This time of the year you see alot about jesus christ I would have to say I disagree with alot of christians who say he was god.He was cursed on a tree as the old testament states, his own followers denied and abandoned him at that crucial hour.According to jewish scholar from vandrbilt university the messiah was understood by jews that he would usher in the messianic age somehow.But she also states and she sites the prophet Isaiah in a short amount of versesthat the messiah would enter in a peaceful existence for humanity to live in. her name is Amy Jill Levine since his death didn`t do that she feels he has no right or his followers to call him self messiah.I t was one big hoax perpetrated on gullible people.most of whom were illiterate. The world is a better place without any religion.
Subscription Note:
Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.
Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.
Ignoring your atrocious typing and grammar errors.
If jesus existed (and there is no proof that he did), he was a pawn of Sejanus in an effort usurp Tiberius.
http://www.pbs.org/empires/romans/empire/tiberius.html
When Tiberius executed Sejanus, jesus' fate was sealed.
modern day scholarship on jesus life says that he existed the point goes father then that if he claimed to be messiah did he meet the requirements of that title. According to noted biblical scholar from vanderbilt university he didn`t usher in the messianic age. present day biblical scholars such as bart ehrman and john dominic crossan admit that there was a jesus.Marcus borg but there are some in the myth camp like frank zindler and robert m. price who say that he was just a myth.
No, modern day scholarship does not say he existed. Please prove that (a) jesus existed and (b) that he was the son of gods or god or goddess --- or whatever your dogma tells you about him.
Something that does not exist cannot be named a Criminal or a Messiah or whatever type of declaring.
I didn't understand it. Are you saying that have proof about Jesus existed? And if so... hohoho... What evidences are?
Non theist, I don't accept that it's an either/or question. There are options other than messiah or criminal.
jesus claimed messiahship he was crucified on a tree as a criminal of rome, so what do you have to say about this matter? you say you don`t accept either or question. then what and how would you describe it to be.Pontius Pilate had put the inscription on the top saying king of the jews, he claimed to be the jewish messiah but instead was put to death and hung with 2 criminals. so what would you call that Truett.
I call it a fable. The Romans were many things, including literate. It was common in Roman culture for people to document current events. The events you suppose might have happened were written about only in the Bible. That Bible helpfully adds things that any curious, literate person would've documented, like zombies crawling out of graves across Jerusalem and walking down those ancient streets. Come now, you don't seriously give any credence to this nonsense. It's not reasonable to believe the wild tales told in the Bible; they conflict with every single law of nature and turn our detailed understanding of reality on it's head. The Bible stories don't conform to reality.
What I say to your story is that the crucifiction is a myth about a legendary figure who was another in a string of half-man/half-gods who were born of virgins, performed great deeds, died heroically and came back to life. Adonis and Hercules and a long list of others were shockingly similar to jesus. Myths and legends can come from a composite of different people and stories, which seems likely with Jesus. A people were oppressed and seeking a messiah, and their mass delusion about god provided a breeding ground for mystics and charlatans and delusional hippies to attract followers, piss off the law, and find themselves executed. That is more reasonable than zombies, don't you think?
hia, todays current scholarship states that there was a real Jesus who lived in the first century,preached and got on the bad side of romans and jewish aristocrats, No doubt in my mind that Jesus was a real person the thing is was he messiah or was he a criminal of rome.there are some outside sources not Christian who allude to jesus life.You Truett don`t want to come to terms and face reality. so you write this off as another myth.please be better informed of your historical sources before you dare say that Jesus was one more myth.
Non theist, I've dedicated decades to studying this proposition and was convinced of it for essentially all of those decades. It was the conflict with science and the absence of anything remotely similar to proof that led to my abandonment of faith in any part of the jesus story. I say that to demonstrate that you're wrong when you say that I don't want to come to terms with and face reality. I've gone to a great deal of trouble to face reality. And of course I've written it off as another myth, but it wasn't the flippant process that one might infer from your comments. I "dare say that Jesus was one more myth" after what I think can fairly be categorized as an exhaustive effort to determine his existence and lordship. Regarding my being "informed" by "historical sources", the current scholarship that comes from people justifying their faith are not sufficiently credible. What would be credible is a body of contemporary writings that document the biblical character's existence. There were certainly Joshuas (renamed Jesus by Greek writers) in Judea at the time in question, and there were certainly mystics and charlatans and deluded hippies, which was my point above. And no doubt some of them were executed. Those things don't count. You and I are talking about Jesus (Joshua) of Nazareth. Please bring me up to speed on what archaeologists and anthropologists have dug up or found in ancient labyrinths that represent contemporary documentation of the character Jesus.
