An Atheist Myth of Historical Evidences

Jesus had to die?

Originally posted by Michael
----------
I find it quite convoluted (and a bit sick) to suggest "we needed Jesus to die for our sins".
----------
(Good morning, Michael! Good post. Many posts on the forum refer to "Jesus dying on the cross," etc. Some posts say "Jesus didn't even exist." I haven't seen any posts (except my own) that say "Jesus may have lived, but he didn't die on the cross." My personal belief is that he had a "stand-in" who gave up his life for Jesus. That was Barabbas (meaning "son of the Father"). How concident! I'd like to throw this out for further comment.)

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

"we needed jesus"? it was in god's power that jesus didn't have to be the answer. don't you get it? you believe in an all powerful god. he can do anything, JESUS DIDN'T NEED TO DIE- sacrificing his son when he doesn't need to does sound perverse to me. as well, i percieve injustice rather well thank you. like the crusades and christianities unrestless continuation of trying to wipe out other religions and cultures and in doing so causing harm. there will always be injustice in this world, and i question why you don't think the capability is within ourselves to "deliver" ourselves from injustice.

yeah they did. is that langauge to stronger reality for you to accept? either way christianity took on prophecies that weren't its own and modified them. if you don't want to see it that way fine.

have you never encountered the strength of your own will?

who cares? did i say christianity was derived from egytpian belief?

christ, if he was actually sent here from god, would have been more than a match for anyone or any kingdom. once again, all powerful god. if god was trying to show himself (and i believe he was, i take jesus as my proof of this) through jesus, no nation could've actually harmed him.

where do you get this stuff? you're saying ceasar had no power??? or any other king in history for that matter??? that is pure crap.

from the throne jesus could've done EVERYTHING. his position doesn't matter, it's the message that does (isn't that why the bible was written?). your statement is just plain stupid.

what the hell? you just said the same thing twice but said one way wouldn't work and the other would. as well what else would this earth be but a human one??? jesus could've been a model citizen and a king to boot. he could've built the same empire as a king much more easily than a normal citizen. don't you see how that is dumb?

lol, as i've already said, "walking on water" means "walking around water". it wasn't a miracle. and turning water into wine sound like something a bad magician could pull off.

god doesn't have power over death. he has power over life. death is nothingness, you can't have power over nothing.

okay then, what did jesus do that was more important than any of the miracles he performed?

i already know that i know pretty much jack shit of all there is to know. and you don't think if i saw something completely unexplainable (within the physical/natural bounds of this universe) i wouldn't have serious doubts over my beliefs? how can you even presume this? in all my life so far i haven't see anything that has remotely been unexplainable. i said somewhere here that i'm not in the business of lying to myself, if i see something truly remarkable i won't jump at a faith (i'll investigate them all), i'll find the one that aligns closely with my old beliefs, but lets me move forwards into new ones as well.

lol, more exceptions than rules? how much actual history do you know? i've study history and cultural evolution (and evolution itself) to an extent that i can safely say that is one of the most ignornant things that you have ever said. have you even heard the saying that history always repeats itself? it's not a saying because it's bullshit. and how do you assume that i wouldn't believe any of the above objects if they weren't larger than life? another retarded statement about a person you hardly know.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You would be justified in saying that if God was so almighty, why can He not die? How can He say He is able to ressurrect us from death if death is foreign to Him? Here's why I said it was for our sake:

Hebrews 2:14
Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might destroy him who holds the power of death–that is, the devil– 15and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death.

I have to add that there would be no "fear of death" if it wasn't worth fearing. Death is the antithesis of everything we strive and hope for.

We didn't modify them any more than they could be modified by understanding. A Christian's understanding of the words of a prophet is just as valid as a Jew's understanding. We're all people under the same God. They expected a messiah that was a military leader, we say the battle was fought spiritually, and the messiah was Jesus.

Yes, but unfortunately I encounter its weaknesses more often.

Unless He willed that through their harm to him their guilt would be exposed for everybody to see.

No disrespect intended, but remember the story of when Elvis entered an Elvis-impersonation contest and came third? What did that say about who people thought Elvis were and who he actually was? And this wasn't Elvis, it was God's anointed.

No power over God. No power beyond their military reach. No power other than what people could attribute them. They died like the most common citizen under them, and their glorious kingdoms died with them. Unlike God and God's kingdom. An earthly throne would hardly do Him justice (or more importantly, do us justice).

The message was that people who lived under human authority, were oppressed and exploited, enslaved, murdered, jailed and executed innocently could expect justice. Jesus on a throne would have lived and died like any king. But the king of the world on a cross nails the message home: we are bound to death if we aren't freed by God.

David was te king you have in mind - read Psalms and Chronicles, substitute Jesus, and then come back to me and tell me whether you would have believed in God even then.

You're not thinking large enough. Jesus came to save all mankind - not himself, not for God, not for an earthly kingdom of whatever size our success - but no less than the kingdom of heaven. He appointed those faithful to the true King to do his will, while He went to prepare our place in heaven, from where He will come back to claim His throne.

