Well except that believing and accepting mythology as fact is abominable and wrong as far as advancing society and humanity.
Who do you think Jesus was?
- Thread starter dybyib
- Start date
Well except that believing and accepting mythology as fact is abominable and wrong as far as advancing society and humanity.
*************
M*W: Isn't it because of Jesus the believers will have everlasting life (immortality)?
There were stories (myths) of dying demigod saviors before the time of Jesus. Those who cling to this myth haven't done much relevant and intriguing independent study.
The gospels weren't even written during the time of Jesus, so they weren't relevant in those days either. However, if you find comfort and solace reading the gospels, I wouldn't want to deprive you of your fantasy.
i don't think these are good analogies at all. has scientology been around for 75 million years, passed down through the ages by his followers on earth ever since then? and a space ship is not a human being. those people who died never saw a spaceship; they saw a human being who told them there was a space ship. and i saw him too, on my tv.
Gday,
Sorry Joe - wrong again.
Constantine had nothing to do with the December 25th birthdate of Jesus.
The FIRST mention of Jesus birth on December 25th was not until 354 AD.
It's astonishing how often people repeat these false rumours without checking the facts at all !
Well yes, we see that you believe whatever you want, even if it is not true - such as your mistakes about Constantine.
You don't think there is anything wrong with making claims that are FALSE?
Kapyong
Sorry Joe - wrong again.
Constantine had nothing to do with the December 25th birthdate of Jesus.
The FIRST mention of Jesus birth on December 25th was not until 354 AD.
It's astonishing how often people repeat these false rumours without checking the facts at all !
Well yes, we see that you believe whatever you want, even if it is not true - such as your mistakes about Constantine.
You don't think there is anything wrong with making claims that are FALSE?
Kapyong
Gday,
Has Christianity been around for 75 million years?
No.
So what is your point exactly ?
Many religions HAVE been around longer than Christianity - Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism - so they must be MORE true than Christianity - according to your argument.
Yes, people BELIEVED in something they had NEVER SEEN - because someone convinced them.
Just like Christians BELIEVE in someone they have NEVER SEEN - because someone convinced them.
Exactly the same.
Kapyong
Has Christianity been around for 75 million years?
No.
So what is your point exactly ?
Many religions HAVE been around longer than Christianity - Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism - so they must be MORE true than Christianity - according to your argument.
Yes, people BELIEVED in something they had NEVER SEEN - because someone convinced them.
Just like Christians BELIEVE in someone they have NEVER SEEN - because someone convinced them.
Exactly the same.
Kapyong
so let me get this straight...
do you naysayers think that everyone spoken about in the bible was a myth, or do you just pick and choose, and if so, based on what?
did moses exist?
did david exist?
did solomon exist?
did nebuchadnezzar exist?
how about cyrus?
how about the maccabees?
harod the great?
Pontius Pilate?
matthew?
mark?
luke?
john?
paul?
james?
mary magdalene?
you know, i don't think the bible is a historical text, or a scientific text. i've said that before. i think it's a tool to be used by the holy spirit as it sees fit. but this is my hypothesis about a denial of the existence of jesus...
i think that if jesus were anyone other than the proclaimed son of god, who were said to have lived within the last 2000 years or so, by just about anyone else that's lived since, you'd eat it up just like you do any other bit of historical evidence you swallow. you'd be like "yeah jesus was a jew who lived about 2000 years ago...a prophet...a teacher...a priest...a nice guy. look, it says so right here."
do you naysayers think that everyone spoken about in the bible was a myth, or do you just pick and choose, and if so, based on what?
did moses exist?
did david exist?
did solomon exist?
did nebuchadnezzar exist?
how about cyrus?
how about the maccabees?
harod the great?
Pontius Pilate?
matthew?
mark?
luke?
john?
paul?
james?
mary magdalene?
you know, i don't think the bible is a historical text, or a scientific text. i've said that before. i think it's a tool to be used by the holy spirit as it sees fit. but this is my hypothesis about a denial of the existence of jesus...
i think that if jesus were anyone other than the proclaimed son of god, who were said to have lived within the last 2000 years or so, by just about anyone else that's lived since, you'd eat it up just like you do any other bit of historical evidence you swallow. you'd be like "yeah jesus was a jew who lived about 2000 years ago...a prophet...a teacher...a priest...a nice guy. look, it says so right here."
LOL. Oh I absoutely think there is something wrong with making false claims. But let's be clear, just because you do not like a fact does not make it false. You are a prime example. You are not interested in fact. You have a belief that is not going to change no matter what happens.
