Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: January 10, 2025, 2:07 am
Thread Rating:
What if the Romans hadn't killed Jesus?
|
No where near exclusionary enough for catholics.
The miracle requirements for beatification are a joke. Sainthood is nothing more than the Catholic Church Hall of Fame.
No worries, you do not have to wonder whom killed Jesus because he never existed in the first place, therefor was never killed by the Romans. So I guess everything that happened based on him never existing would have happened anyway. But to interject one more bit of information on the subject, let's assume he was killed by the Romans, the only difference would be the amount of actual non-biblical references to him that are not around today.
RE: What if the Romans hadn't killed Jesus?
April 26, 2014 at 3:50 pm
(This post was last modified: April 26, 2014 at 3:52 pm by Lek.)
(April 26, 2014 at 2:54 pm)BlackSwordsman Wrote: No worries, you do not have to wonder whom killed Jesus because he never existed in the first place, therefor was never killed by the Romans. So I guess everything that happened based on him never existing would have happened anyway. But to interject one more bit of information on the subject, let's assume he was killed by the Romans, the only difference would be the amount of actual non-biblical references to him that are not around today. Why do you dismiss the writings of the early christian witnesses to Jesus? Peter and John walked with him for three years or so and were witnesses to the trial and crucifixion. What did the biblical writers have to gain by making up this story? Roman historian Tacitus and Jewish historian Josephus also made references to him. It seems that this evidence would at least leave an opening in your mind for the possibility of his existence. Quote:Why do you dismiss the writings of the early christian witnesses to Jesus? Because there is no evidence that they are as "early" as you think they are. (April 26, 2014 at 4:36 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:Why do you dismiss the writings of the early christian witnesses to Jesus? There's plenty of evidence for composition dates during the possible lifetimes of people who witnessed Jesus' life and death. Why do none of the writings refer to the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple in 70 AD, which was prophesied by Jesus? Why does the book of Acts not refer to Paul's death. He was the most prominent person in the book. Of course, there is disagreement as to the dates of writing, but this is to be expected since we have no original manuscripts. The matter is far from settled. Quote:2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” The funny thing about this "prophecy" is that it literally came true...but not in 70. The ruins of the city were left as burned out hulks except for what the Romans leveled to build a new base camp for the 10th Legion which was stationed in the city. It came true in the aftermath of Hadrian's urban renewal project c 135 AD when the ruins were leveled and the new Roman town of Aelia Capitolina was built on the site. Not so coincidentally, it is this time period when xtianity seems to get going. Marcion, for example, was active around 140 AD and a generation later was being denounced by the proto-orthodox for "heresy." But the story seems to be second century... not first. RE: What if the Romans hadn't killed Jesus?
April 26, 2014 at 8:30 pm
(This post was last modified: April 26, 2014 at 8:39 pm by Lek.)
(April 26, 2014 at 7:24 pm)Minimalist Wrote:Quote:2 “Do you see all these great buildings?” replied Jesus. “Not one stone here will be left on another; every one will be thrown down.” The prophecy may have been completed in 135 AD, but the process begain in 70 AD. The meaningful event would be the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple, ending the Jewish sacrificial worship system. Jesus' prophecy was to be fufilled within the lifetime of the current generation. If it was fufilled in 135 AD, the writers after that time wouldn't include that prophecy because it would show that it was false. And saying that Matthew and Luke were written after 135 AD is quite a stretch. Christianity started getting going shortly after Jesus' death, with the apostles converting thousands in a day. Though Marcion was influential in establishing the canon of scripture, that doesn't attest to when the scriptures were written. (April 26, 2014 at 8:30 pm)Lek Wrote: And saying that Matthew and Luke were written after 135 AD is quite a stretch. Christianity started getting going shortly after Jesus' death, with the apostles converting thousands in a day. Source?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 6 Guest(s)