Why would you want God on the throne of earth if you don't believe in Him - if you don't believe you belong under his rule or in his ingdom? Where would that put you? The kingdom Jesus came to establish is able to include you. That's something David's kingdom 3000 years ago, or an earthly king 2000 years ago would not have been able to give you.

"We do ... speak a message of wisdom ... but not the wisdom of this age or of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing." (1 Cor. 2:6)

Then Peter must have sunk in the mud. The water into wine miracle was to the benefit of the bridegroom and the wedding. It was prophetic of how God would establish a kingdom out of something embarrassing that people would have rejected. In all its simplicity and humility, it was probably the most important miracle Jesus did. Nobody saw it, nobody realized what happened, yet suddenly the best wine was served last against custom and expectation.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Jenyar,

The primary fiction that drives mainstream religion. The dream of man from the moment he first observed the permanence of death, and the unwillingness to accept that was is so obvious is also so true. Death is final. And you cannot show otherwise, you can only dream as do most people, and construct complex mythologies in the false hope of an escape.

There is far more to life than one emotional outlook. That ordinary people throughout thousands of years of history have shown compassion, friendship, and love for each other is proof that we do not need a resurrected God to tell us about something we already know and daily experience for ourselves. That love is everything is simply an over simplistic puerile perspective.

 

what the hell? how can you presume this? you think i can't see anything beyond the obvious???

for our sake jesus could've taken a big old crap, you just don't get what i'm saying do you? god is all knowledgable by your belief so he already knows what death is like. or do you now not believe your god is all knowledgable?

sure. you don't even believe your god created the earth in six days, or you believe there is some ambiguity which there isn't. you didn't even try and rebut when i said in relpy to you that christianity is just like every other relgion, taking other religions ideas.

your will can't have weaknesses. you’re just not encountering your will if your encountering your weaknesses. your will is not getting activated saying your better than your weaknesses. who can't see past the obvious now????:bugeye:

no, god could've just out and out protected jesus. you believe in an all powerful god, such protection would be undeniable and awing. if you saw a person who was literally invulnerable but was only doing good things would you be sceptical of his genuine sincere- ness?
besides, i once again state, did jesus ever once say "I am Christ"? no, not to my knowledge. what makes a poor person more believable to be god anyway than a king? where is any of your reasoning???

don't you get it??????????????????????????????????????????/ if jesus was king he wouldn't use military might, he'd just be nice. don't you see what that would do? a man with the greatest military might in the world chooses not to use it for harm in a time when conquest was a way of life. besides, nothing on earth would do jesus justice, not being a poor man or or king, don'tyou see how what you're saying contradicts yourself???

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

but jesus isn't human authority he's god. you say jesus was benevolent but then you say put him on a throne and he's just like any other murdering king? how can you begin to claim to know this? do you know how many people were put on crosses? he was one in a hundred thousand. his plight was no different. and then you just called him king of the world? what the hell? you're dilerious.

i'm not thinking large enough? my idea about god goes way beyond your pitfull justification of god to yourself and your own poor understanding of things around you. and there again you say he'll come back to his throne when you just previously said that'd he'd be like any other piss poor king thats been before him.

I DON'T CARE. if god comes back and sits on the "throne of the earth" then i will eat humble pie as well as all my hats and all my shoes (ha, the jokes on you though, i only have two hats and one pair of shoes). but then, when did i ever explicitly say i didn't believe that god wasn't a possibility? you say he's all understanding? then he'll know i'm nicer than most of the people that go around pretending to believe in him.

nobody saw it and yet it happened and you're most sure of it too. you believe what you want, but your god can sit back and do parlour tricks while my god goes out and plays with the stars. get a grip.

WHAT DOES THAT TELL YOU???????? he died anyway. sounds like every joe blogs that's walked the planet ever.

yes, you know this for sure. is it your will that gets sacrificed every time your brain defies logic and no alarm bells ring in your head?

everything in this universe is natural, if it occurs it's natural. we call it unnatural because we don't see it happen often- remember, insignificant little piece of dust in a mighty maelstrom of wind. or we're just imagining things.

fuck. you do realise there is more than one pyramid? you do realise there has been many more than one war? that nations have risen and fallen like dominos? that your belief, a hundred million people before you have lived out? if you can't draw even simple conclusions like these and have the ability to question something far far far far more tangible (i.e. actual history) than your god, where is there any sense or logic in that?

if they hadn't of existed we wouldn't believe in them would we? our natural bias is to believe in a god, or is that not why the large majority of the world belongs to some theist faith? if anything atheism is the exception, in which case (by your logic) i can't believe in myself. oh wait....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Paul knew no Jesus of Nazareth

Greetings Medicine*Woman,

Thanks for your welcome

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Pardon the delay, I don't get the time to post every day.

Pardon?
Paul seems to have been the first to refer to Iesous Christos, certainly (have you studied the Greek Iasius? son-of-God, born of a virgin, brought religious knowledge to man, died tragically, rose to heaven - probably part of the matrix that formed Jesus.)
But,
the letters of Paul show NONE of the Gospel stories, events or characters - no miracles, no teachings, no healing, no trial, no Pilate, Mary, Herod, Lazarus, Bethlehem, Nazareth - no NOTHING about Jesus of Nazareth.

