I still don't understand why anyone would make up a person like the Biblical Christ..

[coffeeveritas]

You would think that after witnessing a few miracles these bozos would catch on but they never do. They always seem surprised when the godboy pulls off a magic trick. Magicians always have a busty assistant to distract the crowd and go "TA-DA" when they pull off a trick.

Well that's one good explanation as to why the Bible always mentions the women following Jesus around! I'm picturing Mary Magdalen in one of those low-cut sequined dresses.

[Minimalist]

Every hero needs a hot babe around, eh?

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

On topic. Non biblical miracles. (with apologies to Victor Borge)


When Mary had a little lamb, people were not all that surprised.

But when old McDonald had a farm,they couldn't believe their eyes.!!!!!---- ----ee eye ee eye OOWWWWWWW!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[dave4shmups]

The idea that the writers had to shoehorn a real man into the narrative is a sort of atheist version of the "embarrassing details" argument. There are prophetic reasons (and mis-translations in prophecy) that explain this, more over there was no census. In looking for physical evidence of jesus we come up well below the bar. That's taking aside the fantastic. Hercules is a demi-god, and mythical, but Jesus, also a demi-god was historical? Even after removing all of the miracles it is still special pleading. When's the last time you heard a discussion about the historical Hercules? One set of rules for everyone elses myths, another for judeo-christianity?

You still haven't proven why any first-century Jews would invent a Messiah who was NOT a political/military deliverer from Rome. If that's what they had done, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion-because we would know that it didn't happen. And that, history tells us, is EXACTLY the type of Messiah that the Jews were looking and hoping for-not someone like the Biblical Christ.

I've been on the Skeptics Annotated Bible site, and apparently they don't understand that a Bible verse written in the Old Testament CAN apply to Jesus. Simply because his name isn't in the verse-which it wouldn't have been since Jesus is a Greek name-that does not prove that he didn't fulfill said verse.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why oh why would anyone invent a cosmic authority who agrees with their own opinions on matters, gee, who knows.

[Sciwoman]

You still haven't proven why any first-century Jews would invent a Messiah who was NOT a political/military deliverer from Rome. If that's what they had done, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion-because we would know that it didn't happen. And that, history tells us, is EXACTLY the type of Messiah that the Jews were looking and hoping for-not someone like the Biblical Christ.

Because it would have been clear to anyone to the Jews had not been delivered politically/militarily from Rome. Therefore, Jesus had to be turned into a spiritual deliverer. Yes, some Jews did convert to christianity. However, IIRC, the new religion didn't really gain much of a foothold until Paul got hold of it and focused it on converting gentiles - using the excuse that the Jews had rejected Jesus because he didn't come bearing a sword and leading an army. Christianity only has it's roots in Judaism, it quickly became a gentile religion. The stories written in the NT about Jesus were written down decades after the events supposedly took place. A quick look at how quickly rumors spread and get distorted should serve as a caution about taking any tale from scripture at face value.

[Minimalist]

You still haven't proven why any first-century Jews would invent a Messiah who was NOT a political/military deliverer from Rome.

I guess I need to introduce you to the Gabriel Revelation Stone, Dave.

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0...85,00.html

A 3-ft.-high tablet romantically dubbed "Gabriel's Revelation" could challenge the uniqueness of the idea of the Christian Resurrection. The tablet appears to date authentically to the years just before the birth of Jesus and yet — at least according to one Israeli scholar — it announces the raising of a messiah after three days in the grave. If true, this could mean that Jesus' followers had access to a well-established paradigm when they decreed that Christ himself rose on the third day — and it might even hint that they they could have applied it in their grief after their master was crucified. However, such a contentious reading of the 87-line tablet depends on creative interpretation of a smudged passage, making it the latest entry in the woulda/coulda/shoulda category of possible New Testament artifacts; they are useful to prove less-spectacular points and to stir discussion on the big ones, but probably not to settle them nor shake anyone's faith.

In the years since this article was published the reading by Israel Knohl has been accepted by leading epigraphers, including Ada Yardeni: "In three days, live"

It must be understood that this was an age when literacy was rare. The priests in the temple controlled the official state religion but we know, for example as a result of the Dead Sea Scrolls, that there were other offshoots existing aside from the temple orthodoxy. What the discovery and authentication of the Gabriel Revelation Stone tells us is that there was yet another strand which had a belief in the resurrection of its leader. The problem is that the rebellion in question dates to the death of Herod the Great c 4 BC. In his will, Herod broke up his kingdom among his surviving children. Serious revolts broke out which caused the Roman Governor of Syria, Publius Quinctillius Varus to intervene with his army to crush the revolts. This he did. One of the rebel contingents was led by Simon of Perea who seems to be the central figure of the Gabrield Revelation Stone. Varus caught up with him after Simon had destroyed one of Herod's palaces. Simon was beheaded but plenty of other rebels were crucified. The only problem this holds for xtians is that their boy was either not born or, at best a newborn babe, depending on which version of their bullshit stories you wish to consult.

But the idea of a dead and resurrected Messiah - which is certainly not any part of Judaism - did exist among the lower classes at the close of the first millenium BC.

[DeistPaladin]

You still haven't proven why any first-century Jews would invent a Messiah who was NOT a political/military deliverer from Rome. If that's what they had done, then we wouldn't even be having this discussion-because we would know that it didn't happen. And that, history tells us, is EXACTLY the type of Messiah that the Jews were looking and hoping for-not someone like the Biblical Christ.

One...
More...
Time...

Absolutely nobody I know claims that "somebody just made up Jesus one day". Enough with that strawman already.

Please read my previous post on this subject.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Simple enough, Paul was a nutter.

Before Paul,there was no 'Christianity'. There was a small,insignificant Jewish sect with nothing to say to gentiles.

Left alone, it would probably have died out within a few generations. Today the west would probably worship Mithras or Ahura Mazda.Out history would be virtually the same in terms of our treatment of one another.

By almost completely removing the Jewishness of the sect and adding some mystery religion elements, Paul invented a new world religion.

Yeah he was crazy, like a fox,

[Minimalist]

If "Paul" was real.