Was christianity a hoax?

cornnifer

Andre_W wrote:

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.

Nazareth was a very small place, aproximately 60 acres with a population at he time of about 480. Not reaaly mentionable. However, archeologists have found lists, written in Aramic, describing 24 families of priests who had been relocated when Jerusalem fell and the temple was destroyed in AD 70, and one of them was registered as having been moved to Nazareth. There have also been archeological digs uncovering first century tombs in the vicinity of Nazareth which archeologists concur indicates nazareth as a Jewish settlement in the Roman period. You see, actually, among archeologists there hasn't been any real doubt as to the location and time of Nazareth.
Furthermore, archeologists have carefully scrutinized Lukes's references o about 32 countries, fifty-four cities, and nine islands and found not one mistake. This establishes Luke to be a painstakingly accurate historian, even in regards to samll details. Similar archeological tests have been done on the other Gospels as well, and yielded the same types of results.

miller8966

He existed...even skeptics admit that. Whether he was divine or not is another question.

Last Exodus

miller8966 wrote:

He existed...even skeptics admit that. Whether he was divine or not is another question.

i think that's true. i also think the stories of the new testament are subject to speculation. just like those of the old testament.

Curranpete

Cornnifer, you have a crapton more stamina than I'll ever have

Last Exodus

Curranpete wrote:

Cornnifer, you have a crapton more stamina than I'll ever have

Hey now, dont go confusing us Yanks with your fancy ENGLISH over there. Er...what on earth is a crapton?

Curranpete

Crapton
[krap-tun]
-noun

1. A ton of crap

angelica

Curranpete wrote:

Cornnifer, you have a crapton more stamina than I'll ever have

Don't underestimate yourself--your stamina can be purely brutal in these conversations! I can attest to that!! Why the absense??

angelica

Curranpete wrote:

Too much on my plate for now; I've been helping to run the Christian Union and the TV station at my university.

However, it's always tempting... and my reign of terror at the CU ends in a few weeks, so I may be back. Good to see the regulars still here.

I wonder where you are from time to time. It's good of you to stop in! It sounds like you've got some cool stuff happening!

While I'm here; some things that might help the conversation:

Extra-biblical references to Jesus:
(20 or so, you'll have to excuse the design of the page though)
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

You crack me up!!....just can't help it, huh, man....back away from the computer.....slowly remove your hands from the keyboard before you are sucked in! Make a getaway, while you still can!

Whitey_22

I don't believe in any religion, I see it as a a convenient way to control the masses and I'm independent and strong enough not to need controlled. I believe Jesus existed, I believe he was a great man who did many great things, but I don't believe he was the son of God, that he ever claimed to be the son of God or that it was claimed during his lifetime. I think he would be turning in his grave if he knew that his legacy was used in the biggest brain washing operation ever.

I do feel sorry for scientologists though...IMO their beliefs aren't any more ridiculous than any other religions and they're made a complete laughing stock of. Poor guys...

bee_boy

Been posting in this board for a year now and I never had a look to a Moving Train. I think I should do it more often. You guys have more civilized debates than the guys from The Porch (quite often resort to childish name calling).

Anywho, I'm glad I found this

bee_boy

I also just read the thread below this one, and it appears I might be wrong

cornnifer

Whitey_22 wrote:

I don't believe in any religion, I see it as a a convenient way to control the masses and I'm independent and strong enough not to need controlled. I believe Jesus existed, I believe he was a great man who did many great things, but I don't believe he was the son of God, that he ever claimed to be the son of God or that it was claimed during his lifetime. .

How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.

That being said, once Jesus made this claim, he took away forever our option of labeling him simply "a great man, wise teacher etc." He certainly was those things, but we are unable to leave it at that as you claim to do. As credible scholars agree, he did in fact make claims to messianic prophecy, and by doing so eliminated the "ordinary wise man" option. You see, there are but three possibilities left to us:
A: He was claiming to be God incarnate, knowing full well it was not true, making him a damn liar. "great man, wise teacher, and bald faced liar..." That doesn't quite work, now does it.

B: He was claiming to be God incarnate, and actually believed it, which, if not true, makes him an absolute looney toon. Again "Great man, wise teacher, and absolutely insane schizophrenic..." doesn't really make much sense.

C: He was claiming to be God incarnate... and really was!!