If you really claim Paul invented the Gospel Jesus - where in Paul's writing is he mentioned?

This is merely Christian tradition, it is not supported by any real evidence.
The stories in Acts contradicts the stories in Paul - how could this be if A.Luke really new Paul?
Also, G.Luke COPIED G.Mark (the first synoptic) at length - why would a participant need to COPY an earlier work?

Indeed.
Its questionable that Mark, Matthew, Luke or John even EXISTED, let alone knew Jesus.
No Christian mentions any of the evangelists as such until a CENTURY after the alleged events.
The Gospels were totally unknown to Christians until early 2nd century, and not NAMED until late 2nd century (un-named Gospels are refered to by Aristides and Justin Martyr).

A traditional dating - but there is no hard evidence for it.
Perhaps you would like to present your argument for this date?

No.
The first Gospel found in history is that of Marcion of Sinope, published in the 140s - it was UN-named (called just "the Gospel"), had NO genealogy or "seed of David".
Marcion's Gospel is the FIRST we have real evidence for - our modern four Gospels are un-known till some decades later (not counting Papias who makes vague references to what MAY be early forms of 2 Gospels).

Really?
What evidence do you have that Paul wrote in Aramaic?
What evidence do you have of the claimed original word "resuscitation" ?

I gather he was addressing Christians (he fell away from Christianity and was there-after known as "the apostate").


In sum,
I cannot agree that Paul invented the Gospel Jesus -
* The Gospel Jesus is not found in Paul.
* The Gospel Jesus is not mentioned even by Christians, until early-mid 2nd century - i.e. no-one had even HEARD of Jesus of Nazareth until a CENTURY after he supposedly existed.

You may like to peruse this Timeline of Gospel references :
http://members.iinet.net.au/~quentinj/Christianity/Gospel-Timeline.html

Iasion

 

Paul knew no Jesus of Nazareth

Greetings Jenyar,

Thanks for your reply

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

No they don't.
It is only your faith that make you SEE it that way.

This refers to Paul being an Apostle - it does NOT say this Christ Jesus is a historical person at all - he could just as easily have been a spiritual being.

This refers to a "crucifixion" - but it does NOT say a historical crucifixion anywhere - no date, time, place, people, context - this could just as easily have been a spiritual event (like the cutting of Attis.)

This refers to "raising" - but it does NOT indicate a historical event - no time, place, people, context - it could just as easily refer to a spiritual concept.


Sorry Jenyar - NONE of these references prove a historical person at all - you only THINK they do because you believe in a historical Jesus and have never really considered the alternative.

If Paul saw Jesus as a real person - why does he mention NOTHING concrete about his life?


Paul argues he is just as good an apostle as James and Peter - and Paul explicitly argues he has received his inspiration from "no man" - this could not be true if Jesus had really existed.

When Paul went to Jerusalem he was tested by James to see if he was a real Christian -

James took Paul to the Temple to perform a ritual to prove he was a "real Christian" - not a mention of Calvary or the empty tomb which would surely be the central places of Christian faith (which they ARE now) - the empty tomb story was UNKNOWN to Paul, as was any historical Jesus.


Jenyar,
how do YOU explain that even the empty tomb story was UNKNOWN even to CHRISTIANS until a CENTURY after it allegedly happened?

Just like ALL the elements of the Gospel stories - UNKNOWN until early-mid 2nd century.


Iasion

 

Jesus of Nazareth unknown to early Christians

Greetings Jenyar,

Rubbish.
Firstly, we have no claims by Christ - we have NO writings by him or any contemporary evidence for his existence.
All we have is STORIES about him, unknown until a CENTURY after the alleged events.
Finally - the supposed claims by Christ are not "credible" - they are literally INCREDIBLE : miracles, healings, the darkness for 3 hours, all the tombs opening up....
These "claims" are rejected as NOT credible by the majority of people in the world today.

Rubbish.
You appear to know nothing about comparative religion or history.

Such beliefs lasted much LONGER than Christianity has - there may even be outback Egyptians who still believe this.

Really?
What is the evidence?

Justus of Tiberias wrote a history of Galillee in the first century - the very period and place of these alleged miracles - yet he says NOT ONE WORD about Jesus or these miracles.
How do YOU explain that Jenyar?

Philo Judaeus wrote about the Jews in the very same time as Jesus alleged miracles - yet he says NOTHING about Jesus or the alleged miracles.
How do YOU explain that Jenyar?

Paul, the first Christian writer, wrote nearly 1/4 of the NT - yet he never mentions the miracles of Jesus ONCE.
How do YOU explain that Jenyar?

The epistle of James was supposedly written by the BROTHER of Jesus and a contemporary eye-witness - yet it says NOTHING about the miracles of Jesus - in fact it says NOTHING about a historical Jesus.
How do YOU explain that Jenyar?

