What if the Romans hadn't killed Jesus?

[Minimalist]

The Book of Acts, which you will immediately dismiss,

Correct. Good for you. You got one right.

Seriously. You can't hold up a copy of Tale of Two Cities and point to one page in it and claim it "proves" another page. It's all fiction.

[Mark Fulton]

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.

---

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.

Um...Herod the Great died in 4BC. He did have two sons who were both named Herod however.

PS...sorry, this has already been addressed

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The Book of Acts, which you will immediately dismiss,

Correct. Good for you. You got one right.

Seriously. You can't hold up a copy of Tale of Two Cities and point to one page in it and claim it "proves" another page. It's all fiction.

Why do these guys never understand that the bible is the claim and not the evidence?

Lek, can you comprehend that? Does it compute to you?

[Mark Fulton]

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.

"Peter and John walked with him for three years or so and were witnesses to the trial and crucifixion."

No. Most definitely no.

Most Christians are told that direct witnesses of Jesus’ life wrote the four Gospels. This is undoubtedly not true. The bottom line is: we don’t know for sure who wrote the Gospels, but the authors weren’t the companions of Jesus, and had never met him or anyone who had known him.

One only needs to leaf through any of the Gospels to realize they weren’t written by eyewitnesses, or by anyone who interrogated eyewitnesses. There are no interviews of Jesus, or his disciples, or of any of the characters in the action. Nowhere do we read a phrase such as
“I, Matthew/Mark/Luke/John saw this or heard that” or
“I was present when” this or that happened, or
“I talked to ...who told me... so I asked him...” Everything is written as pure narrative. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_tMTNJzRpXs).

Even the conservative Catholic Encyclopedia states,
“It thus appears that the present titles of the Gospels are not trace- able to the Evangelists themselves.” They use the word “evangelist” to avoid “apostle” or “disciple.” They are effectively (and correctly) admitting that the titles of the Gospels - Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, are “not traceable” to Jesus’ apostles. If there was even the slightest bit of good evidence that the Gospel authors knew Jesus, or someone who knew Jesus, the Catholic Encyclopedia would make a big deal of it. They don’t because there isn’t. Yet in nearly every church around the world it’s implied these apostles were the authors.

Most modern preachers aren’t inquisitive or honest enough about the source of the dogma they promote.

[Mark Fulton]

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.

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.

"Christianity started getting going shortly after Jesus' death, with the apostles converting thousands in a day."

Oh dear! That's from the book of Acts! Surely you don't believe anything that's in Acts… Do you?

None of the apostles were Christians. They were dyed in the wool Jews. Of course I'm not including Paul as an apostle.

---

Source?

The Book of Acts, which you will immediately dismiss, although that doesn't make it any less valid, states that about 3,000 were added to their number on Pentecost and that the church continued to grow in large numbers. Also the secular website below shows most opinions of the dates of composition of the gospels at no later than 100 AD, but possibly as early as soon after Jesus' death. Although I will add, that some think it was as late as the end of the second century. In other words, we don't really know for sure when they were written, which points out that you (and Minimalist) have no grounds for stating with surety that the gospels or any other books of the bible were written later that the first century. http://www.stellarhousepublishing.com/gospel-dates.html

There was no such thing as a printing press, so in the first few hundred years of each Gospel’s existence, translators, editors, inter- preters, and interpolators altered the original writings by adding or subtracting whatever they thought might be useful. So the dates that are commonly given for the authorship of each Gospel (ranging from 70 CE to 180 CE) are only of limited usefulness, as they can only be thought of only as when the first drafts were composed. (http://www.maplenet.net/~trowbridge/NT_Hist.htm). It was only in the later fourth century that the Gospels finished evolving.

---

Lek, objective non evangelical scholars never take the book of Acts seriously.

Have a watch of this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B5MUUP4l6l4

It only begins to dismantle the nonsense in Acts.

I once spent about a month getting my head around Acts. I'll share more with you if you're interested.

[Minimalist]

Most Christians are told that direct witnesses of Jesus’ life wrote the four Gospels.

What is most curious there, Mark, is that the gospels themselves make no such claims. This is a remarkable situation in which the forgers are more honest than the readers!

[ThomM]

So it seems.

Cheer up - the world has two new "saints!"

According to the bible, all believing christians are "saints".

Now - all you need to do is prove that the ENTIRE bible is completely true to support that - when the bible was claimed to be inerrent - it self proved - but now we know that it is NOT completely true - or even close - you need other sources of support

OR - you need independent proof of that statement from outside the bible

---

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.