If you have that, I'll be happy to say there was definitely a Jesus. Of course, that has nothing to do with him being a messiah or son of god, but at least we could say he lived. As of now, we don't even know that.
Attachments
Attach Image/Video?:
tell me truett what was your sources? look how out time was determined ad or bce it was done by Christ life.the manuscript evidence we have more copies of the original manuscripts then any other piece of literature of the ancient world.over 20,000 copies in greek latin etc jesus fulfilled prophecy hundreds of years earlier, then you have the effect on peoples life and society.like university and hospital and all kinds of social agencies like the red cross and the salvation army.they all derived from the life of jesus.
The BC/AD year system was invented in the 1500's.
Making lots of copies of legends, oral histories, and fiction doesn't make them any more real.
Just like when part one of a series of novels prophecizes what will happen in part five. And when part five is written, is anyone surprised when the prophecy comes true?
The stories of Lord Krishna affect peoples lives all time; bet you don't think he is/was real.
If by sources it was...
ALFÖLDI, A.: The conversion of constantine and pagan Rome, Oxford, 1948.
ALLARD, P.: Julien l'Apostat, 3 vols., Roma, 1972.
ARNHEIM, M. T. W.: The Senatorial Aristocracy in the later roman Empire, Oxford, 1900.
BAIGENT & LEIGH: The Dead Sea scrolls deception, Nueva York, 1991.
BAYNES, N. H.: Constantine and the christian church, Oxford, 1972.
BIDEZ, J.: La vie de l'Empereur Julien, París, 1930.
BIONDI, B.: Il diritto romano cristiano, 3 vols., Milán, 1952 y 1953.
BOISSIER, G.: La fin du paganisme, París, 1903.
BOWLER, D.: The age of Constantine and Julian, Londres, 1978.
BREZZI, P.: Constantine's religious policy, Nápoles, 1965.
BURCKHARDT, J.: Die Zeit Constantins des Grossen, Stuttgart, 1929.
CAMACHO, S.: Creators of gods, Madrid, 2000.
CHASTAGNOL, A.: Le Bas-Empire, Paris, 1969.
DÖRRIES, D.: Dar Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins, Gotinga, 1954.
EHRHARDT, A.: Constantin der Grosse: Religionspolitik und Gesetzgebung, Z.S.S., 1955.
GABBA, E.: Per la storia dell'esercito romano in età imperiale, Roma, 1974.
GRAHAM L.: Deceptions and myths of the Bible, Nueva York, 1991.
GANSHOFFER, R.: L'evolution des institutions municipales en Occident et en Orient au Bas-Empire, París, 1963.
JONES, A. H. M.: Constantine and conversion of Europe, Londres, 1948.
LABBRIOLLE, P. DE; BARDY, G., Y PALANQUE, J. R.: De la paix constantinienne à al mort de Théodose, París, 1936.
MASSEY, G.: Historical Jesus and the Mythical Christ or Natural Genesis and Typology of Equinoctial Christolatry, Montana, 1998.
MAYER, R.: Byzantion, Konstantinopel, Istanbul, eine genetische Stadtgeographie, Viena, 1943.
MAURICE, J.: Constantin le Grand, París, 1924.
MAZZARINO, S.: Aapetti sociali del quarto secolo. Ricerche di Storia tarda romana, Roma, 1951.
MOMIGLIANO, A.: Paganism and Christianity in the fourth Century, Londres, 1962.
NISCHER, E. V.: The army reforms of Diocletian and Constantine - Journal of Roman Studies, XIII, 1923.