The epistles of 1,2 Peter were supposedly written by a central actor in the events, and the first Pope - yet mention NOTHING about the miracles of Jesus (or ANYTHING about a historical Jesus)
How do YOU explain that Jenyar?

All the other earliest books of Christianity -
Hebrews, Colossians, 1,2,3 John, Ephesians, Revelation, 1 Clement, Jude, the Didakhe, the Pastorals
all say NOTHING about a historical Jesus.

Jenyar,
how do YOU explain that the first 20 or so documents of Christianity say NOTHING about the life of Jesus what-so-ever?

I'd appreciate it if you spell my name correctly

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Jenyar,
this CHRISTIAN described Christianity in DETAIL,
AND he specifically said they are called "Christians" because they are ANOINTED - but WITHOUT mentioning Jesus at all.
This is clear evidence of Christians who did NOT believe in Jesus of Nazareth, even in mid-late 2nd century.
How do YOU explain that Jenyar?


Iasion

 

Re: Paul knew no Jesus of Nazareth

Paul was writing about events that people already were familiar with. When you mention an event or personality, the first impression you get is that it refers to something real. Paul was writing for the education of Christians. If he wanted them to believe the images he was mentioning were of a spiritual nature, he would have specified it. Otherwise a new Christian would not make any sense from his words. Paul refers to "Christ Jesus" in 1 Cor. and Romans. He believes the Jesus is the anointed. And if Paul explained this in other letters, why repeat himself?

1 Cor.

13 Is Christ divided? Was Paul crucified for you? Were you baptised into the name of Paul?
17 For Christ did not send me to baptise, but to preach the gospel--not with words of human wisdom, lest the cross of Christ be emptied of its power.

Spiritual beings don't baptize, or get crucified. There were no spiritual crucifictions by Romans. If it was a spiritual event, Paul would have had to clarify that he didn't refer to a Christian who was martyred. What is more, a spiritual Christ who was "crucified" would not be a "stumbling block to the Jews" - because they were expecting a real messiah - or "foolishness to the Greeks", who would have understood an archetypical miraculous god-saviour.

The historical setting was known. He did not need to repeat it. In fact, his emphasis was on what it all meant in practice. Also, Paul had no historical information to add, since he was not a Christian from the beginning.

1 Corinthians 10

16 Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ?

You can see here that he wants to point out our share in the events. The spiritual nature he refers to is based on blood and body. The spiritual nature of Paul's Christianity is based on the fact that everybody would understand and identify with its physical source.

Compare this with when Paul wants to indicate a spiritual connotation - he specifies it:

3 They all ate the same spiritual food
4 and drank the same spiritual drink; for they drank from the spiritual rock that accompanied them, and that rock was Christ.

Why indicate it only here when he refers to their ancestors, when he sees the present "Christ" as the same "spiritual" being?

But no, Paul goes on to say in 1 Cor. 11:
23 ...The Lord Jesus, on the night he was betrayed, took bread,
24 and when he had given thanks, he broke it and said, This is my body, which is for you; do this in remembrance of me.

What, I ask you, is the spiritual meaning of that? Paul will tell you: 27 Now you are the body of Christ, and each one of you is a part of it.

You mean 1 Cor. 9:1
Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord?

Jesus himself said that he did not act on his own accord, but only did what he saw God do. "So that no man might boast of himself, but give all the glory to God".

A Christian does not revere the empty tomb or Calvary. They are mere tourist attractions at best, reminders of Jesus' death. a Christian is one who believes in His resurrection and life; in our affilitation with him our own bodies and lives is the only site of any true importance. But Paul was a Jew (Acts 21:39). The allegations were that he was turning people against the Law:
_________________________________________________ _
21They have been informed that you teach all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs. 22What shall we do? They will certainly hear that you have come, 23so do what we tell you. There are four men with us who have made a vow. 24Take these men, join in their purification rites and pay their expenses, so that they can have their heads shaved. Then everybody will know there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law. ...
26The next day Paul took the men and purified himself along with them. Then he went to the temple to give notice of the date when the days of purification would end and the offering would be made for each of them.
_________________________________________________ _
The test wasn't to see if he was a "real Christian", but to show that he was not a heretic. Ironically, it was this demonstration of good faith which made some Jews accuse him of bringing non-Jews into the temple.

Either unknown, taken for granted, or likely simply unimportant, since the first congregations were established by personal interaction and missionary work, not by tracts, handouts or video presentations. Do you know what the level of literacy was? Lack of mention is not proof however much you'd like it to be. Probably because of Paul's emphasis on the spiriual meaning and practical application of the events, Christians were interested in living the faith rather than paying tribute to its artifacts. This isn't a new appoach either. Can you imagine what an amazing idol the ark of the covenant or the bronze serpent of Moses would have become had they been elevated above their historical place in the religion?

