(April 15, 2014 at 1:12 pm)Stimbo Wrote: Did the Romans have any free will in the matter, given that this 'sacrifice' was supposed to be Yahweh's plan for humanity?

Almost certainly not, based on Yahweh's actions in the Bible. He is willing to compel people to act or not act (ie, hardening Pharaoh's heart) in order to get the results he wants. If you consider the possible consequences of certain stories if they had turned out differently, you realize that they had to turn out the way they did.

Or maybe not. What if Yahweh were shown to be wrong? What if Jesus had accepted any of Satan's offers in the desert? What if Job had gotten angry or despondent enough to curse god? Does god disappear in a puff of smoke, taking the universe with him? Or... does he just wipe off the chalkboard and start over? Humans are made in god's image, and we make mistakes. We have the ability to learn from those mistakes and turn out better work. Why wouldn't god be the same? Why insist on the idea of perfection?

If any of those "tests" could have failed, then the Christian has to consider the possibility of failure on god's part, of his fallibility. If they could not have failed, then they were really just a con. God was having us on, possibly for his own amusement, possibly out of some need to be recognized as a hero, which might be a more frightening possibility than that he is mistake-prone. A 'perfect' being who craves attention to that degree is the kind of person who... would torture people for an eternity for not doing so.

(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.

So the existence of something is directly proportional to the number of people who believe in and contend its existence? The eminence of the authority scoring double, I suppose?

Related note: what exactly is "the time frame indicated in the bible"?

(April 23, 2014 at 3:00 am)Minimalist Wrote: 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.

I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Miminalist on something. Yeah, most of the references are to "christ", the word referring to the messiah or savior. Jesus was the "christ". The references mentioning Jesus, were not referring to Jesus Christ but rather an individual whose name is translated Joshua in most english translations. The names Jesus and Joshua come from the same roots, and either would fit the translation in these instances.

---

(April 23, 2014 at 9:26 am)Stimbo 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.

So the existence of something is directly proportional to the number of people who believe in and contend its existence? The eminence of the authority scoring double, I suppose?

Related note: what exactly is "the time frame indicated in the bible"?

You can believe it or not, but I thought that was interesting. The time frame indicated in the bible was around 1 - 30 AD during the reign of Herod the Great over Israel.

Quote:I can't believe I'm actually agreeing with Miminalist on something

Imagine how I feel?

(April 23, 2014 at 9:40 pm)Lek Wrote: You can believe it or not, but I thought that was interesting.

You clearly thought it was more than simply interesting; you were positing it as an authority - that the number of people believing the story consolidated the veracity of it.

(April 23, 2014 at 9:40 pm)Lek Wrote: The time frame indicated in the bible was around 1 - 30 AD during the reign of Herod the Great over Israel.

Is this the same Herod the Great who died in 4BCE?

Yes, good point. Herod the Great's reign was 37 - 4 BC. Upon his death the kingdom was divided among his children. The Romans did not begin to re-assemble the kingdom until Herod Agrippa I in 41 AD...by which time, as the story goes, the godboy was already dead.... or not.

(April 24, 2014 at 11:09 am)Minimalist Wrote: Yes, good point. Herod the Great's reign was 37 - 4 BC. Upon his death the kingdom was divided among his children. The Romans did not begin to re-assemble the kingdom until Herod Agrippa I in 41 AD...by which time, as the story goes, the godboy was already dead.... or not.

You guys are right. I blew the Herod comment. It was Herod Antipas, not the Herod the Great, and he ruled Galilee during Jesus' lifetime. As far as the comment about the historians, I already accept the testimony of the gospel writers, but it does show that the majority of non-christian historians agree that Jesus did exist historically.

It's less about what they agree on and more about they can deminstrate evidentially.

(April 24, 2014 at 12:37 pm)Lek Wrote:

(April 24, 2014 at 11:09 am)Minimalist Wrote: Yes, good point. Herod the Great's reign was 37 - 4 BC. Upon his death the kingdom was divided among his children. The Romans did not begin to re-assemble the kingdom until Herod Agrippa I in 41 AD...by which time, as the story goes, the godboy was already dead.... or not.

You guys are right. I blew the Herod comment. It was Herod Antipas, not the Herod the Great, and he ruled Galilee during Jesus' lifetime. As far as the comment about the historians, I already accept the testimony of the gospel writers, but it does show that the majority of non-christian historians agree that Jesus did exist historically.

Actually - that is NOT the case

No one has actually ever shown that the majority of non-christian historians agree that the christ is anything but a mythical belief. That is claimed by the christian group - but I have not seen any SUPPORT for the statement

If a real scientific study had been done - that proved the statement true - you would have posted the actual study involved - as well as the source of the study

Claiming that it is according to YOUR research fails to prove that research is statistically valid - and included a large enough basis - how many THOUSANDS of historians have you researched - from what eras - and based on what statements?

Example - I would expect that most islamic historians accept that the christ was a historical PROPHET - not a god - and was not born of a god - as their religion states. But - that is NOT acceptance that the christ as believed by christians was a historical figure.
Another example - the acceptance that there might have been a HUMAN upon which the myths of the xtian christ started - is NOT acceptance of the christ as a historical figure as well.

IT is one thing to claim that exaggerations built up around a human religious person - and another to claim that the son of a god actually existed on earth. I would suggest that this is the MOST you would get from non-christian historians - certainly the miracles - and coming back from the dead would NOT be accepted by them.

In addition - if they did accept the christ - did they also accept lots of other "gods" as well?
Claiming that Josephus accepted the existence of the christ ignores that he also wrote about the Roman Pantheon
What good is quoting a "historian" who lists many gods?
I would also not accept the statements of historians from the era where they would have been killed for heresy if they wrote otherwise

And -Today - The majority of Historians of ALL types - Xtian as well - accept Ramses the Great -GOD of egypt - to be a historical figure - along with a few dozen other Egyptian Pharaohs claimed to be gods.

Until you provide real tested research - you are simply repeating another statement from the belevers upon which you offer NO factual support