The problem is - there are NO writings that can be proven to have been written by potential eye witnesses to the christ -

Virtually the entire New Testament cannot be identified as to author - only a few letters by Paul can be. Paul we no eye witness -= as we know. The CLAIMS of the apostles writing the bible are generally not believable based on writing analysis - which among others - say that JOHN was written by three different people alone. Since the average ROMAN at the time of the mythical christ lived less than 30 years - the dates for the writing of the New Testament leaves out eye witness testimony

As far as what they had to gain by making up the story - we have Thousands of gods - and hundreds of thousands of religions in the world - including tens of thousands of versions of christianity - and other dominant religions such as Hindu and Islam . ALL iof them attempt to make the SAME argument - and all are equally believable - based on the PROOF of the god they offer - ie - none.

Tacitus and Josephus also made reference to Other gods of other religions in their works - which means that either we believe they are ALL real - or really look at the mentions - which mean ONLY that these two were in contact with other believers - but offer NO usable testimony of their own.

The fact is - while there MIGHT have been a human religious man upon whom the MYTH of the christ was created - and even this is not proven to be true - the rest of the "supernatural" claims are simply unsupported in the historical record of the time.

Remember - there is not a single document - article - or inscription of ANY KIND - that can be dated to the time of the supposed christ - that even mentions his name - for an ALL KNOWING god not to leave behind proof of his own existence is stupidity - or lack of existence

---

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.

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.

Support that statement from a source OUTSIDE of the bible - that apostles converted thousands in a day

I have found absolutely NO proof that the religion spread that quickly within 10 years of the supposed death of the christ - which - based on a 25 year life expectancy - is likely how the apostles MIGHT have lived if they actually existed.

And the problem with dating the writings of the bible is that - we do not even know for sure who actually wrote them - so claiming dates is a effort in nonsense (Remember -we do not accept religious writings as anything but MYTH - unless you have OUTSIDE proof in other documents not from the religion)

---

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.

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.

Support that statement from a source OUTSIDE of the bible - that apostles converted thousands in a day

I have found absolutely NO proof that the religion spread that quickly within 10 years of the supposed death of the christ - which - based on a 25 year life expectancy - is likely how the apostles MIGHT have lived if they actually existed.

And the problem with dating the writings of the bible is that - we do not even know for sure who actually wrote them - so claiming dates is a effort in nonsense (Remember -we do not accept religious writings as anything but MYTH - unless you have OUTSIDE proof in other documents not from the religion)

[Minimalist]

Xtians can't even find first century copies. All of this is later.

http://vridar.org/2013/03/08/new-date-fo...pyrus-p52/

There are no first century New Testament papyri and only very few can be attributed to the second century (P52, P90, P104, probably all the second half of the century) or somewhere between the late second and early third centuries (P30, P64+67+4, 0171, 0212).

[Lek]

And the problem with dating the writings of the bible is that - we do not even know for sure who actually wrote them - so claiming dates is a effort in nonsense (Remember -we do not accept religious writings as anything but MYTH - unless you have OUTSIDE proof in other documents not from the religion)

You're right, even many christians don't claim to know indisputably who the authors were and what the dates of writing are. At the same time, all your comments don't prove the dates of writing or authorship either. There's huge numbers of people on both sides with agendas to prove or disprove christianity. When I study the scriptures, written by different authors over 1,500 years and see their continuity and integrity, I choose to accept them as the word of God. That, combined with my lifetime experience and the testimony of others, supports my acceptance of christianity.

[ThomM]

And the problem with dating the writings of the bible is that - we do not even know for sure who actually wrote them - so claiming dates is a effort in nonsense (Remember -we do not accept religious writings as anything but MYTH - unless you have OUTSIDE proof in other documents not from the religion)

You're right, even many christians don't claim to know indisputably who the authors were and what the dates of writing are. At the same time, all your comments don't prove the dates of writing or authorship either. There's huge numbers of people on both sides with agendas to prove or disprove christianity. When I study the scriptures, written by different authors over 1,500 years and see their continuity and integrity, I choose to accept them as the word of God. That, combined with my lifetime experience and the testimony of others, supports my acceptance of christianity.

Sorry - but I see the problems - contradictions - errors - and nonsense that prove that the word of god of your claim is simply a HUMAN created document of questionable worth.


