Let's cut through the chase: Jesus didn't exist.

[SnakeLord]

What author revised his novel based on what the critics said?

Pretty much all I would say. What do you think drafts are for?

Would he do it like this: Great Gatsby rev1 (after first criticism), Great Gatsby rev2 (after 2nd criticism), rev 3 (after critic #1 rebutted critic #2), etc.

Pretty much, yes.

The bible says Adam transgressed

Again, that is irrelevant to the point.

If you disagree, then you disagree with the most fundamental point of the bible

If you actually had the ability to read, you'd realise that's not what has been said.

Geez Snakelord, why don't you just throw away the whole bible? Under your view there really is no point to it.

Or do like you and just ignore it all while quoting parts completely irrelevant to the discussion? I notice you ignored pretty much everything I said - and it's quite clear that you had no choice but to do that because you have no argument to it. Instead you just requote the same garbage that has already been dismissed as irrelevant 5 times.

BTW, I'm still waiting for that manly apology of yours. What's the matter -- pride got your tongue?

I have already given an explanation to this some half dozen times. I would simply say that you really need to learn how to read.

 

[Woody]

SL,

I have already given an explanation to this some half dozen times. I would simply say that you really need to learn how to read.

I read all your excuses -- you're simply not man enough to apologize when your accusations are clearly wrong.

notice you ignored pretty much everything I said - and it's quite clear that you had no choice but to do that because you have no argument to it. Instead you just requote the same garbage that has already been dismissed as irrelevant 5 times.

I did not ignore what you said. I gave you my executive summary of the bible: Romans 5:17, and I'm asking you for your executive summary of the bible. You say it's not the point you are arguing, and I disagree.

Your belief that Adam did not transgress renders the rest of the bible pointless regarding sin and redemption.

OK so this is why you are an atheist -- I can accept that, and we agree to disagree.

 

[Godless]

Example of redundant:

Woody:"I read all your excuses -- you're simply not man enough to apologize when your accusations are clearly wrong."

Vs

SnakeLord: "I have already given an explanation to this some half dozen times. I would simply say that you really need to learn how to read."

I've got to hand it to you Snake, you certainly have patience with Woody's rhetorical redundancy.

Godless

 

[Woody]

Example of redundant:

Woody:"I read all your excuses -- you're simply not man enough to apologize when your accusations are clearly wrong."

Vs

SnakeLord: "I have already given an explanation to this some half dozen times. I would simply say that you really need to learn how to read."

I've got to hand it to you Snake, you certainly have patience with Woody's rhetorical redundancy.

Godless

At least I've been man enough to apologize to SL when I'm wrong. I don't recall ever hearing an atheist apologize before. I guess atheists aren't capable of humility.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

At least I've been man enough to apologize to SL when I'm wrong. I don't recall ever hearing an atheist apologize before. I guess atheists aren't capable of humility.

*************
M*W: Well, you don't get around much, do you? I've apologized several times when I felt like I was out of line. More recently it was to Provita. A long while back it was Misty-thighs and Superluminal. I bet they remember.

I have no problem apologizing, even when presumed so.

 

[SnakeLord]

I read all your excuses -- you're simply not man enough to apologize when your accusations are clearly wrong.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's just because I don't believe you. As I have now said quite a few times, you gave yourself away earlier. Build a bridge and get over it.

I did not ignore what you said. I gave you my executive summary of the bible: Romans 5:17, and I'm asking you for your executive summary of the bible. You say it's not the point you are arguing, and I disagree.

Well, there's an easy way to find out:

Your belief that Adam did not transgress renders the rest of the bible pointless regarding sin and redemption.

And there is your error. You have made up a 'belief' and assigned it to me without justification. For the last post or two I have told you that my issue and concern does not lie with this - sure, Adam and Eve sinned by eating the fruit - see?

The issue is that without having the required knowledge of what 'sin' constitutes, (knowledge of good and evil is essential for this and the bible clearly shows that they did not have knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil), they cannot be held responsible for any 'sin' that is committed because they are unaware that it is a sin.

Further to that, I think I clearly demonstrated in my earlier post that even the most loyal jesus and god lovers cannot help but to sin - it is in their nature to do so. Any christian will tell you that there is not one person that is entirely sinless - (other than jesus supposedly). This shows beyond any reasonable doubt that it is in man's nature to 'sin', it is inevitable. In saying, jesus has no value whatsoever other than to tell you it's ok to sin.

Being that it is now ok to sin, (as long as you say "hi jesus"), then Adam and Eve would still be in the garden and just as happy as you lot if jesus had have been around then to tell them it's ok that they're only doing what is in the nature for humans to do.

