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.
This isn't the land of opportunity, it's the land of competition.
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..
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! )
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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.
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.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
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.
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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 : )
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.
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.
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.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
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.
"There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable." - Sam Harris
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....
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.
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.
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.
"When all your friends and sedatives mean well but make it worse... better find yourself a place to level out."
Cornnifer, you have a crapton more stamina than I'll ever have
What we learn from experience depends on what philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question. - C.S. Lewis, Miracles
What we learn from experience depends on what philosophy we bring to experience. It is therefore useless to appeal to experience before we have settled, as well as we can, the philosophical question. - C.S. Lewis, Miracles
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!
"The opposite of a fact is falsehood, but the opposite of one profound truth may very well be another profound truth." ~ Niels Bohr
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...
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).
Comments
jesus=myth
or
jesus=dumbass
take your pick
Bring it on cause I'm no victim
b nice loves pearl jam like ed vedder loves america
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
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.
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.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
We're talking 25 years TOPS after the death of Christ. thats a blink. Especially when considering ancient history.
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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.
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.
My other home
www.iseekgolf.com
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.
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.
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.
Hey now, dont go confusing us Yanks with your fancy ENGLISH over there. Er...what on earth is a crapton?
[krap-tun]
-noun
1. A ton of crap
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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!
http://www.myspace.com/illuminatta
Rhinocerous Surprise '08!!!
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...
Anywho, I'm glad I found this