Those are the only sensible choices. Horrible liar, absolute nutcase, or The Christ, God in human flesh. We are forced to take our pick.
Understand this: i personally do not care which one you choose. i in no way am trying to convert you or force my beliefs. i'm simply saying that your assessment of me and many others who share my faith as "brainwashed dependents", based on the arguments you offer, is, for lack of a better term, bullshit.

hippiemom

cornnifer wrote:

How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.

That being said, once Jesus made this claim, he took away forever our option of labeling him simply "a great man, wise teacher etc." He certainly was those things, but we are unable to leave it at that as you claim to do. As credible scholars agree, he did in fact make claims to messianic prophecy, and by doing so eliminated the "ordinary wise man" option. You see, there are but three possibilities left to us:
A: He was claiming to be God incarnate, knowing full well it was not true, making him a damn liar. "great man, wise teacher, and bald faced liar..." That doesn't quite work, now does it.

B: He was claiming to be God incarnate, and actually believed it, which, if not true, makes him an absolute looney toon. Again "Great man, wise teacher, and absolutely insane schizophrenic..." doesn't really make much sense.

C: He was claiming to be God incarnate... and really was!!

Those are the only sensible choices. Horrible liar, absolute nutcase, or The Christ, God in human flesh. We are forced to take our pick.
Understand this: i personally do not care which one you choose. i in no way am trying to convert you or force my beliefs. i'm simply saying that your assessment of me and many others who share my faith as "brainwashed dependents", based on the arguments you offer, is, for lack of a better term, bullshit.

What is the evidence, beyond biblical texts (none of which were written by anyone who actually met Jesus), that Jesus made those claims?

Last Exodus

bee_boy wrote:

Been posting in this board for a year now and I never had a look to a Moving Train. I think I should do it more often. You guys have more civilized debates than the guys from The Porch (quite often resort to childish name calling).

Anywho, I'm glad I found this

I think you better keep reading

Last Exodus

Curranpete wrote:

Crapton
[krap-tun]
-noun

1. A ton of crap

I like it.

Last Exodus

Curranpete wrote:

Too much on my plate for now; I've been helping to run the Christian Union and the TV station at my university.

However, it's always tempting... and my reign of terror at the CU ends in a few weeks, so I may be back. Good to see the regulars still here.

While I'm here; some things that might help the conversation:

Extra-biblical references to Jesus:
(20 or so, you'll have to excuse the design of the page though)
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

That's a pretty good and accurate source. Thanks for adding. Interesting to note that most of the sources are dated to at least 100 years after jesus's time. Even Josephus wasn't around at the time of jesus's life, so to an extent his knowledge is second hand. As is Paul's. So at best, we can all agree that the earliest extra-new testament reference would be Josephus? Anyone disagree>?

Last Exodus

Curranpete wrote:

Too much on my plate for now; I've been helping to run the Christian Union and the TV station at my university.

However, it's always tempting... and my reign of terror at the CU ends in a few weeks, so I may be back. Good to see the regulars still here.

While I'm here; some things that might help the conversation:

Extra-biblical references to Jesus:
(20 or so, you'll have to excuse the design of the page though)
http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm

Your source on the Talmud is interesting. Ive read elsewhere that in Jewish historical records there is a reference to a rabbi whose literal name was Yehuda. It is thought the Yehuda of the jewish scripts may have been Jesus. Yes kids, its true, his real name was not Jesus. Jesus would have been modified into a greco-roman name and then anglicizied. IMHO

miller8966

Last Exodus wrote:

Your source on the Talmud is interesting. Ive read elsewhere that in Jewish historical records there is a reference to a rabbi whose literal name was Yehuda. It is thought the Yehuda of the jewish scripts may have been Jesus. Yes kids, its true, his real name was not Jesus. Jesus would have been modified into a greco-roman name and then anglicizied. IMHO

Thats just speculation.

Last Exodus

cornnifer wrote:

How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.

That being said, once Jesus made this claim, he took away forever our option of labeling him simply "a great man, wise teacher etc." He certainly was those things, but we are unable to leave it at that as you claim to do. As credible scholars agree, he did in fact make claims to messianic prophecy, and by doing so eliminated the "ordinary wise man" option. You see, there are but three possibilities left to us:
A: He was claiming to be God incarnate, knowing full well it was not true, making him a damn liar. "great man, wise teacher, and bald faced liar..." That doesn't quite work, now does it.