Unlike you, they did not get a jesus pat on the back saying it was ok. They got banished from a garden, were cursed by god to a life of sweat and pain and yet still were noble enough to give you life. You don't do anything when you sin other than say it's ok because jesus says it's ok. No curses for you, no nothing other than a 'freedom to sin' pass. Just like you, Adam and Eve did what was in their nature to do. The only difference is that you know you're being bad, they did not. In saying, they have far more of an excuse than you do.

 

[Woody]

SL said.

The issue is that without having the required knowledge of what 'sin' constitutes, (knowledge of good and evil is essential for this and the bible clearly shows that they did not have knowledge of good and evil before eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil), they cannot be held responsible for any 'sin' that is committed because they are unaware that it is a sin.

So according to you they didn't know what good was either, before they ate from the tree.

By the way, the fruit tree could have been an apple, pear, a citrus, or who knows. Some suspect it was probably a fig tree. We can eat of it freely now.


God only forbade the fruit to Adam, before Eve was even created. God didn't tell Eve not to eat the fruit. We can eat from the tree all we want to now. There is nothing magical about the tree. As the story tells, it is perfectly good for food.

They got banished from a garden, were cursed by god to a life of sweat and pain and yet still were noble enough to give you life.

Is it any different for the rest of us? I plant fruit trees and they all get bugs. I earn a living by the sweat of my brow (it's called stress). My wife had pain in child bearing. You speak as though A&E had it worse. Adam lived 900 years.

Perhaps. Or perhaps it's just because I don't believe you. As I have now said quite a few times, you gave yourself away earlier. Build a bridge and get over it.

When you called me a liar I didn't have a problem with it to start with. I've been called much worse around here, and I consider the source of the remark.

I honestly never heard of Frodo Baggins before except from you. At first I thought you were just making it up, and I never paid much attention to it, but you kept talking about it like it meant something. I thought maybe you were trying to be ridiculus or something to make a point. Who really cares about Lord of the Rings anyway? Isn't that a children's movie? I don't watch children's movies but apparantly you do. I guess Frodo means a lot to you. He means nothing to me.

When I asked for an apology I wanted to see what your character was made of, and I got my answer: for someone that demands apologies you have none to give in return.

 

[Godless]

So according to you they didn't know what good was either, before they ate from the tree.

They; Adam&Eve didn't exist at all, the story is a metaphor, deeper than you could ever figure out, if your dumb ass still thinks there were actual real characters.

By the way, the fruit tree could have been an apple, pear, a citrus, or who knows. Some suspect it was probably a fig tree. We can eat of it freely now.

Again complete metaphor, there was no tree, no garden of eden, nothing but ideas of ancient ignorance. But yet with this metaphor in lies a deep meaning. Figure that out.

God only forbade the fruit to Adam, before Eve was even created. God didn't tell Eve not to eat the fruit. We can eat from the tree all we want to now. There is nothing magical about the tree. As the story tells, it is perfectly good for food.

Silly grown man! LOL...

Godless

 

[TheVisitor]

As some have suggested, parts of the story are metaphors.
There was an original pair; Adam and Eve, but the name Adam means "man in the day he was created".
However the trees are a metaphor for people.
You are the fruit of your mothers womb.
Not to eat of the fruit was not to partake of the persons teachings, for one, which were contrary to Gods word and the reference to the fruit in the midst of the garden, is sexual.
Not to reproduce sexually with the serpent possessed of Lucifer, the serpent being a hominid race close enough to humans to interbreed.
The tree of life was representative of Christ, who in the form of a man, walked in the garden in the cool of the evening and talked with them about the things of eternal life.
There is only one form of eternal life and thats God therefore the tree of life was Christ.

 

[SnakeLord]

So according to you they didn't know what good was either, before they ate from the tree.

Yes, and the biblical god agrees:

'And the lord god said, "man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil"

The very name of the tree and actions concerning it show quite clearly that it was there to give knowledge of both evil and good to those that ate it, (in this case Adam and Eve), and god's statement shows that they didn't have understanding of good or evil before doing so.

By the way, the fruit tree could have been an apple, pear, a citrus, or who knows. Some suspect it was probably a fig tree. We can eat of it freely now.

Fascinating. Thanks for that.

God only forbade the fruit to Adam, before Eve was even created. God didn't tell Eve not to eat the fruit.

Well, the bible seems to stipulate that they both acted in violation of the law, not just Adam.

You said earlier: "The bible says Adam transgressed".

What you missed was that the bible also says Eve transgressed, (while seemingly viewing Adam as innocent):

"Let a woman learn in silence with all submissiveness. I permit no woman to teach or have authority over men; she is to keep silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve; and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor." Timothy 2:11

Is it any different for the rest of us? I plant fruit trees and they all get bugs. I earn a living by the sweat of my brow (it's called stress). My wife had pain in child bearing. You speak as though A&E had it worse.

