What if the Romans hadn't killed Jesus?

[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)