B: He was claiming to be God incarnate, and actually believed it, which, if not true, makes him an absolute looney toon. Again "Great man, wise teacher, and absolutely insane schizophrenic..." doesn't really make much sense.

C: He was claiming to be God incarnate... and really was!!

Those are the only sensible choices. Horrible liar, absolute nutcase, or The Christ, God in human flesh. We are forced to take our pick.
Understand this: i personally do not care which one you choose. i in no way am trying to convert you or force my beliefs. i'm simply saying that your assessment of me and many others who share my faith as "brainwashed dependents", based on the arguments you offer, is, for lack of a better term, bullshit.

Ms. Corn - This is meant at as a discussion seeking truth, not as an attack on your faith. In seeking to find truth, have you ever tried looking anywhere outside of the NT for it? In response...

A) The Jews did it? Unlikely. As a point of reference you need to understand what was going on in ancient Judea to understand the messianic history. Judea was always a relatively weak power surrounded by great empires. At the time of Jesus, Judea was occuppied by yet another brutal empire. Not having the military might to confront Rome, Jews at that time were heavily reliant on faith in god and a messiah to deliver them from the oppression of the Romans. The messiah was for some an integral part of Judaism. For some it was not. It was debated and there were different views on messiah even then. And Jesus was not the only one at that time claiming to be the messiah. He was one of many.

You speak of what Jesus said and did, yet you cant deny the fact that neither he nor any of his immediate disciples left any written record. The NT was compiled at least in part a full 70 years later. At that time, that was two lifetimes. And it was modified for many reasons over centuries.

C) Let's look at motive...Why would the latter disciples have had reason to exagerate what jesus did in his lifetime. For one, perhaps they just didnt know. The initial history would have to have been oral unless there were writings we dont know about. And to me, oral history that is 2 millineum old doesn't hold water for me.

Remember, Jesus's disciples largely fled and for those that stayed to try to bring the message to the holy land, they were shunned. So the message never took hold and they decided to move on to Asia minor and Greece where Christianity first took hold. The Pagans....

If indeed the disciples believe "the jews" killed Jesus, and then "the jews" would not buy their interpretation of Jesus, it stands to reason they may have carried a bit of a grudge and decided to make up their own message based on their latter interpretation of Jesus.

Is this not as possible as your interpretation?

Whitey_22

cornnifer wrote:

How about the fact that he was executed for the crime of blasphemy? It is quite obvious that Jewish leadership at the time was quite convincved that he DID make such claims.
Actually, the "didn't really claim to be the messiah" argument is only slightly more debateable than the "Jesus didn't really exist" argument. i don't have the time to properly go into it, but lets look at just one example. At one point, the Jewish leadership had their undies in a huge wad over Jesus' forgiving of sins. You see, i cannot forgive you for transgressions you commit against someone else. Only the person wronged and God can do that. But, thats just what Jesus was doing! This philosophical idea was VERY important in Jewish tradition. Jesus came directly from Jewish tradition, so, he was well aware of what he was claiming. It wasn't a cultural miscue. He was knowingly claiming to do something only God is capable of. This is an obvious claim to divinity. There are many other examples. Again, to anyone but fringe academics, Jesus' claim to be the fulfillment of messianic prophecy is pretty much irrefutable.

That being said, once Jesus made this claim, he took away forever our option of labeling him simply "a great man, wise teacher etc." He certainly was those things, but we are unable to leave it at that as you claim to do. As credible scholars agree, he did in fact make claims to messianic prophecy, and by doing so eliminated the "ordinary wise man" option. You see, there are but three possibilities left to us:
A: He was claiming to be God incarnate, knowing full well it was not true, making him a damn liar. "great man, wise teacher, and bald faced liar..." That doesn't quite work, now does it.

B: He was claiming to be God incarnate, and actually believed it, which, if not true, makes him an absolute looney toon. Again "Great man, wise teacher, and absolutely insane schizophrenic..." doesn't really make much sense.

C: He was claiming to be God incarnate... and really was!!

Those are the only sensible choices. Horrible liar, absolute nutcase, or The Christ, God in human flesh. We are forced to take our pick.
Understand this: i personally do not care which one you choose. i in no way am trying to convert you or force my beliefs. i'm simply saying that your assessment of me and many others who share my faith as "brainwashed dependents", based on the arguments you offer, is, for lack of a better term, bullshit.

Your options A and B seem very likely to me. Flawed genious...in fact I'd argue it's the flaws that make the genious.