(January 5, 2012 at 5:52 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(January 5, 2012 at 2:51 am)Godschild Wrote:

(January 3, 2012 at 4:07 pm)aleialoura Wrote: Paul of Tarsus was the person who dreamed up Jesus. No one ever heard of him until a few hundred years after he supposedly died.

I'd like to add that the story of Jesus is plagiarized in parts. It's not even a 100% original story.

That's a lie.

Please provide evidence in support of your assertion.

Otherwise you have no argument.... again.

All of it is untrue, my main disagreement was with the time line, Christ was written about shortly after his death. Paul had no reason to fabricate such a story, Paul's conversion was not even written by himself. Saul was a loyal Jew and was putting christians in jail it would have been stupid for him to makeup such a story. He was held in high regard by the Jewish religious leaders, why would he give up such a good life over a lie.

---

(January 5, 2012 at 6:29 am)Zen Badger Wrote:

(January 5, 2012 at 6:20 am)Godschild Wrote: Since you mentioned the Bible let's take the story as given. Pilate called in the solider over the crucifixion and asked him if Jesus was dead, a Roman solider does not lie about such things it would cost him his life. The Romans were very good at crucifixion and would not let anyone off a cross that was still alive. But I know how it is, you want me to believe Jesus to be the only one to escape death on a cross out of the tens of thousands that were crucified. Well I not so foolish as to believe that are you?

No, the bible is not going to be taken as a "given"

That's the point of the thread, for you to provide evidence outside of the bible.

Using the bible to support the bible counts as circular reasoning.

I was asked to read the account in the Bible, the part about the Roman soliders and the crucifixion are from history not the Bible.

Where in "Roman History" is it written?

Considering that this Yeshua was never mention in any of the Roman records?

(January 5, 2012 at 6:31 am)Godschild Wrote: I was asked to read the account in the Bible, the part about the Roman soliders and the crucifixion are from history not the Bible.

Really? evidence then please.

(January 3, 2012 at 3:48 pm)Paradoxum Wrote: Hi, this is my first post on this forum.

I come from a conservative Christian background, but I now doubt the existence of God. I probably doubt more now than believe. By question (which is probably very common) is thus: How did Christianity begin if Jesus Christ died and stayed dead?

Did the disciples start Christianity, and if so why did they say Christ had risen and that they had seen Him if it is false?

Well, a small search over google would provide you with better results than we can.
If you are looking for the history of your own denomination, perhaps you should search for it by that name.

(January 3, 2012 at 3:48 pm)Paradoxum Wrote: Hi, this is my first post on this forum.

I come from a conservative Christian background, but I now doubt the existence of God. I probably doubt more now than believe. By question (which is probably very common) is thus: How did Christianity begin if Jesus Christ died and stayed dead?

Did the disciples start Christianity, and if so why did they say Christ had risen and that they had seen Him if it is false?

Welcome! I've only read through the first three pages of this thread so apologies in advance if I repeat something already said.

Let me start by saying that I fully believe that nobody "just made up Jesus one day". There is no need to speculate such things when a more believable scenario involves the power of folklore and urban legend.

As FaithNoMore has posted, urban legends and folklore abound today in spite of the availability of fact checking resources. Not long after Elvis died, there were numerous "sightings" and stories he was still alive. Washington was barely in the grave before the nonsense about the cherry tree was being circulated.

Additionally, these stories aren't necessarily made up but evolve over time as it passes from one teller to another. Details are added and the story is fleshed out further. The line between fiction and "true story" is much thinner than we imagine. Further, as a story intended as fiction morphs into a "true story", it may get better with the telling.

Let's look at the books of the NT in the order they were written. First came Revelation, where the Jewish audience was expecting Yahweh to punish their enemies. Jesus in that story was a glorious warlord who bears little resemblance to the peace and love flower child of the Gospels. He conformed more to the Jewish concept of the messiah. The Jews, chaffing under Roman and other outside rule, were wondering where the promised kingdom of David went. Some decided their kingdom was in a higher realm.

Next came the epistles, mostly attributed to Paul. We have little detail of the life of Jesus but Paul flatly denies it was within his lifetime (1Cor 15:8). Paul saw Jesus in a vision and gives us little other details aside from his death and Resurrection. He tells us that Jesus was "born of a woman, of the seed of David" (no virgin birth) and relates the "take and eat" quote from the Eucharist (a common religious practice among the pagans, adopted by Christianity). He blames the Jews for crucifying Jesus but gives little details as to when it happened.