PALANQUE, J. R.: Le Bas-Empire, París, 1971.
PIGANIOL, A.: La fiscalité du Bas-Empire, Journal des Savants, 1946 - L'Empereur Constantin, París, 1932 - L'Empire chrétien, París, 1947 - L'economie dirigée dans l'empire romain au IVe siècle, Scentia, serie 6, XVI, 1947.
REMONDON, R.: The crisis of the Roman Empire from Marcus Aurelius to Anastasius, Barcelona, 1967.
SCHWARTZ: The Emperor Constantine and the Christian Church, Madrid, 1926. STEIN, E.: Historie du Bas-Empire, 2 vols., París, 1959.
STONE, M.: When God Was a Woman, Nueva York, 1978.
VAN DE BERCHEM, D.: L'armeé de Dioclétien et la reforme constantinienne, Institut Francais de Beyrouth, LVI, 1952.
VOGLE, CH.: Constance II et l'administration impériale, Estrasburgo, 1979.
VOGT, J.: Zur Frage des christlichen Einflusses auf die Gesetzgebung Konstantin, Fest. Wenger, II, 1945 - Konstantin der Grosse und sein Jahrhundert, Munich, 1960.
WAITE, C.: History of the christian religion in the year two hundred, California, 1992.
WALKER, B.: The womans enciclopedia of myths and secrets, San Francisco, 1993.
WELLS, G. A.: Did Jesus exist?, Búfalo, 1975 - The historical evidence for Jesus, Búfalo, 1988.
WHELESS, J.: Forgery in Christianity, Health Research, 1990.
AUBET, R: Caligula ou le pouvoir à vingt ans, Paris, 1975.
BALSDON, J.P.V.D.: The Emperor Gaius (Caligula), Oxford, 1934.
BAUMAN, R.A.: Impietas in Principem. A Study of Treason against the Roman Emperor with Special Reference to the First Century A.D. (Münchener Beiträge zur Papyrusforschung und Antiken Rechsgeschichte, 67), Munich, 1974.
BESSONE, L.: La rivolta batavica e la crisi del 69 d.C., Turín, 1972.
BOULVERT, G.: Les esclaves et les affranchis impériaux sous le Haut-Emire romain, rôle politique et administratif, 2 vols, Nápoles, 1970.
BRUÈRE, R.T.: Tacitus and Pliny’s Panegiricus, CPh, 1954.
BURN, A.R.: The Government of the Roman Empire from Augustus to the Antonines. Londres, 1952.
BURY, J.B.: History of the Roman Empire from its Foundation to the Death of M. Aurelius, Londres, 1913.
CIZEK, E.: L'époque de Néron et ses conroverses idéologiques, Leiden, 1971.
COOK, S.a.; ADCOCK, F.E., y CHARLESWORTH, M.P.: The Cambridge Ancient History, X. The Augustan Empire, Cambridge, 1966.
CORNELIO TÁCITO, CAYO: Anales. Obra completa: Libros I-VI, Editorial Gredos: Madrid, 1991.
Libros XI-XVI, Editorial Gredos: Madrid, 1986.
CORRADI, G.: Galba-Otone-Vitellio, Roma, 1941.
DANIEL RUIZ BUENO: Padres apologetas griegos. Ed. Biblioteca de autores cristianos. Madrid 1954.
EUSEBIO DE CESAREA: Historia Eclesiástica (IV, 16-18). Ed. Biblioteca de autores cristianos. Madrid 1973.
GARZETTI, A.: From Tiberius to the Antonines. A History of the Roman Empire, Londres, 1942.
HAMMOND, M.: The Augustan Principate in Theory and Practice during the Julio-Claudian Period, Nueva York, 1968.
JEROME, T.S.: The Tacitean Tiberius. A. Study in Historiographic Method, CPh, 1912.
LEVI, M.a.: Neroni e suoi tempi, Milán, 1973.
MANFRÉ, G.: La crisi politica dell'anno 68-69 d.C., Bolonia, 1947.
MOMIGLIANO, A.: Claudius, The Emperor and his Achievement, Cambridge, 1961.
PASSERINI, A.: Caligola e Claudio, Roma, 1941.