For your information, "all" the elements of the gospels could not have been unknown, since Paul was the last apostle to know (of) Jesus, yet the earliest theology we have is from him. Among which is the following"

1 Cor. 15
_________________________________________________ _
3 For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures,
4 that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, 5 and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve.
6 After that, he appeared to more than five hundred of the brothers at the same time, most of whom are still living, though some have fallen asleep.
7 Then he appeared to James, then to all the apostles,
8 and last of all he appeared to me also, as to one abnormally born.
9 For I am the least of the apostles and do not even deserve to be called an apostle, because I persecuted the church of God.

16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either.
17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins.
18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost.
19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.
_________________________________________________ _

I don't know how you can think Paul was not referring to a real person, or that what he says here is less important than where and when everything happened? If you don't believe this, you would not have believe any other fact Paul could have included otherwise. Neither would you have believed anybody after Paul, had he included names, places - whether they repeated, included or excluded anything.

 

Re: Jesus of Nazareth unknown to early Christians

A century? If Jesus died between 30 and 35 CE, then the earliest copy already is found within 40 years after his death. This is not the original, not the complete and not the earliest theology either. And it was found in Egypt, which means the gospel had even travelled by then. But it isn't the lack of manuscript evidence that bothers you, is it? It's what they say.

It is only their convinction of this incredibility which made Jesus credible to most who accepted him as messiah and Christ. And not everybody who saw the miracles believed. Not even most of those who weren't prejudiced against miracles. Other writers have mentioned the darkness of three hours. But that's not the point - the majority of the world will probably eventually reject God himself. Prophecy says two thirds.

Very influential and powerful gods they must be. But you don't believe in them any more than you believe Christians, Jews or Muslims, so why even play this card?

There are no surviving copies of his work, so I don't know why you would lean on him any more than the gospels. The only mention we still have of it is from Photius:

Philo, also a Jew, could have provided some of the material under which the New Testament was formed. He is supposed to have died 50 CE (although this isn't certain), but he lived in Alexandria - he would not have had any way to know Jesus until Paul's missionary travels:

Central to his teaching on God's relationship to the world is his doctrine of the Logos. The term itself occurs repeatedly in his works but is never defined. In Who is Heir of Things Divine?, chapter 42 (§ 206) the Logos says of itself: 'I stand between the Lord and you; I am neither uncreated like God nor created like you, but midway between the two extremes, a hostage on both sides.' (Early Jewish Writings)

Interesting. Paul also called Jesus the Word (Logos). [*edit* It is actually John who employs it specifically in this sense, and not without justification:
"A Greek philosopher named Heraclitus first used the term Logos around 600 B.C. to designate the divine reason or plan which coordinates a changing universe. This word was well suited to John's purpose in John 1.")

He believed in the resurrection of Jesus, which is all the miracle he needed to know. He might not have been aware or interested in the other, because they did not inform his theology.

Supposedly the brother of Jesus. There is a probability that it wasn't. The author only identifies himself as "James, the servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ". It is concerned with the practical salvation (faith and works), not with the gospel (although it shows signs of being familiar with them - “there are more parallels in this Epistle than in any other New Testament book to the teaching of our Lord in the Gospels.” Guthrie, 726-33.)

Read more here.


I would like to address the others as well, but I can't really provide anything new. If you base your (lack of) faith only on the miraculous, you will be disappointed. If you base it only on what people not mentioning what you would have liked them to mentione, you will remain disappointed. These authors said exactly what they wanted to say. Within the first century, most Christians had only just heard who Jesus was - not to even mention non-Christians. God was choosing a people, once again, by drawing them towards a salvation He had prepared for those who would live for Him. He was not giving out autographs.

 

Jesus was no Xian

Originally posted by Jenyar
----------
Interesting. Paul also called Jesus the Word (Logos).
----------
(Paul CREATED (yes, I'm yelling!) the myth of Jesus. Of course, he was going to say or write whatever he thought would perpetuate that myth!)
----------
He believed in the resurrection of Jesus, which is all the miracle he needed to know.
----------
(Paul CREATED the myth of the resurrection. He never knew Jesus nor ever saw him do anything!)
----------
Within the first century, most Christians had only just heard who Jesus was - not to even mention non-Christians.
----------
(There were no Xians in the first century. Jesus (if he even lived) did not "preach" Xianity, he was a devout Jew, and that is what he preached--Judaism.)
----------
God was choosing a people, once again, by drawing them towards a salvation He had prepared for those who would live for Him. He was not giving out autographs.
----------
(God did NOT choose a particular people. God created everyone equally without prejudice. It was the Hebrews who chose the One God (just as the Muslims choose the One God--Allah). "God's chosen people" is a reference to those people WHO CHOSE GOD! To say that God, who created the human race, did such a shabby job that at first, he would have to cause a flood to kill all his creation, and then secondly, his next round of creation was again shabbier than the first, so he would then have to send a "savior" who just happened to be "his only son" to die for the human race to "save" them! So if Jesus was God's "only son," who are we--his experiment?

God created us, and let us evolve to where we are today, and here we are, his creation, but not good enough for God itself! Makes no sense to me. The human race would have happened even if there wasn't a God (Creator). We would have been here anyway. Therefore, the argument for God and Jesus is pretty lame. If God created us, there should be no need for our salvation. The fact that we're here IS salvation from ourselves--our former existence, our weaknesses. Perhaps we created ourselves. That would make us God. It doesn't matter who or what God is. What matters is what we do with our soul while we are here on Earth.

