Theories about Jesus?

[smax]

How could Jesus have so much pump after 2000 years, unless He indeed rose from the dead. I don't believe anyone has pulled that stunt yet!

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Lots of people are committed to causes of all sorts, and lots of traditions and cultural customs are based on things widely accepted to be fictional.

Muslims believe in the Prophet Muhammed and they die all the time for the cause of following him.

Also, Gods of all different religions and beliefs have shaped the world's calendars, observances, and practices.

No, the real question is, if Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead, why are any other religions or beliefs considered by anyone?

The truth is, most people do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and the lack of any compelling evidence is a big reason why.

Not-to-mention the many followers that saw Jesus afterwards, and were willing to die horrible deaths themselves fearlessly witnessing for Him.

Like I said, Muslims die all the time for their cause, and they are merely one of many examples. Sadly, a person's willingness to sacrafice their own life for a silly and baseless cause, and even suffer doing so, isn't as rare as it should be.

As far as the historic mentions of Jesus. There are some... but Christianity was persecuted. And why wouldn't they try to wipe out any mention of Him. The followers went underground for 300 years! Who would be openly writing about Jesus? Unless of course he wanted to be fed to Lions or crucified!

Too funny, man. Seriously. Their are 27 New Testament books clearly in existence, and there were hundreds of other books written by Christian writers during the timeframe in question.

No, the problem isn't that Christians were persecuted, although they were. The problem is that Christians chose to destroy their own writings because of doctrinal issues that the numerous books raised, as well as other concerns. However, none of these were books that would have carried any significant historical value. They were fictional accounts just like the gospels.

While we are on the subject, however, I do agree that a lot of important books have been destroyed over the centuries in an attempt to cover up stuff that would otherwise have a signficant impact on what people believe. Elders within the Catholic Church have written about many wrong doings, cover ups, and lies that they have perpetuated as "protectors of the faith", and many of those documents have been destroyed.

[Bad Writer]

The Bible?

Then quote it. Bare assertions abound 'round these here parts, ya know?

What am I asserting? That you're a Christian? I'm actually agreeing with your own assertion...so how in fuck is this my problem? You have an interesting view on Burden of Proof.

[ronedee]

How could Jesus have so much pump after 2000 years, unless He indeed rose from the dead. I don't believe anyone has pulled that stunt yet!

I totally agree. Non sequitur notwithstanding.

Well stimmy... even in that case! No one has claimed it either!

Maybe Houdini's wife?!

[smax]

Then quote it. Bare assertions abound 'round these here parts, ya know?

What am I asserting? That you're a Christian? I'm actually agreeing with your own assertion...so how in fuck is this my problem? You have an interesting view on Burden of Proof.

You are talking to someone who isn't accepted in the Christian community, and who doesn't have any clear position on Christianity to begin with.

With that, I've found that it's best to ignore him, as there isn't enough tangible material with which to dispute his position.

In short, it's like arguing with someone who claims that they do not actually exist. It's pointless.

Just a word of advice.

[catfish]

What am I asserting? That you're a Christian? I'm actually agreeing with your own assertion...so how in fuck is this my problem? You have an interesting view on Burden of Proof.

You are talking to someone who isn't accepted in the Christian community, and who doesn't have any clear position on Christianity to begin with.

With that, I've found that it's best to ignore him, as there isn't enough tangible material with which to dispute his position.

In short, it's like arguing with someone who claims that they do not actually exist. It's pointless.

Just a word of advice.

Bullshit... You made the assertion of what was a requirement to be a christian. Put up your "proof" or concede that it was a bare assertion. I bolded the relevant part for you in case you like ignore normal type too.

[ronedee]

I think you are looking at this the wrong way. Lots of people are committed to causes of all sorts, and lots of traditions and cultural customs are based on things widely accepted to be fictional.

Muslims believe in the Prophet Muhammed and they die all the time for the cause of following him.

Also, Gods of all different religions and beliefs have shaped the world's calendars, observances, and practices.

No, the real question is, if Jesus Christ really did rise from the dead, why are any other religions or beliefs considered by anyone?

The truth is, most people do not believe that Jesus rose from the dead, and the lack of any compelling evidence is a big reason why.

Like I said, Muslims die all the time for their cause, and they are merely one of many examples. Sadly, a person's willingness to sacrafice their own life for a silly and baseless cause, and even suffer doing so, isn't as rare as it should be.