Next was the Gospel of Mark. There are no details of Jesus' childhood or birth. The story begins with his baptism when he was about 30. The resurrection story in chapter 16 was fully fleshed out and added later.

Matthew reads like a Gospel that elaborates and expands on Mark. Details about the virgin birth and Nativity are added. Matt seems to be writing for a Jewish audience and he lies his ass off about "fulfilled prophecies" which often don't check out when compared to what the OT actually says. That's another issue.

Luke also elaborates on Mark but differently from Matthew. He knows nothing about the flight to Egypt or Herod's massacre of the infants, instead relating the story of the shepherds in the field. They were later incorporated with Matthew's "wise men" to form the modern Nativity Story. Luke also mentions a bit about Jesus' childhood, about being a theological prodigy.

None of these "synoptic" Gospels (Matt, Mark and Luke) offer anything to validate the concept of the Trinity. Their Jesus is separate from and clearly subservient to his father-god, Yahweh. The two speak to each other in second person and of each other in the third. Jesus prays "not my will but thy will be done", indicating a separate will from his father. Jesus claims to have no knowledge of when the second coming will be.

The Trinity comes into play in the Gospel of John, where John the Baptist becomes so submissive (increasingly from Mark to Matthew to John) he doesn't even baptize Jesus at all. Jesus is not just the son of God but actually claims to be God-incarnate ("I and my father are one").

So the story clearly evolved over time. Other Christian groups existed with their own version as well. 2nd to 3rd century Marcionite Christianity claimed Jesus was a separate, higher god from Yahweh. The Docetic Christians thought Jesus was an image, not a flesh-and-blood person (they are condemned in 1John 4:1-3 and 2John 1:7). The Ebionite Christians thought Jesus was a mortal adopted by God as a son (echoes of this are found in the current version of Matthew).

Would people believe that Jesus was resurrected even though he wasn't? See the Elvis sightings of today.

Would people have been willing to die for their beliefs? See the Jim Jones cult, Hale-Bopp cult and the David Koresh cult.

What about the "empty tomb"? Which one? There are at least two that I know of, one claimed by the Catholics and one the Protestants.

Could false stories about Jesus have been circulated? See Washington and the cherry tree.

Hope that helps.

Quote:Since you mentioned the Bible let's take the story as given. Pilate called in the solider over the crucifixion and asked him if Jesus was dead, a Roman solider does not lie about such things it would cost him his life. The Romans were very good at crucifixion and would not let anyone off a cross that was still alive. But I know how it is, you want me to believe Jesus to be the only one to escape death on a cross out of the tens of thousands that were crucified. Well I not so foolish as to believe that are you?

Oh, G-C you are such a fucking idiot. Are you going to try to pass those absurd "reports of Pilate" off as "history?"

Even YOU can't be that stupid..... or can you?

Quote:Hope that helps.

Beautifully done, D-P. But of course you are going to make the nutjobs' heads explode. Not such a bad result.

(January 5, 2012 at 7:24 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Where in "Roman History" is it written?

Considering that this Yeshua was never mention in any of the Roman records?

Not the story of Jesus, the way Roman solider performed their duties. Sorry for the confusion.

(January 5, 2012 at 11:56 am)Minimalist Wrote: Oh, G-C you are such a fucking idiot. ..........
Even YOU can't be that stupid..... or can you?

Expand your imagination, min.

(January 5, 2012 at 1:49 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(January 5, 2012 at 7:24 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: Where in "Roman History" is it written?

Considering that this Yeshua was never mention in any of the Roman records?

Not the story of Jesus, the way Roman solider performed their duties. Sorry for the confusion.

How many condemned Roman criminals were either let go because that's what the public wanted (Jesus Barabbas) and how many of them were allowed a proper buriel in a tomb after their death by crucifixion?

I don't think we have consistency with Roman ways at all.

(January 5, 2012 at 1:54 pm)Chuck Wrote:

(January 5, 2012 at 11:56 am)Minimalist Wrote: Oh, G-C you are such a fucking idiot. ..........
Even YOU can't be that stupid..... or can you?

Expand your imagination, min.

Sometimes I lapse into optimism.

I'll try not to let it happen again.