The first lesson would be to know that the human race is One creation. We need each other. We haven't learned that yet. The reason we reject our fellow human beings is because our perception of God is awry. Some have become too dependent on a savior and have forgotten to think for themselves. Those who need this savior look down at their fellow human beings, because what they see with their eyes is that anyone who doesn't believe in this savior is doomed. God didn't create this myth.)

 

jenyar,
no reply for me? i would actually like to know what your justification is for anything i rebutted, that's why i rebutted in the first place. i would also especially like you to clear up whether you meant i couldn't see beyond the obvious as, trust me, this is not the case. awaiting your response

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, atheroy.

 

I know you're not short-sighted, but what would you base such observation on? Keep in mind I specified "any significance beyond the obvious". It can't be based on empirical evidence, because science does not assign significance. Therefore not believing in miracles because according to you they ultimately fall within the realm of nature is a subjective evaluation based on your limits of what comprises "nature". You necessarily discount the significance of human experience because it falls outside the "significance" of natural phenomena. What one person would experience as a miracle would be to you no more "miraculous" than, say, the process of evolution. Like I said: you have a natural bias which prevents you from recognizing anything "supernatural", even though it might be just as "natural" as everything else.

Please have a look at Miracles by CS Lewis. I can't describe the argument any better than he did.

Once again: it wasn't for His education. You are living proof that it doesn't really make a difference to people what God knows or doesn't know. What better way to demonstrate salvation than by saving, or to demonstrate power over death than ressurrection. Jesus was already King, Prophet and High Priest - but He demonstrated what those positions meant to God: servitude and sacrifice; not human power. God's mercy stretches to the oppressed and the exiled because He identified with them. That is why they believed. God did not magnanimously promise each of them a house an a VW Beetle, He promised them a place in heaven. He strengthened their faith in God, not in a man's ability to rule.

You haven't answered my question about what "days" are supposed to be, or how accurate your definition really is. God defined "day" as light in Genesis 1. But you insist a "day" means 24 hours - or at least the hours of daylight. Does every place on earth get the same amount of daylight? If you interpret Genesis as only geocentric you are missing the point, just like the flat-earthers did. It's in fact Deocentric. And for the humanocentric prespectve, read the other creation account in Genesis.

If you look at most religions, you'll see that in principle most of their ideas are similar. "Taking ideas" is a human trait. Religion is a human enterprise. The question is how much those ideas reflect the living God. Christmas is a Christian adaptation of a Roman feast, Passover is an adaptation of the Pascha. Similarity is nothing new - it is the differences which you should pay attention to. That is what defines them. My God is in principle no different than any other god. But what distinguished the God of Israel from Baal or Horus or Tammuz?

"In principle" many religions are looking for "the same god" and have similar religious ceremonies - just like people over the world could be looking at the "same" television, or people in a house might look through the same window - but what do they see, and what does it change in them?

So are you saying any lack of self-control is simply in absence of will? That if you just willed something it would happen? Have you ever been addicted to something? It's not from the lack of will that people can't stop smoking, it's from the weakness of their resolve. Some things weaken your will and other things strengthen it. Some weaknesses are genetic and others are behavioural. If you know something is killing you, it should be "obvious" that you have to stop, but why do some people rather go into denial than act?

Like the three servants of God in Nebuchadnezzar's furnace (Daniel 3)? But that would not provide you much assurance that you could do it yourself. Just look how much good "shock and awe" did to convince Iraq of America's superiority. Not everybody gains the same amount of faith from a single event. You don't need a miracle to separate believers from unbelievers. Your words echo the crowd: "He saved others," they said, "but he can't save himself! He's the King of Israel! Let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him." But God wanted us to be able to endure, and therefore He endured.

Jesus had plenty of opportunity to deny He was the Christ, like John did, but instead He corrected people who thought He was not.

Matthew 16
15"But what about you?" he asked. "Who do you say I am?"
16Simon Peter answered, "You are the Christ, the Son of the living God."
17Jesus replied, "Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah, for this was not revealed to you by man, but by my Father in heaven.

Jesus was king, and he didn't use military might to establish His kingdom. As you say, he was just "nice". Don't you see? A Man believed to be anointed with God's own authority and power, endures injustice, suffering and shame so that people who endure the same might have real, personal hope. And [/i]because[/i] nothing on earth did Jesus justice, God himself showed Him justice. No man can save himself, but Jesus could and didn't. Can't you see how powerful that message is to people who can't or don't expect justice or mercy? To people who are trapped by suffering, famine or oppression, unable to even pick themselves up from the ground, never mind "achieving enlightenment"?

The cross is where He nailed our suffering and inequities to. A king would be above the law, especially the most powerful one the world has ever seen. But God's laws were already established! Jesus did not come to overthrow the law or the prophets, but to fulfill them. He lived as a servant and died as a king. That is what God promises everyone. A king would not be crucified, but dethroned and exiled. That would have alienated God from his people even more.