PLINIO SEGUNDO, CAYO: Historia natural. Obra completa. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
1. Volumen I: Libros I-II. 1995.
2. Volumen II: Libros III-VI. 1998.
3. Volumen III: Libros VII-XI. 2003.
4. Volumen IV: Libros XII-XVI. 2010.
ROSTOVZEFF, M.: Historia social y económica del Imperio Romano, 2 vol., Madrid, 1972-73.
SALMON, E.T.: A History of the Roman World from 30 B.C. to A.D. 138, Londres, 1966.
SCRAMUZZA, V.M.: The Emperor Claudius, Cambridge, 1940.
SIMON, MARCEL; BENOIT, ANDRÉ: El judaísmo y el cristianismo antiguo, de Antíoco Epífanes a Constantino. Colección Nueva Clío, Editorial Labor, Barcelona, 1972.
SUETONIO TRANQUILO, CAYO: Vida de los doce césares. Obra completa. Madrid: Editorial Gredos.
1. Volumen I: Libros I-III. 1992 [1ª edición, 2ª impresión].
2. Volumen II: Libros IV-VIII. 1992 [1ª edición, 2ª impresión].
SYME, R.: The Roman Revolution, Oxford, 1952.
TREVIJANO, RAMON (2004). Patrología. Biblioteca de Autores Cristianos.
WALTER, G.: Nero, Londres, 1957.
WARMINGTON, B.H.: Nero: Reality and Legend, Londres, 1969.
... Well, you can start there, if you stay without reading, no problem, come back and I'll give you more.
P.S.
And remember, a gospel is historically as valid as Bambi's movie used as a sex manual.
first Corinthians was penned in the 50`s ad so it was to short for legend to enter in. Also do you think that the apostles all died for a lye. They gave up everything, there belongings there all.so my advice to you is study your history.
@non theist: Are you trying to say that the gospels have any historical validity? Or that the Gospels were written before the third century? It's curiosity Ôo)-~
http://theconversation.com/weighing-up-the-evidence-for-the-historical-j... please consider the above text
@non theist: "(...) The first problem we encounter when trying to discover more about the Historical Jesus is the lack of early sources. The earliest sources only reference the clearly fictional Christ of Faith.
These early sources, compiled decades after the alleged events, all stem from Christian authors eager to promote Christianity – which gives us reason to question them. The authors of the Gospels fail to name themselves, describe their qualifications, or show any criticism with their foundational sources – which they also fail to identify. (...)
(...) Given the poor state of the existing sources, and the atrocious methods used by mainstream Biblical historians, the matter will likely never be resolved. In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable."
Then, exactly, What do you want to sell me? ¬¬)-~
Non theist, the text you just provided argues against you. For instance, here is the writer's summation sentence:
"In sum, there are clearly good reasons to doubt Jesus’ historical existence – if not to think it outright improbable."- Rachel Lataster
Raphael Lataster is the author of There Was No Jesus, There Is No God.
Your words are the words of a christian apologist. Seeing your "non theist" name underneath Albert Einstein's picture with a distant galaxy in the background beside your ravings about a mythical savior on a cross is jarring. Whatever your ideology is, I wouldn't define it as atheism. It's up to you, but you claim to be an Atheist and that claim appears suspect.
Your reasoning about the effects of christian mythology on people and societies is not convincing- placebos and mass delusion are both capable of generating effects on people's behavior.
Faithful people's willingness to die doesn't imply truth in their claims, as evidenced by suicide jihadists. And we have no good reason to think that any disciples actually lived, followed a man named Jesus, or were executed.
You've claimed that there are 20,000 copies of the biblical text. So what? There are a lot of copies of Lord Of The Rings. It is the contemporary references to the supposed person Jesus of Nazareth that is lacking.
Inside those alledged 20,000 parts of the bible are the zombies that you've refused to address. Your reference material is not believable.