It is astonishing how often people like you ignore fact and reason. The facts are thus;
Constantine was a chief organizer behind Christianity
There is no independent evidence that Constantine ever converted to Christianity. And in fact, Constantine continued to mint coinage with Sol Invictus on it long after his alledged conversion to Christianity.
The Christian sign that Constantine alledgedly saw before the Battle at Malvin Bridge - the cross - was not a recognized Christian symbol at the time. The fish was the Christian symbol of the time. And let us not forget that the Christian cross does not resemble the cross that Romans used to crucify enemies of state. So the whole Christian myth of the Battle of Malvin Bridge is just that a myth.
Constantine was a pretty vicious emperor, he murdered several members of his own family including his wife and children.
As previously mentioned, Constantine ordered the fifty copies of the Christian Gospels after the Counsel of Nicea thus promulgating and documenting the religion.
Christians did not celebrate the birth of Christ on December 25th before Constantine.
Constantine named Sunday as a day of worship and rest for the Sun God, Sol Invictus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sol_Invictus#Sol_Invictus_and_Sunday
Prior to Constantine, Christians celebrated the sabbath on Friday evening to Saturday evening as do the Jews to this day.
Constantine never made Christianity the state religion as is claimed by many a Christian. He decriminalized Christianity; helped organize the religion; and donated to the Church. It was Emperor Theodosius I who made Christianity the state religion of Rome.
Constantine presents a big problem for modern Christians - a pagan emperor playing such a vital roll in organizing the early church. But the facts are what they are.
It it obvious that you are not interested in the truth...only your theology and that is fine. But don't go around and act like you are some how better than others or know more than others because you certianly do not.
Last edited:
my point is that if you're going to make a comparison to christ, xenu was said to be on the earth 75 million years ago. or was he ever on the earth at all, and just dropped off the minions from the sky and took off? either way, that's a real long time to be passing on an account of xenu amongst his followers, don't you think?
i don't think god is a "someone". the holy spirit communicates with humans but i don't know if i'd refer to it as a "someone"...maybe, but jesus is "someone" i know.
Gday,
Oh please!
You made claims about Constantine that were simply WRONG - I know this because I check the facts.
Sadly, you don't check the facts - you just repeat crap you read in nonsense books like The Da Vinci Code.
But you can't admit your errors when pointed out.
How sad.
K.
Oh please!
You made claims about Constantine that were simply WRONG - I know this because I check the facts.
Sadly, you don't check the facts - you just repeat crap you read in nonsense books like The Da Vinci Code.
But you can't admit your errors when pointed out.
How sad.
K.
Me too:
Sunday
Jesus came to me at noon
we sat, broke bread and drank wine.
He asked to watch the football game;
rooted for the underdog, drank beer and belched.
I was not surprised,
this is the Jesus I know.
Kenny A. Chaffin – 12/19/02
Yeah we can see how well you check your facts.
Your facts are as accurate as your claim that I have read the Da Vinci Code. The bottom line here is that you cannot prove your claims.
Not at all. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. If jesus is as claimed we simply require the evidence (not opinion or belief) to prove it.
The same is true of any other claim. It's quite simple really Lori.
well this is a claim about what would be a very elaborate, and shitty myth, conjured up by some extremely ordinary people, including jesus himself. it's not as if he was an emperor or a priest or even a wealthy man. there's nothing about the gospels or the bible that would lead anyone of sound mind to think they were conjured up with some motive. it's too ridiculous, and yet here we are debating about the man today.
Gday,
Ah, now I understand.
No,
I do not compare Xenu with Christ.
But
I compare Scientology with Christianity - both have people who BELIEVE in supernatural beings and events that they NEVER experienced themselves.
Christians BELIEVE, Scientologists BELIEVE - but none of them ever met Jesus, or Xenu.
Some people BELIEVE the Holy Spirit communicates with them.
Others BELIEVE that aliens communicate with them.
So what?
My point is that BELIEF proves nothing.
Repeating claims about Christian BELIEFS proves nothing other than what Christians BELIEVE.
To convince others - you need evidence and argument - not just more beliefs.
K.
Ah, now I understand.
No,
I do not compare Xenu with Christ.
But
I compare Scientology with Christianity - both have people who BELIEVE in supernatural beings and events that they NEVER experienced themselves.
Christians BELIEVE, Scientologists BELIEVE - but none of them ever met Jesus, or Xenu.
Some people BELIEVE the Holy Spirit communicates with them.
Others BELIEVE that aliens communicate with them.
So what?
My point is that BELIEF proves nothing.
