Was christianity a hoax?

Ahnimus

catefrances wrote:

you mean the 'fact' that gilgamesh was 2/3 god and 1/3 man. or that the annunaki are depicted as bird headed or as reptilian warriors. or perhaps that erishkagel was carried off to the netherworld and that enki's boat was swamped when he went to maybe/ maybe not rescue her.

Exactly!

catefrances

the face wrote:

I had nothing to say about you or your family...In fact I have not responded to you at all other than to say this guy does not miss a chance to bash. Dont take it personally.

i'm not taking it personally. and you have responded to me when you quote my quote in your response. i'm just saying that perhaps when people share their views on this board they may wish to take into account that the people they are 'trashing' are reading their posts and act accordingly. 'cause i say so' is not a legitimate response.

cornnifer

the face wrote:

I presume you get this history from the new testament? Do you have any other source besides the Christian Bible? Let me ask you this, what part of the New Testament did Jesus actually write???? I asked for independent evidence, not biblical regurgtation......Got any of that?

The Jewish Talmud for one! There are passages in there referencing Jesus and referring to him as as sorcerer and false messiah. Unflattering. Put confirmation of his existence.

No more responses regarding Jesus' actual existence, please. i will literally not reply. Complete waste of time to debate something that is no longer debated by sincere academia.

Ahnimus

Yes, Jesus existed, so did Appolonius of Tyana, why doesn't anyone worship him?

Byrnzie

the face wrote:

Agreeing with my nemisis. But I would like to see what Corhholio has in the way of evidence as well. I know the history and provided unbiased information. What have you got other than defensiveness...?

It's all here baby! I'm too drunk and lazy to scroll through it all again. But I've stated it all here. Knock yourself out..

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=226069&highlight=american

the face

Byrnzie wrote:

It's all here baby! I'm too drunk and lazy to scroll through it all again. But I've stated it all here. Knock yourself out..

http://forums.pearljam.com/showthread.php?t=226069&highlight=american

Your Kronenbourg. Me. Im on the wagon until New Years. Have one for me. At least we appear on the same page on this issue....I liked the Saddam Hussein image. Pretty funny. Merry former pagan holiday converted to the birth of Jesus day by Emperor Constanine everyone...day. Phew. All in one breath....

Collin

Kenny Olav wrote:

well, if he's the son of God, or one-third of God, or whatever, he could easily have created one. the very fact that he didn't even think to create one, and then use his divine powers to rock the entire universe into a state of perfect harmony, totally disqualifies him as a true God in my book.

You're absolutely right, just imagine

Hey, dude, is that a Strat?
Nope, that's my brand new Jesus!

Byrnzie

Abookamongstthemany wrote:

I've read about scholars and historians of the time and place jesus was born not mentioning him at all. But I have also read some decent cases that he might have existed...no one can really prove anything.

I've never once said that he didn't exist. But I have said that it doesn't appear that he existed when he widely believed to have done.

Byrnzie

catefrances wrote:

so where was jesus and what was he doing between when his family got back from exile and him meeting john?

Trying to learn Voodoo Chile on guitar? Obviously he failed. Maybe that's why they killed him? Jesus died for your riffs! :cool:

catefrances

i find religious arguments tiresome most of the time. it's about people's faith and that being irrational, as it requires not a shred of evidence, it is beyond argument.

Jeanie

catefrances wrote:

i find religious arguments tiresome most of the time. it's about people's faith and that being irrational, as it requires not a shred of evidence, it is beyond argument.

Here! Here!

cornnifer

catefrances wrote:

i find religious arguments tiresome most of the time. it's about people's faith and that being irrational, as it requires not a shred of evidence, it is beyond argument.

True faith does not REQUIRE evidence, but, mine is surely strengthened by it. Mounds of it. My faith is anything but blind.

the face

cornnifer wrote:

True faith does not REQUIRE evidence, but, mine is surely strengthened by it. Mounds of it. My faith is anything but blind.

Than why are you so afraid to discuss the historical jesus? Because of what you might find? How can your faith not be be blind if you refuse to search for evidence?

A Surprise Left

Regarding the date when he lived there is evidence for him living when he is supposed to have done so. There are gospels which is from four seperate people telling the same story(although from different angles) which is telling. Perhaps it could be argued they embellished the stories slightly for their own agendas (if one desires) but if they all wrote about someone who didn't exist and didn't exist at that time it would be very strange. There are early manuscripts of these four accounts that make it highly probable they were written in the first century A.D. There are also secular sources and there are very little mainstream historians who doubt the existence of Jesus.

deadnothingbetter

NMyTree wrote:

Oh I believe Jesus existed.

But all the religions, in my opinion, are all hoaxes. it's a farce.

hey, i agree. religion really does strain my frame of thought and obstructs my view for living. but i don't think jesus came to form another religion.

"I have come to give you life, and life more abundantly." That doesn't sound like religion to me.

deadnothingbetter

cornnifer wrote:

True faith does not REQUIRE evidence, but, mine is surely strengthened by it. Mounds of it. My faith is anything but blind.

i'd like to comment on this although it's not my arguement to defend. but i think the other person is right. faith does not require evidence... and it is tiresome to argue faith and evidence. but i think that this actually benefits believers more than none.

man, i haven't been on these bulletins for a long time.

the face

A Surprise Left wrote:

Regarding the date when he lived there is evidence for him living when he is supposed to have done so. There are gospels which is from four seperate people telling the same story(although from different angles) which is telling. Perhaps it could be argued they embellished the stories slightly for their own agendas (if one desires) but if they all wrote about someone who didn't exist and didn't exist at that time it would be very strange. There are early manuscripts of these four accounts that make it highly probable they were written in the first century A.D. There are also secular sources and there are very little mainstream historians who doubt the existence of Jesus.

the quetion is whether the biblical jesus did what the bible said he did. who was he really? i think there was a jesus...i just think the historical underpinnings of who he was are weak...

deadnothingbetter

the face wrote:

the quetion is whether the biblical jesus did what the bible said he did. who was he really? i think there was a jesus...i just think the historical underpinnings of who he was are weak...

historical underpinnngs of who he was are weak

what does that mean? hey, jesus was a cool guy... more than cool, he was phenomenal... of course, i can't prove that to you but even in his days, when he performed miracles in front of everybody there were those that still didn't believe that he was the son of God.

if he is who he said he was, i don't think it's weak... if he is who he said he was, i think we need to change our opinion about him.

Ahnimus

deadnothingbetter wrote:

historical underpinnngs of who he was are weak

what does that mean? hey, jesus was a cool guy... more than cool, he was phenomenal... of course, i can't prove that to you but even in his days, when he performed miracles in front of everybody there were those that still didn't believe that he was the son of God.

if he is who he said he was, i don't think it's weak... if he is who he said he was, i think we need to change our opinion about him.

Lots of people performed magic tricks back then. And Appollonius of Tyana is argued to have been more influential than Jesus.

A Surprise Left

Ahnimus wrote:

Lots of people performed magic tricks back then. And Appollonius of Tyana is argued to have been more influential than Jesus.

Well Appollonius did not form the basis of the world's largest religion and is completely irrevelant to the modern world. Jesus is still at least somewhat relevant 2000 years after his passing which is no mean feat, particulary for a man who was not born of noble birth and never held an official office.

As for the arguements of "the face" there are always going to some shortage of information about a man who lived 2000 years ago but we do know quite a bit about him. How many other carpenter's from this period of history are remembered today? Its impossible to agree on points such as claims to divinity and the like but he was obviously a person who was quite extraordinary.