You also have to take the history of God's kingdom. When Israelites became God's chosen people, they also wanted a king "like everybody else" (1 Samuel 8). Samuel anointed Saul, and declared that the king must always be a born Israelite. After Saul, David became the king chosen by God. But these kings were never meant to replace God - they were all images of His rulership (and inadequate ones at that). Jesus restored God's authority over His people. There has not been another Jewish temple or king ever since.

On earth - but God's kingdom is not one ruled by a man. When Jesus returns it will be to call the citizens of his new kingdom to Him. If you read the many parables Jesus told about the "kingdom of God", you'll get the idea. Jesus should have been crowned the rightful king, yet He was given a crown of thorns and a cross for a throne. By rejecting the Son as King, you have rejected God as authority. What will happen when He comes to rule over his kingdom? Where will he find you? Laying siege to it, or inside its walls?

When the king returned to his servants in Luke 19,
26"He replied, 'I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what he has will be taken away." The pretenders will be left with nothing, and those who tried will be given more.

Recognizing the possibility of God's authority is not the same as recognizing his authority. That's like saying you will wait to be found guilty before you stop doing the crime.

Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great: He appeared in a body, was vindicated by the Spirit, was seen by angels, was preached among the nations, was believed on in the world, was taken up in glory. (1 Timothy 3:16)

He did not sit back, which is why a god who is "playing with the stars" would not hold a candle to one who could by one man divide the world between those who believe in Him and those who don't.

And that is why He can be save every Joe Blogs that ever walked the planet.

 

Jesus of Nazareth unknown to early Christians

Greetings Jenyar,

This is your faithful belief, but you have shown NO EVIDENCE to support it.
Paul's writings mention nothing about the Gospel Jesus, merely vague spiritual formulae.
Similarly, all the early Christian writings are equally MISSING any mention of Jesus of Nazareth.
If YOU claim the Gospel Jesus of Nazareth was already known in Paul's time, why can't you provide any evidence of such?

Oh really?
So, when you read about the dismemberment of Osiris, you believe Osiris was real?
And when you read about the castration of Attis, you believe it really happened?
And when you read about the exploits of Hercules, you believe he was real?
Jenyar - all ancient stories must be evaluated for accuracy and credibility - only FAITHFUL Christians believe the Gospel stories about Jesus - historians do NOT.

He did.
He described Jesus as being crucified by the Archons of this Aeon - these are the spiritual beings which occupy the spiritual realm just "above" the physical plane.

If he wanted his readers to believe he was mentioning a real person he would have mentioned :
* when he was born,
* where he was born,
* his family,
* his teachings
* his miracles
* etc. etc.

Paul did NOT mention ANYTHING about an actual historical life of a real person. He makes all sorts of vague references which CAN be seen as physical if you want to - and clearly YOU want to, but I have yet to see any hard evidence that Paul knew ANYTHING about Jesus of Nazareth.

Rubbish.
Do you believe Osiris was REALLY dismembered?
Do you beieve Attis was REALLY cut?
Do you believe Hercules REALLY did those labours?

Ancient mythology is FULL of such events - which are understood to be NOT historical events, but rather spiritual or mythic events.

Obviously not.
But Paul does NOT say Jesus was crucified by the Romans.
He said Jesus was crucified by the Archons of this Aeon - spiritual beings who crucified Jesus on the spiritual plane. This is straightforward middle or even neo- Platonism - the idea that events on the plane above would affect our world.

On the contrary, there is NOTHING in Paul which refers to Christ being martyred.
If Paul had refered to a historical event, he would have given historical references - names, dates, places, actors, context - but he does NOT.

You keep saying this,
I keep asking for evidence,
but you have yet to provide any evidence.

There is NO EVIDENCE that the historical setting was known to ANYONE until a CENTURY after the alleged events.
I am not asking you to repeat your faithful Christian beliefs -
I am asking you to provide some evidence to support it.

Paul SAW Jesus in a VISION - he NEVER met Jesus in real life - and then he describes himself as JUST as good an apostle as the others - which clearly shows the other apostles never really met Jesus either, it was all just VISIONS.

You totally missed the point.
James' test of Paul's Christianity has NO mention of anything relating to the Gospel stories - the CENTRAL aspect of Christianity to Paul and James is the TEMPLE - not a word about any alleged Gospel events. This clearly shows James and Paul had no knowledge of any historical Jesus of Nazareth.

What?
Its exactly the same thing!
To be a real Christian is to be not a heretic.
To be a heretic is to be not a real Christian.

Can you explain the difference between being
a "real Christian"
and being
not a heretic?

"taken for granted"? that is meaningless.
Unimportant? The empty tomb story is unimportant to Christians?
Are you serious? the empty tomb is NOT IMPORTANT to Christians?
Rubbish.

The only reasonable option is that the empty tomb story was unknown to early Christians, but was added later.

Did you know that empty tomb scenes were a popular theme in first century Roman FICTION?