Repeating claims about Christian BELIEFS proves nothing other than what Christians BELIEVE.
To convince others - you need evidence and argument - not just more beliefs.
K.
Gday,
YOU made the claims, Joe -
YOU claimed that Constantine and his mum made statements in the NT.
Wrong.
There is NO evidence for YOUR claim.
YOU claimed that Constantine set the birthdate of Jesus to December 25th.
Wrong.
There is NO evidence for YOUR claim.
Sadly, your another person who simply CANNOT admit error.
The web is full of 'em.
K.
YOU made the claims, Joe -
YOU claimed that Constantine and his mum made statements in the NT.
Wrong.
There is NO evidence for YOUR claim.
YOU claimed that Constantine set the birthdate of Jesus to December 25th.
Wrong.
There is NO evidence for YOUR claim.
Sadly, your another person who simply CANNOT admit error.
The web is full of 'em.
K.
Gday,
How sad that you cannot even comprehend plain English - I said "nonsense books LIKE The Da Vince Code" - which means that book, or ANOTHER.
There are plenty of other nonsense sources - maybe you read it in some other book - who cares.
What matters is that your claims were WRONG, and you can't admit it.
K.
Yeah we can see how well you check your facts.
How sad that you cannot even comprehend plain English - I said "nonsense books LIKE The Da Vince Code" - which means that book, or ANOTHER.
There are plenty of other nonsense sources - maybe you read it in some other book - who cares.
What matters is that your claims were WRONG, and you can't admit it.
K.
Gday,
In fact there is plenty of evidence to show that the Gospel stories were crafted from the Tanakh.
And it is clear that much of G.Luke and G.Matthew were copied, often word-for-word, from G.Mark - showing they are religious literature, not history.
And "sound mind" ?
In other words - you are claiming that anyone who disagrees is simply insane - great tactic there Lori !
K.
In fact there is plenty of evidence to show that the Gospel stories were crafted from the Tanakh.
And it is clear that much of G.Luke and G.Matthew were copied, often word-for-word, from G.Mark - showing they are religious literature, not history.
And "sound mind" ?
In other words - you are claiming that anyone who disagrees is simply insane - great tactic there Lori !
K.
Only a million things or so that contradict one another and no independent objective validation or corroboration. And actually the opposite of what you say is true. There is nothing in the bible that would lead a rational person to put any faith in its truth, it's too ridiculous and yet here we are with supposedly rational adults that actually believe it.
Gday,
Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?
It is frequently claimed that we have multiple eye-witnesses who claimed to have met Jesus.
This is probably why believers respond with cries of
"why would they die for a lie?"
"how could it all be a hoax?"
"that's just a conspiracy theory"
when a sceptic claims the Gospels are not true history.
Because -
believers are convinced we have numerous reliable claims from identifiable people that they met Jesus - thus if Jesus did not exist, then all those eye-witness claims must have been a "hoax". If Jesus was not historical, the claims to have met him must have been a "lie", If Jesus never lived then all those multiple claimed eye-witnesses must have been involved in a "conspiracy".
So, let's examine the evidence -
How many :
* identifiable people
* claimed to have met Jesus
* in authentic writing.
?
Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.
It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
* No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
* No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
* No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
* No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
* No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Christos is a heavenly being, not a historical person.
the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.
G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.
G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.
G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.
G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.
Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.
Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.
James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.
Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.
the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.
Clement
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had.
He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said.
Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.
Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus
Ignatius
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus.
Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.
So,
the entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.
There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever met Jesus.
But -
there is a vast body of CLAIMS by later Chrsitains - claims that are NOT supported by the earlier books, or by history.
So,
If Jesus wasn't historical, there is NO LIE, NO HOAX and NO CONSPIRACY required at all - because there are NO actual claims to have met Jesus to be a hoax or a lie or a conspiracy in the first place.
Just later books and claims, and claims about books.
Kapyong
Who claimed to have met a historical Jesus ?
It is frequently claimed that we have multiple eye-witnesses who claimed to have met Jesus.
This is probably why believers respond with cries of
"why would they die for a lie?"
"how could it all be a hoax?"
"that's just a conspiracy theory"
when a sceptic claims the Gospels are not true history.
Because -
believers are convinced we have numerous reliable claims from identifiable people that they met Jesus - thus if Jesus did not exist, then all those eye-witness claims must have been a "hoax". If Jesus was not historical, the claims to have met him must have been a "lie", If Jesus never lived then all those multiple claimed eye-witnesses must have been involved in a "conspiracy".
So, let's examine the evidence -
How many :
* identifiable people
* claimed to have met Jesus
* in authentic writing.
