Question for Christians/Muslims etc.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Cos he doesn't like the cut of their jib.

EvF

----and what if you have an uncut jib?

[Autumnlicious]

^^ And what if you don't have jibs?

What does Jesus like?

[downbeatplumb]

Actually I think there is good reason to believe in the resurrection (which there is no point going into).

People at the time saw Him, so it does say more than no one seeing Him come out of the grave.

(Poor attempt at post I know lol)

People are declared dead and later get up all the time even today!
This is not down to divine intervention but piss poor doctors.
Who declared Jesus dead? where was he trained? was he having an 'off day'?
The trouble with the bible is that people take it at face value and dont question it.

Dont get me started on the 'virgin birth'.

[tackattack]

---

Actually I think there is good reason to believe in the resurrection (which there is no point going into).

Really? You won't go into it? Why on earth not? As a Christian you have an obligation to bear witness to everyone,not just those of like mind. If you have evidence of the existence and resurrection of Jesus it's your duty to share it. You might be saving an atheist soul.

Declining to explain implies you're lying,don't think any such thing,or know full well we will only laugh at you. The ridicule would probably come from people with the capacity for independent thought and critical thinking.

---

Where the hell do you get off telling a Christian what he/ shoe is/ is not obligated or duty bound to do! Time and time again people get banned on here for "preaching" as per the rules, yet you want him to "bear witness". Hold on I need to recalibrate my irony meter for a whole bunch of WTH.

Anyways, The canonization of the books of the bible weren't to choose which gospels were true or untrue, it was to choose which one's were divinely relevant to the religion. Josephus, Tacitus, the Talmud, Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, Julius Africanus, Lucian of Samosata, The Toledot Yeshu , Quran, etc. all aside from the bible accept the life of Jesus. They may have different subjective opinions of who he was and what he did, but all accept that Jesus was a man. Yes, they were not eye-witness accounts. Yes, it makes more sense that his body was stolen.

"The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). People can't agree on what happened to JFK, and that was on video. Hisory where not backed by historical acheological evidence is subjective and written by the victors. He wasn't a famous carpenter, or ruler. He was a crucified, religious minority leader. If you're looking for a cup he made, or a chair he crafted or some idol facade of him on a statue, go watch Indiana Jones and continue to live in your denial.

---

People at the time saw Him, so it does say more than no one seeing Him come out of the grave.

Unfuckingbelievable.

---

People have seen Elvis, too.

Are you denying that Elvis did exist and that he was a singer with some talent? Some atheists treat Jesus that way.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Where the hell do you get off telling a Christian what he/ shoe is/ is not obligated or duty bound to do!

Pardon? Who put you in charge? I will tell Christians whatever I like,they are under no obligation do as I say..

To answer your question.Growing up Catholic I was taught it is the duty of every Christian to give witness, and that this admonition came from Jesus. It bothers me not a jot that you disagree. or that you are miffed.You do not get to tell me what I may say or not say.

--- denying that Elvis did exist and that he was a singer with some talent? Some atheists treat Jesus that way.

Straw man. AND Elvis was a real person.Jesus was not.(IE there is no evidence he existed )

I have nothing further to say to you on this thread; I might say something unkind.

[Minimalist]

Anyways, The canonization of the books of the bible weren't to choose which gospels were true or untrue, it was to choose which one's were divinely relevant to the religion.

Oh come on. You can't be that naive. These books were chosen by the bishops in the 4th century to establish their position within the church. This was about power and control and had jackshit to do with "religion."

Josephus, Tacitus, the Talmud, Pliny the younger, Suetonius, Mara Bar-Serapion, Julius Africanus, Lucian of Samosata, The Toledot Yeshu , Quran, etc. all aside from the bible accept the life of Jesus. They may have different subjective opinions of who he was and what he did, but all accept that Jesus was a man. Yes, they were not eye-witness accounts. Yes, it makes more sense that his body was stolen.

Here we go again....same shit - different asshole.