Because he says nothing about a real person - no time, date, places, names, events, context.
You have not shown anything in Paul which MUST refer to a real person - merely vague comments which CAN be twisted that way.

Rubbish.
There is no evidence of the Gospels existing until early-mid 2nd century.
Christians like to BELIEVE the Gospels are early, but its not supported by any evidence.

Perhaps you are refering to the crackpot theories of Thiede and P64?
No scholar agrees with his wild flights of fancy.
The earliest Gospel fragment is P52, which MAY be from early 2nd century - this is a tiny scrap of parchment which MAY be from John's Gospel.
The earliest substantial Gospel fragments date to the turn of the 3rd century.

Yes, I know all that.
My point is that a HISTORIAN, who was a CONTEMPORARY, and from the SAME REGION as the alleged Jesus - says NOTHING about Jesus.
What is your explanation for that?

G.Mark was first, and G.Luke and G.Matthew copied most of G.Mark, changing some events to suit their audience - clearly showing they were not writing history, merely telling a story.
G.Mark shows ignorance about the region's geography and culture, and was probably written in Rome.
The Gospels were un-named originally (Aristides, Justin), only being named in the late 2nd century by Irenaeus.

So,
the Gospels were :
* anonymous,
* not histories,
* not written locally,
* unknown until a century after the events,
* (full of mythical stories.)

Compared to a HISTORIAN who was a CONTEMPORARY, and from the SAME PLACE as Jesus.

Rubbish.
Philo visited Jerusalem (and Rome), he wrote plenty about Jerusalem and various figures who lived in Jerusalem and various events which took place in Jerusalem.
He had plenty of opportunity to learn about Jesus and to write about him - the fact that he did not argues there was no such Jesus.

I thought you said it was common knowledge?
Who did they hear it from?
Paul says nothing about who Jesus was as a person.
No Christian mentions details of Jesus as a person until 2nd century,
THEN, after the Gospels arise,
Christian writers start mentioning all the details ad nauseum, over and over ...

How is it that the earliest Christians show NO MENTION, and NO interest in Jesus and his miracles and teachings,
but,
later Christians all mention these details endlessly, filling whole libraries with these very details which YOU say were NOT IMPORTANT to early Christians, yet somehow were COMMON KNOWLEDGE, even though NO ONE mentioned them?

Nonsense.
The only reasonable conclusion is that Paul's Iesous Christos was not a historical person, but later MISTAKEN as a real person after the fall of Jerusalem had destroyed all the records and dispersed or killed the Jews.

Iasion

 

Welcome, Iasion, Well said.

 

1 Cor. 2:6
Yet we do speak wisdom among those who are mature; a wisdom, however, not of this age [aeon] nor of the rulers [archon] of this age [aeon], who are passing away; ...
the wisdom which none of the rulers of this age has understood; for if they had understood it they would not have crucified the Lord of glory;

He speaks of them as "passing away", "understanding". Please explain to me how you understand them as spiritual rulers? Maybe you could even try to back it up from elsewhere in the epistles.

Philippians 2:8
And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient to death– even death on a cross!

Colossians 2:14
...the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15 And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.

"God the author of Divine virtue was willing to send his Image (meaning of course in the person of Christ) from heaven to the earth, from compassion on our race, that he might wash away the impurities which fill this life with guilt and misery, and that he might thus secure to us a better inheritance." (Philo, vol. 2, p. 669)


Since you are the one claiming Jesus did not exist, you have to back it up with evidence, not lack of evidence. What is the earliest denial of the empty tomb or the life of a historical Jesus you have? Wouldn't I be able to make just as valid a counter-argument from the lack of such material?

You think the strength of your argument is by using Christian literature and authors to dismiss the very person they put their faith in. In most cases you are confusing the Gnostic perspective with the Christian one. This is also a fallacy, because the Gnostic perspective itself did not come out of nowhere - as Jewish mysticism, it was perfectly suited for creating a context in which Jesus would operate and be understood. Their weakness was that they spiritualized everything as you do now, making it sophia, with hidden meanings and "secrets" - an elitist approach that did not agree with the purpose of the messiah "to bring all people to God".

 

Jenyar,

The evidence is overwhelming and extensive. The evidence is that the Christian claims for evidence do not include any factual basis.

The ONLY reason to believe in a historical Jesus is because of Christian claims. If those claims are false then Jesus simply didn’t exist.

 

"The cross is where He nailed our suffering and inequities to." The nice thing about religion is one can make up absolutely anything. And therefor anything can mean anything to anyone. Which is why many of us think it is all a bunch of bull shit.

Example: God left the universe in 1437CE. That's why there are no more "supernatural" events occuring.

 

As such God left the universe in 1437CE - I mean you can't claim that isn't the case - at least not with lack of evidence and as such God did leave the Universe in 1437 and so this is all very mute

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think you see what I am getting at. I think that Iasion presents a persuasive argument. And there are a number of questions you continue to avoid?

 

Rather than dishonestly quoting without attribution, why not share your reasons for claiming this as a reference to Jesus.