Some of us I guess. I tend to just use Asda to buy my food, (thus being free from any of god's toiling the ground curse). My wife had an epidural, (largely being free from the pain of childbirth curse). But anyway, that wasn't the point of my comment.

Who really cares about Lord of the Rings anyway? Isn't that a children's movie? I don't watch children's movies but apparantly you do.

I tend not to discriminate. A good movie is a good movie, regardless to who the key audience is. Still, there are common misconceptions regarding stories like this. People have generally said the same with regards to Huckleberry Finn - indeed having it part of the curriculum for youngsters and yet it is not in any way a child's book.

Still, I do agree with you that Lord of the Rings is for children. All those good vs evil stories are.

 

[worthwalk]

Jesus did exist - fact

If you understand anything about historical documentation, we know for a fact by crossed referenced Roman sources that were not Christian sources (for example, Josephus, a Roman Reporter) that the historical characters such as Paul, Peter, etc absolutely existed. They were the disciples of Jesus. Paul, who was Saul (an early Christian hunter killer) was absolutely a real person and contemporary to Jesus. If the historical sources absolutely validate his contemporaries and disciples as real people and discuss how they were spreading christianity throughout Europe which is exactly what is discussed in the acts of the apostles and the letters, then why wouldn't Jesus be a real person. I don't think that even Jewish scholors debate his existence as a historical character.

 

[John99]

I don't think that even Jewish scholors debate his existence as a historical character.

Only a fool would not realize to erase history is to erase ones self.

 

[spidergoat]

If you understand anything about historical documentation, we know for a fact by crossed referenced Roman sources that were not Christian sources (for example, Josephus, a Roman Reporter) that the historical characters such as Paul, Peter, etc absolutely existed. They were the disciples of Jesus. Paul, who was Saul (an early Christian hunter killer) was absolutely a real person and contemporary to Jesus. If the historical sources absolutely validate his contemporaries and disciples as real people and discuss how they were spreading christianity throughout Europe which is exactly what is discussed in the acts of the apostles and the letters, then why wouldn't Jesus be a real person. I don't think that even Jewish scholors debate his existence as a historical character.

Paul never met Jesus, did he?
http://www.sullivan-county.com/id2/paul.htm

The authenticity of Josephus' account is disputed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus

 

[Medicine*Woman]

If you understand anything about historical documentation, we know for a fact by crossed referenced Roman sources that were not Christian sources (for example, Josephus, a Roman Reporter) that the historical characters such as Paul, Peter, etc absolutely existed. They were the disciples of Jesus.

*************
M*W: Jesus didn't resurrect, but this old thread sure did.

I know a little bit about historical documentation, and even a little about Josephus and what he wrote. I also know a little about Peter, Paul and Jesus, just enough to know that none of them existed as historical people, so in that respect, they were mythical contemporaries, for sure.

Paul, who was Saul (an early Christian hunter killer) was absolutely a real person and contemporary to Jesus.

*************
M*W: I could go into the astro-theological interpretation of your beliefs, but now is not the time. Let me just give you these hints:

(Saul=Sol=Solomon=Son-of-Man)
(Saul=Paul=Sol=Apollo)
(Je-Zeus=Jesus=Sol=Sun-of-mankind)
(Peter the Jew=Ju-piter)
(Lucifer=Venus=the Morning Star)
(Saturn=Saturday=Sabbath)

I don't expect you to understand this right now.

If the historical sources absolutely validate his contemporaries and disciples as real people and discuss how they were spreading christianity throughout Europe which is exactly what is discussed in the acts of the apostles and the letters, then why wouldn't Jesus be a real person. I don't think that even Jewish scholors debate his existence as a historical character.

*************
M*W: Sure, everything we read is factual. Especially everything on the Internet and what's been written in the blibel. We should never question what we read and what we've been taught, because we'll be thrown in the lake of fire.

Did it ever occur to you that what you have been taught, and what you've read, and what you believe might not be true? And you never questioned it, did you?

I don't want to overwhelm you with facts just now. I'd like to draw our discussions out over time if for nothing else, for entertainment purposes only.

I'll throw this out to you, since you obviously like to talk about history. Do you think that Josephus might have been responsible for writing the new testament? Don't just answer the question right now. Think about the question. I'll give you plenty of time to look up the answers. You can even find the info online. You can start by looking up the following references:

Caesar's Messiah, by Joseph Atwill.

Jesus Was Caesar, by Francesca Carotta.

Also, make sure to read the links spidergoat posted, especially the one about:

The Mythmaker, Paul and the Invention of Christianity, by Hyam Maccoby. Hopefully, we can have some educated discussions.

 

[draqon]

Let's cut through the chase: I didn't exist.

