Quote:a book that claims bush's talk

Well....sadly they do.

(April 20, 2014 at 7:14 pm)ThomM Wrote: The christ is NOT a historical figure of any reality - it exists as a MYTH only -created by humans to start still another ho-hum religion.
There is NO EVIDENCE at all that the christ ever actually lived based on the historical record of his supposed time.

Stimbo isn't saying that Jesus really lived and was crucified.

(April 15, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Disclaimer: This topic is purely hypothetical, at least as far as I'm concerned. I do not acknowledge that any of the JC story represents genuine historical events, and nothing I write on the subject should be interpreted otherwise. Right, now that's out of the way...

This means that the discussion is no more about reality than wondering what would have happened in the fictional Harry Potter universe if Snape hadn't fallen in love with Lily Potter.

Absolutely. Searching for an historical JC makes as much sense, and proves just as fruitful, as looking for an historical Darth Vader. The only real difference is non-Star Wars fans don't usually get threatened with fire and pointy metal things simply for not believing the mythology.

(April 21, 2014 at 10:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: Absolutely. Searching for an historical JC makes as much sense, and proves just as fruitful, as looking for an historical Darth Vader. The only real difference is non-Star Wars fans don't usually get threatened with fire and pointy metal things simply for not believing the mythology.

According to the research I've done, an overwhelming majority of historians and related scholars, christian and non-christian, contend that Jesus is a historical person who did exist during the time frame indicated in the bible.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:28 pm)Lek Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 10:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: Absolutely. Searching for an historical JC makes as much sense, and proves just as fruitful, as looking for an historical Darth Vader. The only real difference is non-Star Wars fans don't usually get threatened with fire and pointy metal things simply for not believing the mythology.

According to the research I've done, an overwhelming majority of historians and related scholars, christian and non-christian, contend that Jesus is a historical person who did exist during the time frame indicated in the bible.

Well, that's a problem since Jesus and the Christ are mentioned in the Old Testament, which was supposedly written centuries before the New Testament. So maybe those historians are simply making things up?

(April 22, 2014 at 11:48 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(April 22, 2014 at 11:28 pm)Lek Wrote: According to the research I've done, an overwhelming majority of historians and related scholars, christian and non-christian, contend that Jesus is a historical person who did exist during the time frame indicated in the bible.

Well, that's a problem since Jesus and the Christ are mentioned in the Old Testament, which was supposedly written centuries before the New Testament. So maybe those historians are simply making things up?

As far as I can see, the name of Jesus was not mentioned once in the old testament. You'll need to give me a reference on that one.

(April 22, 2014 at 11:28 pm)Lek Wrote:

(April 21, 2014 at 10:16 am)Stimbo Wrote: Absolutely. Searching for an historical JC makes as much sense, and proves just as fruitful, as looking for an historical Darth Vader. The only real difference is non-Star Wars fans don't usually get threatened with fire and pointy metal things simply for not believing the mythology.

According to the research I've done, an overwhelming majority of historians and related scholars, christian and non-christian, contend that Jesus is a historical person who did exist during the time frame indicated in the bible.

You need to do better research. First, strip out the theologians. They are just protecting their livelihood which revolves around convincing dolts that this shit they peddle is real.

Ok - I did not check them all but perhaps 8-10. There are many references to "christ" which, in jewish terms, only meant "The Anointed One" and would have referred to any king or high priest. ( Among the Romans it would have meant, "the oily guy.")

The one reference to "jesus" was translated "Joshua" in another version and since Yeshua/Yehosuah was basically the same shit it does not mean what you want it to mean. Josephus named over 20 Y'shuas in Antiquities of the Jews. None of them were THAT fucking Yeshua, either.