Sop = what YOU are saying is that YOU accept the gods that are written in the bible - ALL OF THEM - since YOU say they have integrity

SO YOU accept these gods

Adrammelech II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.
Anammelech II Kings 17:31 Sepharvite God.
Ashima II Kings 17:30 Samaritan Moon Goddess.
Ashtoreth I Kings 11:05 Canaanite Goddess.
Baal I Kings 18:19 Canaanite God ("Lord") of fertility, vegitation, and storms.
Baal-berith Judges 8:33 A regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-peor Numbers 25:03 Moabite regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baal-zebub Luke 11:19 Philistine/Ekronian regional variation/aspect of Baal.
Baalim I Kings 18:18 Canaanite Gods ("Lords"), a collective of the different aspects of Baa.
Bel Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Sumerian God ("Lord").
Chemosh I Kings 11:07 Moabite war God.
Dagon I Samuel 05:02 Philistine/Ekronian/Babylonian God of agriculture.
Diana of the Ephesians Acts 19:35 Ephesian moon and nature Goddess, ("Divine/Brilliant").
Jehovah Exodus 6:03 Hebrew God
Jupiter Acts 14:12 Roman God (possibly derived from 'Zeus-pater', Father Zeus).
Lucifer Isiah 14:12 ("Light-Bearer")
Mercurius Acts 14:12 Otherwise known as the Roman God Mercury, God of communication and travel, and messenger of the Gods...which is probably why Paul was called this at Lystra.
Milcom I Kings 11:05 Ammonite God
Molech I Kings 11:07 Ammonite God, also called Moloch, most probably Baal-Hammon of Carthage.
Nebo Isiah 46:01 Assyrian/Babylonian/Chaldean God of wisdom and writing, also called Nabu.
Nergal II Kings 17:30 Cuth/Assyrian/Babylonian war and underworld God, also called Meshlamthea.
Nibhaz II Kings 17:31 Avites God
Nisroch II Kings 19:37 Assyrian God
Rimmon II Kings 05:18 Babylonian/Syrian storm God involved (as Ramman) with the Deluge, according to Hebrew texts; also known as Ramman/Rammon.
Succoth-benoth II Kings 17:30 Babylonian fertility Goddess ("She Who Produces Seed"), also known as Zarpanitu/Zerpanitum.
Tammuz Ezekial 8:14 Assyrian/Babylonian God
Tartak II Kings 17:31 Avites God


The problem is - most xtians - have not actually read the bible
I have - from cover to cover - a number of times

ANd the problem is - when xtians like you cherry pick the parts you want to beleive - - WE know that there are contradictions - errors - and MYTH and LEGEND in the bible without question. There is not integrity - the message is not consistent at all. And why would god deliberately give statements it knows are not true - and cannot be true.

Example - in Luke and Matthew - the devil took the christ (when he was wandering in the desert) to a high place from which he could see all the kingdoms of the world. That cannot be true - the earth is a sphere and the curvature of the earth prevents us from seeing all the kingdoms mentioned in the bible from one point. I cannot be a "vision" because it is not claimed while the word vision appears many time in other place in the bible - so clearly god did not want this to be a vision. Why would the word of god - not be true - when it should be perfect?
More important for me - HOW did this story get into the bible to begin with? THere are only two possible sources - and the god would - knowing it cannot be true - would not be one of them. The two sources can only be - the devil - or it was a human creation of the writer (Whoever the writer actually was).

According to the bible - when a person says something that turns out not to be true - he is a false prophet. The christ said - in the bible - that there would be those among his audience of the time that would not die - before he returned. So - who is the person who is still alive from that era - or is the statement in the bible wrong?

Of course - - according to the bible - the Messiah will unite ALL of the world under one religion (Judaism) and have all others admit that their belief was false ( As it says: "God will be King over all the world—on that day, God will be One and His Name will be One" (Zechariah 14:9). If you are going to end up a Jew - why ever become an Xtian?

The Messiah must be descended on his father’s side from King David (see Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1). A person without a human father cannot fulfill that one either.

What were the last three words the christ supposedly said on the cross- why do the gospels disagree on that?
Who was there when the tomb was opened - why do they disagree on that

The god of the bible says that the "new" commandments tablets (After Moses destroyed the first ones) would be the same as the first - any third grader can see they are NOT the same - Why can't YOU?

Do you really believe that FORCING a woman who was raped to MARRY her rapist - is the word of your god - and WHY would I want a god who would force that situation?

And the claim of a NEW COVENANT - replacing the old - admit that the god LIES. If the god was ALL knowing - past -present and future - then it would have KNOWN when it made the first Covenant with man - that is was NOT going to live up to it - so the word of the god is worthless since it lies - IN THE BIBLE.

Don't bother denying the Old Testament - Until you can quote the BIBLE passage that tells you to do so - and YOU cannot - in the bible, the christ said that all laws still apply.

The problem is - xtianity is not the only religion - nor is it even one religion - or a small group - and not just in the world - but in the bible. In the USA - there are over 40,000 different religion accepted by the IRS as christian. ANd when you ask them individually - which is correct and which is false - they ALL are false.

And there are LOTS of other things that are wrong with a claim of integrity