?
Paul
Paul never met a historical Jesus, and never claimed to.
He did claim to have had revelations "thru Christ" etc.
He did claim to have had a vision of Christ.
And others (Acts) claim Paul had a vision of Christ.
It is worth noting that Paul does not place Iesous Christos in history :
* No places - Paul never mentions Bethlehem, Nazareth, Galilee, Calvary, etc.
* No dates - Paul never places Iesous Christos in time.
* No names - Paul never mentions Mary, Joseph, Pilate, Judas, Nicodemus, Lazarus etc.
* No miracles - Paul never mentions the miracles/healings of Jesus
* No trial/tomb - Paul never mentions the trial or the empty tomb etc.
Paul's Christos is a heavenly being, not a historical person.
the 500
Paul claims 500 others had a vision of Christ. The Gospels do not mention that, no other writer mentions that, and we have no names or evidence for any of the 500. Even IF it happened - they had a VISION like Paul - nothing historical.
G.Mark
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to traditon, Mark was a secretary of Peter and never met Jesus. This Gospel, like all of them, started out as an un-named book.
G.Matthew
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by an apostle - but it never says so, and it mentions Matthew without the slightest hint that HE was writing it.
G.Luke
The author of this book never identifies himself, and never claims to have met Jesus. According to tradition it was written by a follower of Paul.
G.John
According to tradition this Gospel was written by the apostle John, and the last chapter says :
" This is the disciple who is testifying to these things and has written them, and we know that his testimony is true."
This is part of a chapter that was added to the Gospels, and it is clearly someone else making a claim for the book. It most certainly does not even come close to specific claim that anyone personally met Jesus.
Jude
This letter contains no claim to have met Jesus.
Johanines
1 John contains this passage :
That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life. 2The life appeared; we have seen it and testify to it, and we proclaim to you the eternal life, which was with the Father and has appeared to us. 3We proclaim to you what we have seen and heard, so that you also may have fellowship with us. And our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ. 4We write this to make our[a] joy complete.
Some believers assert this is a claim to have met Jesus.
What did he see and hear? He certainly never says it was Jesus. He just had a spiritual experience and wants to tell everyone about it - "God is light". Nothing here about any historical Jesus at all.
James
There is no claim to have met Jesus in this letter - supposedly from Jesus' BROTHER ! Yet it contains NOTHING anywhere about a historical Jesus, even where we would expect it. It is clear this writer had never even HEARD of a historical Jesus.
Revelation
No claim to have met Jesus.
the Petrines
2 Peter has this passage :
1.16 For we have not followed cunningly devised fables, when we made known unto you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received from God the Father honour and glory, when there came such a voice to him from the excellent glory, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased. And this voice which came from heaven we heard, when we were with him in the holy mount.
Here we see Peter directly claim to have witnessed Jesus' transfiguration. The ONE and ONLY such direct personal claim in the entire NT.
But -
2 Peter is the very latest and most suspect book in the whole NT - scholars agree it is a forgery, so do many Christians, ancient and modern. A late and deliberate forgery that claims NOT to be based on "cunningly devised fables" - probably in direct response to critics claims. THAT is the one single book that contains a claim to have met Jesus.
Clement
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Papias
Does not claim to have met Jesus or anyone who had.
He did claim to have met Presbyters who told him what some disciples had said.
Discusses two books of Matthew and Mark , not called Gospels, not quite like modern Gospels.
Polycarp
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Irenaeus claimed Polycarp met discples who met Jesus
Ignatius
Never claimed to have met Jesus or anyone who did.
Justin
Never claimed to have met anyone who met Jesus.
Discusses UN-NAMED Gospels not quite like ours.
So,
the entire NT contains only ONE specific claim to have met a historical Jesus - from the most suspect forgery in the whole book.
There is NOT ONE reliable claim by anyone to have ever met Jesus.
But -
there is a vast body of CLAIMS by later Chrsitains - claims that are NOT supported by the earlier books, or by history.
So,
If Jesus wasn't historical, there is NO LIE, NO HOAX and NO CONSPIRACY required at all - because there are NO actual claims to have met Jesus to be a hoax or a lie or a conspiracy in the first place.
Just later books and claims, and claims about books.
Kapyong
when people EXPERIENCE the holy spirit communicating with them, or EXPERIENCE aliens communicating with them, i would think that's all the evidence they needed wouldn't you? i see no need to convince others when they could experience it too just like many, many people have. some people really want to know god and they do, and some people really don't want to know god, and they don't. and that's it.