Well, muslims are usually doing the killing. And if it is martyrdom they were opting, its for 40 virgins.... not the long dead mohammad.

I understand lack of evidence! But Jesus also represented a unique set of ideals and a pathway to God. Death to the flesh was just a part of it. Granted a big part.... but because we all die it wasn't the end justifying the means. The bigger picture prevails in the complete message.

Too funny, man. Seriously. Their are 27 New Testament books clearly in existence, and there were hundreds of other books written by Christian writers during the timeframe in question.

No, the problem isn't that Christians were persecuted, although they were. The problem is that Christians chose to destroy their own writings because of doctrinal issues that the numerous books raised, as well as other concerns. However, none of these were books that would have carried any significant historical value. They were fictional accounts just like the gospels.

While we are on the subject, however, I do agree that a lot of important books have been destroyed over the centuries in an attempt to cover up stuff that would otherwise have a signficant impact on what people believe. Elders within the Catholic Church have written about many wrong doings, cover ups, and lies that they have perpetuated as "protectors of the faith", and many of those documents have been destroyed.

The church spent a lot of time reflecting on those writings.... but actually no one cares. At least, not the ones "needing" evidence!

Most nonbelievers I've encountered want 3rd party writings. An unearthed copy of The Jewish Gazette would've got more kudos than the bible...if there were one giving Jesus' obit, and subsequent rising!

[Bad Writer]

You are talking to someone who isn't accepted in the Christian community, and who doesn't have any clear position on Christianity to begin with.

With that, I've found that it's best to ignore him, as there isn't enough tangible material with which to dispute his position.

In short, it's like arguing with someone who claims that they do not actually exist. It's pointless.

Just a word of advice.

Bullshit... You made the assertion of what was a requirement to be a christian. Put up your "proof" or concede that it was a bare assertion. I bolded the relevant part for you in case you like ignore normal type too.

You mean I need to prove that Christians use the Bible to support their beliefs? Is this what you want me to prove?

[Minimalist]

How could Jesus have so much pump after 2000 years, unless He indeed rose from the dead. I don't believe anyone has pulled that stunt yet!

Because for 1500 years anyone who questioned your bullshit found themselves dead. Now that you have lost that power your bullshit is on its way out.

Not-to-mention the many followers that saw Jesus afterwards, and were willing to die horrible deaths themselves fearlessly witnessing for Him.

Evidence? And not your fucking bible shit, again. We already know that the church tampered with it.

As far as the historic mentions of Jesus. There are some... but Christianity was persecuted. And why wouldn't they try to wipe out any mention of Him. The followers went underground for 300 years! Who would be openly writing about Jesus? Unless of course he wanted to be fed to Lions or crucified!

There are no contemporary references to him. Just the drivel of believers who were repeating what they were told by other fools.
And read Candida Moss' "The Myth of Persecution" to find out just how badly you've been conned - and why - your fucking church concocted all the bullshit about "persecution."

[ronedee]

Because for 1500 years anyone who questioned your bullshit found themselves dead. Now that you have lost that power your bullshit is on its way out.

Evidence? And not your fucking bible shit, again. We already know that the church tampered with it.

There are no contemporary references to him. Just the drivel of believers who were repeating what they were told by other fools.
And read Candida Moss' "The Myth of Persecution" to find out just how badly you've been conned - and why - your fucking church concocted all the bullshit about "persecution."

Maybe if you dropped a "fuck" or 5 during your banter you would sound older than 13, and be taken somewhat seriously.

You and the kraut need serious anger management classes! I can give you guys the name of a great facilitator!

[FallentoReason]

2. He may not have existed at all. There certainly isn't any compelling evidence to support a real historical figure matching the description of the character of Jesus Christ. If he didn't exist, which is a very real possibility, how did such a character come to be invented?

If the NT is read in the order in which it was chronologically written, it all makes a little more sense; Paul's letters are what came first, and he uses very cultish language of the time, much like the mystery religions of the day ("the mysteries of Christ Jesus", he continually says throughout his letters, "..of which aren't known to us.." [but he was here on earth!!! How can that be?]), then you get the "back story" of this Jesus guy from the Gospels, which as you move chronologically among them (Mark -> Matthew/Luke -> John) you also realise the story gets longer and more supernatural with each telling.

In short, it's no different to e.g. the 12 deeds of Hercules, which might have been taken historically back in the day (there were a lot of Roman historians that included Hercules as having taken part in history in their books) but it doesn't mean those stories are to be taken as literally what happened in history.