarly (even in secular circles) dating of the gospels places Mark at about 70 A.D. ( which is really not all that late). Now, the NT book of Acts ends with its central character Paul still alive and under some kind of arrest in Rome. This means Acts was probably written sometime before Paul was put to death which means it had to have been written no later that A.D 62. Luke wrote the book of Acts as the second of two parts the first of which was his Gospel. The Gospel of Luke incorporates parts of Mark, indicating Mark was written before Luke! Ultimately, what you end up with is Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, or perhaps even the late 50's. Jesus was put to death apx A.D. 30-33, which leaves only a gap of 25 to 30 years, tops! That, is very much within the time frame of eyewitnesses, including hostile eyewitness who could have easily called bullshit.
In addition, to all this, the NT has undergone all of the strict scrutiny historians place on all ancient historical documents used to test crdibility, such as the authors intention, ability, bias, character, and consistency, test of corroborations, as well as a test of any adverse witnesses, and it stands up VERY well as Historically reliable.
If you also consider the archeolgically confirmed people, places, and events mentioned in the NT, what we are left with is a very SOUND and, in fact, valid historical document.

angelica

Last Exodus wrote:

Well Byrnzie gets my goat and sometimes I get his. Since you always back him up,,,, I can see where I may have lurched at ya. Apologies. Youre always well mannered in your opinions, whereas my manners sometimes escape me here.

No apologies are necessary. It goes with the territory--we all get upset at some time or another out here. I appreciate your sentiments, though.

For the record, Byrnzie and I definitely have different approaches and angles. I can count the situations I've backed him up on with one hand. We often post in different circles about different topics that don't connect. I will, however, back up anyone who I see is being misinterpreted. If I feel I can add something I see and that others miss, especially if it might clarify something, I'll throw it into the mix and see what happens.

Last Exodus

cornnifer wrote:

Um, false.

the scholarly (even in secular circles) dating of the gospels places Mark at about 70 A.D. ( which is really not all that late). Now, the NT book of Acts ends with its central character Paul still alive and under some kind of arrest in Rome. This means Acts was probably written sometime before Paul was put to death which means it had to have been written no later that A.D 62. Luke wrote the book of Acts as the second of two parts the first of which was his Gospel. The Gospel of Luke incorporates parts of Mark, indicating Mark was written before Luke! Ultimately, what you end up with is Mark written no later than about A.D. 60, or perhaps even the late 50's. Jesus was put to death apx A.D. 30-33, which leaves only a gap of 25 to 30 years, tops! That, is very much within the time frame of eyewitnesses, including hostile eyewitness who could have easily called bullshit.
In addition, to all this, the NT has undergone all of the strict scrutiny historians place on all ancient historical documents used to test crdibility, such as the authors intention, ability, bias, character, and consistency, test of corroborations, as well as a test of any adverse witnesses, and it stands up VERY well as Historically reliable.
If you also consider the archeolgically confirmed people, places, and events mentioned in the NT, what we are left with is a very SOUND and, in fact, valid historical document.

I did say almost a century....70 is only 30 from 100 : )

Last Exodus

Last Exodus wrote:

I did say almost a century....70 is only 30 from 100 : )

You analysis is extremely optimistic. The only thing you are right about is Paul's letters. 70 AD. If in fact there was a year zero to begin with. Year 70 presumes we know with certainty when Jesus lived...of even if, and we dont have any conclusive proof outside of the new testament. The only other documented evidence of Jesus was from the writings of Josephus, and he gives an approximate date.

Last Exodus

angelica wrote:

No apologies are necessary. It goes with the territory--we all get upset at some time or another out here. I appreciate your sentiments, though.

For the record, Byrnzie and I definitely have different approaches and angles. I can count the situations I've backed him up on with one hand. We often post in different circles about different topics that don't connect. I will, however, back up anyone who I see is being misinterpreted. If I feel I can add something I see and that others miss, especially if it might clarify something, I'll throw it into the mix and see what happens.

fair enough....cheers!

cornnifer

Last Exodus wrote:

I did say almost a century....70 is only 30 from 100 : )

We're talking 25 years TOPS after the death of Christ. thats a blink. Especially when considering ancient history.

angelica

Last Exodus wrote:

fair enough....cheers!

Cheers!

cornnifer

Last Exodus wrote:

You analysis is extremely optimistic. The only thing you are right about is Paul's letters. 70 AD. If in fact there was a year zero to begin with. Year 70 presumes we know with certainty when Jesus lived...of even if, and we dont have any conclusive proof outside of the new testament. The only other documented evidence of Jesus was from the writings of Josephus, and he gives an approximate date.

Also untrue. i'll not get into another "Jesus may not have really existed" argument on this board. Its amazing. There are, like, three people on earth who will still debate Jesus' actual existence... and all three of them post here! Fucking amazing.

Andre_W

cornnifer wrote:

Um, false.
If you also consider the archeolgically confirmed people, places, and events mentioned in the NT, what we are left with is a very SOUND and, in fact, valid historical document.

not quite...

There is no evidence anywhere of a Nazareth, no record of Nazareth exists prior to about 300AD. Nazareth itself was built on top of caves which were frequently used to bury dead, but not to live in by the Jews.

Excavations of the area in question fail to provide any evidence of anyobjects from Assyrian, Babylonian, Persian, Hellenistic or Early Roman times.

Geographical features described in the NT do not match the area around Nazareth, such as the lack of a cliff which Jesus was aparently thrown off of.

There is speculation and biblical indication that Nazarene meaning "of the village of Nazareth", was confused with "Nazirite," meaning a "separated" Jew who had taken a vow of holiness.

Last Exodus

cornnifer wrote:

Also untrue. i'll not get into another "Jesus may not have really existed" argument on this board. Its amazing. There are, like, three people on earth who will still debate Jesus' actual existence... and all three of them post here! Fucking amazing.

Hate to break it to ya, but there are probably millions of them. And for the record I did say I do think he lived. I just think he has been misinterpreted. But I really dont know, because I wasnt there. And neither were you....

Kann

Last Exodus wrote:

There is absolutely zero evidence of the life of Jesus outside of the new testament and that book is not history.

Last Exodus wrote:

The only other documented evidence of Jesus was from the writings of Josephus, and he gives an approximate date.

Well there is that one. I'm too lazy to look around and find this but I read an article on the writings of Josephus compared to the NT. If we consider Jesus was actually born in 0 than the NT and Josephus are in contradiction. But if you shift the birth of jesus to a few years later (can't remember wich window though) then it makes up a credible story.

B nice wrote:

you'd think the fucker would know the world was round or the earth circled the sun or some shit

jesus=myth
or
jesus=dumbass

And, being God I guess he knew about the theory of relativity too. Your point is that not writing Einstein's work 2000 years sooner is the proof he either is stupid or a myth?
Let's say, for the sake of the argument, that Jesus is a myth. What does it change? Christians are still here, they still have their faith, none of them actually saw Jesus, but they still believe. And it's mostly because the NT isn't just about the day to day life of Jesus, it's also a philosophical essay (as stupid as that may sound to some people) and the ideas presented in the NT live on, wether or not Jesus is there to sell them around.
And also why even ask the question? It won't change anything. People will still believe he is God and as such can do what he wants. So what's the use of the question? Can you prove the existence of Socrates? Both stories share many common points, though no one challenges his existence.