In 200 years noone will believe I ever existed.

 

[Iasion]

Hiya all,

If you understand anything about historical documentation, we know for a fact by crossed referenced Roman sources that were not Christian sources (for example, Josephus, a Roman Reporter) that the historical characters such as Paul, Peter, etc absolutely existed.

False.

There is no non-Christian evidence for Paul.
Josephus does NOT mention Paul.
No historian mentions Paul.
If YOU think so, please name and quote the historian.


There is no non-Christian evidence for Peter.
Josephus does NOT mention Peter.
No historian mentions Peter.
If YOU think so, please name and quote the historian.


There is no contemporary historical evidence for Jesus.
No contemporary historian mentions Jesus.
Philo, Seneca, Justus and many others - NO mention of Jesus.

Josephus is 60 years later,
and the passage is at least tampered with
at worst completely forged.

That's the best evidence for Jesus -
a corrupt passage from 60 years later.


Iasion

 

[rida]

*************
M*W: Let's get right down to it. Jesus didn't exist, and there is no proof that confirms he existed. Why is it that people continue to believe he is their dying demigod savior? When will they ever learn that there is no Jesus. No savior. No heaven. No hell. No religion? When will you people realize you are living a big fat lie?

there is evidence look on the internet if you cant find any your dumb

 

[Nickelodeon]

Found it!

www.jesusdidexistactually.com

 

[Papaver2005]

TIME OUT !

"There was an original pair; Adam and Eve, but the name Adam means "man in the day he was created".

<Papaver shudders !>

Actually No. The root word 'adam(standard translit) means simply "man" or "mankind". This root is used in plural form at Gen 6.1 and 6.2 as ;

Gen 6:1 ¶ And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,

Gen 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they [were] fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.

When it references the specific adam of Gen 2,3 it is used with the definite article as Ha'adam(standard translit), literally "the man" or "the adam". And it only refer to that Adam in the context of that story.

"Not to reproduce sexually with the serpent possessed of Lucifer,"

<Papaver bangs head on desk !>

WTF ! Where do you get this stuff ? "Lucifer" is from the latin "lux" meaning light and "ferrer" meaning to to carry or bring to. However in this construction "lux" is used in the genitive case "lucis" and the verb 3rd person. So "lucis ferre" or lucifer. This word is found in ancient Roman astronomy texts used to describe the planet we know as "Venus".

The first usage in the Bible was from Jerome's 4th century Vulgate used at Isaiah 14:12

"quomodo cecidisti de caelo lucifer qui mane oriebaris corruisti in terram qui vulnerabas gentes."

This word is not found in any hebrew nor greek bible. The 1611 KJV writers kept the word from the Catholic Vulgate mainly because it was well-known from Jerome's Vulgate, as well as from medieval Christian art and inscriptions.

Getting back to Bereshith(Genesis), while the serpent(hebrew translit c can be thought of as an agent of mischief or evil it is in no way related to the much later medieval Lucifer. There are at a minimum 900 years and 2 differnt cultures and languages separating those 2. (The "nachash" of genesis 3 and Jerome's "lucifer")

"the serpent being a hominid race close enough to humans to interbreed."

:shrug:

<Papaver has a terrible headache, reaches for the vicodin>

Perhaps you had better do some research on the hebrew root word "nachash". When you do, you will learn that this same word is used at (among other places) Exodus 4:3 where Mosche and the pharohs magician are making their staffs turn into [the same word]. Now, recall this from the Exodus story. Did they make their staffs turn into hominids ? Or was it serpents, or snakes ? Which makes more sense ?

btw, I do know of the pre-pubescent growing into adolesence interpretation of this particlar fable. IMHO that interpretation leaves quite a few loose ends.(quite a few = far too many)

"The tree of life was representative of Christ, who in the form of a man, walked in the garden in the cool of the evening and talked with them about the things of eternal life."

:bawl:


MON DIEU ! C'est plus mauvais que l'autre !

Can you explain this ?

WE know from history that the Torah was in existence for a few centuries prior to the time of the Roman occupation of Judea and the Jesus story.

Never mind. I'll just get another headache.

 

[Papaver2005]

(Saul=Sol=Solomon=Son-of-Man)
(Saul=Paul=Sol=Apollo)
(Je-Zeus=Jesus=Sol=Sun-of-mankind)
(Peter the Jew=Ju-piter)
(Lucifer=Venus=the Morning Star)
(Saturn=Saturday=Sabbath)

Well, one correct out of six isn't bad I guess.
But it's out of order and poorly explained.

(Lucifer=the Morning Star= the planet we now call Venus)


Medicine woman, I'm curious as to where you got this ? Is it that you are just quoting someone elses blantantly erromeous equivalents ?