You make claims about a suspected figure in first century Palestine and, when challenged, ask others to prove your claims false. I can claim a teapot is orbiting around Mars and challenge you to prove me wrong, but you'll immediately recognize that I am the one with the burden of proof. In the same way you have the burden of proof regarding jesus. Moreover, we've gone so far as to provide proof of the lack of evidence, but still nothing from you but assertions and an ongoing refusal to address the ridiculous claims made by the bible.
Christians can overcome ALL of our objections by claiming that god is magic and can do anything. It's not based in reality, but it's an argument all the same. If that is your point just say so. But you're attempting to base your comments on reality and you're failing miserably. Why not acknowledge my initial point which was that we don't have good reason to believe jesus existed. That doesn't mean he absolutely did not exist as a person, it just means that we have no good reason to believe he did. Why not acknowledge that and move on?
i`m saying both things they of course have historical reliability and they were penned before the first century ended.paul in corinthians dated back to the 50`s ad, while most of the canon was complete by the 3rd century.
@non theist: and to say that nonsense you link an article that denies it and another written in a web of biblical exaltation... hmmm I would say it will not serve, and it isn't a hunch, professor.
It is funny that you would cite 1st. Corinthians as having historical reliability about the character Jesus. Even according to the mythology, Paul never met Jesus (only saw him in religious visions), everything he said about Jesus was learned through "divine revelation".
@Nyarlathotep: Oooooooh you've screwed him the surprise.
the great apostle Paul spoke to a number of apostles who had first hand knowledge of jesus and his workings.paul mostly got it from luke and peter and james.by the time of the jerusalem council meeting things were already established.the teaching between the apostles and saint paul were in total harmony.you don`t have to take my word if you must, But open the bible new testament and go to the book of Acts there you will see it.chapters 11 to 16.and pauls conversion in chapter 8 and nine.
And you know it because...
A) You were there
B) You read it in the New Testament
C) You dream it
D) A dove appeared to you and said "I'm going to make you a son"
Where you sure didn't get it was from a history book. It's very ugly to make you pass as an atheist, and then defending your theistic garbage from the utmost ignorance to see if you catch something.
I'm sorry to tell you, but this isn't a prayer group. When you say "Paul was a great apostle" the first thing I think knowing what I know is that the apostles didn't existed, you have just linked an article that defends the non-existence of Jesus. Don't you know read?
And the Bible is NOT any historical text. Citing it to try to prove that a fact or a personage existed is as practical as quoting the Lord of the Rings to prove that Frodo Bolson existed.
Look for a history book.
Live long and prosper Ôo)-♫
He seems to vacillate between theist and atheist, with it taking about a couple months to complete the journey. Three months ago he was a Christian who was all a flutter about Jesus being resurrected. Six months ago he was a non-believer. In a month I wouldn't be surprised if he was a Catholic and obsessed with the Shroud of Turin.
@Nyarlathotep: Hahhahahaa the truth is that he tries to hold on to anything, it's true.
I read a Richard Dawkins' article where he said that the most desperate thing to do a public conference about atheism was to see how people were quoting the Bible, and that to tell them that the bible isn't a historical book was useless, because, to them, the bible is the word of god, so, as much as you dismantle the quotations, however much you prove the historical falsity of what they said, the only thing that worked was to ask them something of a history book. Then, they would close the bible and look at you with the history book in their hands as if didn't know what to say.
The doubt, If they doubt there's hope.
http://www.icr.org/article/has-archaeological-evidence-for-jesus-been-di...
@non theist: Institut for Creation Research??? Really??? Have you any articles from the ACVSF, you know, Archaeological Council of the Vatican for the Sanctification of the Faith? Because then of course I would pay attention to you, professor Ôo)-~
Non theist, here is the bullshit summation sentence from your Creation Research document:
"The Christian faith is a reasonable faith, well grounded in the facts of history, and the Bible is an entirely accurate document. On its teachings we can base our lives and eternal destiny."
Are you suggesting that we accept that horseshit? It is delusional to believe anything in that summation sentence. You argue in your original post that the claims of the bible are false, but throughout this discussion you contend that the bible is a credible document. Please explain the apparent disconnect.
@Truett: I don't know if these people think can manipulate us like to the children they used to brainwash in catechetical classes, or really believe these shits.
That's incredible.
Pages