Josephus: The crown jewel of xtian forgery. Not a single early xtian writer makes reference to Josephus’ Testimonium Flavianum prior to the work of Eusebius in the 4th century. Not one. Origen, makes specific and correct reference to Book XVIII of Antiquities of the Jews by correctly citing the John the Baptist reference but he somehow missed the reference to jc. Either Origen (writing c 250 AD) was the stupidest bastard who ever lived or the forgery had not yet happened. I’ve read Origen. He wasn’t stupid - just desperate to defend the rather silly doctrine of early xtianity against the far more sophisticated attack of the Greco-Roman philosopher, Celsus. The TF is a virtual bullet point presentation of 4th century xtian doctrine. Josephus himself was a pharisee who sold out to the Romans and basically felt that every criminal executed by the Romans had it coming.

The shorter Josephan reference in Book XX of Antiquities is probably not a deliberate forgery but rather a simple case of xtian wishful-thinking. To Josephus the Greek word ‘christos’ meant “the anointed” or “the anointed one.” In his culture it referred to the king of Judah or to the high priest, both of which were invested in their office by means of a ceremonial anointing with sacred oils. In the paragraph in question it is the activities of the high priest which are under scrutiny. With the exception of the two Roman procurators cited, virtually everyone named in the story was a “christos” at one time or another. Would a Jew like Josephus refer to some executed criminal who had oil splashed on his feet by a woman ( let’s remember that women were basically shit in that culture!) as “christos” given his understanding of the word? Be serious.

(P. Cornelius) Tacitus: A second century Roman writer but here again we run up against the stench of forgery. Recent scholarship using ultraviolet light has shown that the earliest surviving manuscript of Tacitus’ Annals was tampered with in the Middle Ages. The word “Chrestianos” (follower of “Chrestus”) was written over as Christianos “follower of Christus.” A minor change but it brings Tacitus into agreement with Suetonius...see next entry. Further, the entire story of Nero persecuting xtians for the Great Fire is equally unknown to early xtian writers. No one, not even that great church liar Eusebius, seems to know anything about that. The text which was later attributed to Tacitus shows up in the 5th century writings of Sulpicius Severus, who does not quote Tacitus as the source.

G. Suetonius (Tranquillus): Another second century writer. In Life of Claudius writes about one “Chrestus” causing trouble in Rome and getting Jews thrown out by Claudius. As Claudius was emperor after Caligula who was emperor after Tiberius who supposedly was emperor when your godboy was nailed on the boards it would be rather impossible for Chrestus = Christus. Your own fairy tales claim that jc was long dead by the reign of Claudius. Still, it hardly ever slows the average xtian kook down from making this spurious claim. A better reference is in Suetonius Life of Nero where he makes casual mention of xtians being punished....along with cheating innkeepers and drunken charioteers!...but nothing to do with any of the more lurid details that xtians love to invent. Most likely, given the silly placement in the text, this is another example of xtian interpolation. It is also possible that Suetonius picked up this little tidbit while serving on the staff of Pliny the Younger in Asia Minor (see below.)

G. Plinius Secundus (Pliny the Younger) C. 110 AD Pliny was appointed Governor of Bithynia in Asia Minor. Unlike his friend, Tacitus, or his subordinate, Suetonius (a junior officer on Pliny’s staff) Pliny was not writing a history. Instead he was making a report of criminal activity to the Emperor Trajan. In it he notes that he has run across a group which calls itself xtians and who were holding illegal secret meetings. The issue for the Romans was sedition, not religion. The Romans were very tolerant of other religions. Anyway, Pliny reports that under questioning he found nothing but pernicious superstition and offered them the opportunity to recant. He mentions that most “cursed Christ” and willingly sacrified to our gods (which by this time would have included Trajan himself.) Xtians who love to trot out Pliny never want to hear that part because it undercuts the Hollywood version of gallant martyrs suffering all sorts of torment for their faith. Tough shit. Anyway, neither Trajan nor Pliny, both Roman aristocrats, seem to have any knowledge of xtians burning down the capitol a few decades earlier. One would think that they might bear a grudge but Trajan’s reply to Pliny is even milder in tone than Pliny’s original letter. In any case, Pliny never mentions anyone named “jesus.” Although curiously he does report that xtians worship christ “as if” (latin= quasi) “he were a god.” Odd way to turn a phrase.

Mara ben Serapion: This piece of shit again! He never mentions jesus or christ. He speaks of the Jews killing a “wise king” but jesus was never king of anything. However, it is true that in 36 BC Herod the Great and/or Marc Antony did execute the last Hasmonean king, Antigonos thus setting up Herod’s family to rule. The Jewish upper classes were never satisfied with Herod. Still, only a xtian fanatic would automatically assume that this “letter” is in reference to their god boy.

Julius Africanus: A supposed writer but one whose works have not survived. We only know of him because of Eusebius but even this makes little sense. Xtian scribes copied everything that remotely backed their beliefs. This one they didn’t bother with? Unfortunately that leaves us with only the word of Eusebius who was not above forging Josephus’ TF. Legally, Africanus amounts to hearsay. We cannot examine his works directly.

Lucian of Samosata was a Greco-Roman satirst writing in the mid 2d century. He makes fun of xtians who presumably by then had become numerous enough in the east to make a nuisance of themselves. However, Pliny has already told of xtians in Asia Minor 50 years earlier. Lucian’s later humorous pokes at xtians add nothing to the discussion.

The Toledot Yeshu (and all the other Talmudic references) were not written until between 200 and 500 AD and are thus even later than Lucian. Try to understand that the existence of xtians in the second century does not prove that your godboy was walking around in the first.

The Quran: You’ve got to be kidding. This is medieval Arab writing in which they scooped up all the old shit, gave it a spit shine and called it new. Please.

---

People at the time saw Him, so it does say more than no one seeing Him come out of the grave.

Unfuckingbelievable.

---

People have seen Elvis, too.

Are you denying that Elvis did exist and that he was a singer with some talent? Some atheists treat Jesus that way.
[/quote]

I had records by Elvis. And photos. But he is dead and people who claim to see him are hallucinating. Paul had a "vision" of jc. Nowadays we take people like that, shoot them full of thorazine and lock them in padded cells for their own good.

[tackattack]

So
1. Pliny the Younger found superstitious people willing to deny christ for other God's and worshiped him like a god.
2.Julius Africanus (through) Eusebius referenced Jesus but it's hearsay and we're assuming he forged some references.
3.Josephus and Tacitus that have the "stench of forgery" but reference Jesus.

I'll discard the others. How does this not support Jesus' existance alongside the bible?


As far as the above, religion was power and control. Lot's of people abused it and still do. Would you rather assume they made up entire sections of the bible from scratch or just rearranged the ones that profitted them most. The Bible scrolls existed before the cannonization and people already knew the stories, so they couldn't have changed much.


@padriac,

Sorry I was having a bad day and was very uncordial. The scriptures I've read about it speak of being ambassador and persuading others. One of many in a list of things to do. Some sects do feel very strongly about theese few verses. I'd be surprised is more than 55% of modern non-denominational Christians feel it is their duty to evangelicize(??). I'm sure fewer than 25% even share their faith intentionally with non-believers. It is definately not wanted on this forum and I was perhaps just as tired of atheist smarmy attacks as I'm sure most people on here are tired ofevery Christian coming here and spouting the same thing.

[Retorth]

1. Pliny the Younger found superstitious people willing to deny christ for other God's and worshiped him like a god.
2.Julius Africanus (through) Eusebius referenced Jesus but it's hearsay and we're assuming he forged some references.
3.Josephus and Tacitus that have the "stench of forgery" but reference Jesus.

I'll discard the others. How does this not support Jesus' existance alongside the bible?

The act of referencing Jesus and the bible makes their existence legit?

Re

[tackattack]

1. Pliny the Younger found superstitious people willing to deny christ for other God's and worshiped him like a god.
2.Julius Africanus (through) Eusebius referenced Jesus but it's hearsay and we're assuming he forged some references.
3.Josephus and Tacitus that have the "stench of forgery" but reference Jesus.

I'll discard the others. How does this not support Jesus' existance alongside the bible?

The act of referencing Jesus and the bible makes their existence legit?

Re

Then how would you prove any historical figure only documented in writing exists without seeing his bones and DNA testing them or some statue and effigy or product of their creation?

[Retorth]

1. Pliny the Younger found superstitious people willing to deny christ for other God's and worshiped him like a god.
2.Julius Africanus (through) Eusebius referenced Jesus but it's hearsay and we're assuming he forged some references.
3.Josephus and Tacitus that have the "stench of forgery" but reference Jesus.

I'll discard the others. How does this not support Jesus' existance alongside the bible?

The act of referencing Jesus and the bible makes their existence legit?

Re

Then how would you prove any historical figure only documented in writing exists without seeing his bones and DNA testing them or some statue and effigy or product of their creation?

I'm not the one claiming he exists.

Re