Jesus Was

[FAST]

Some or all

We've been over this many times before. You can certainly choose not to believe that he was the Messiah/the Christ. But attempting to argue that Jesus was fictional is both uninformed and just plain foolish.

Just so I completely understand you,...are you saying that this dude, which I can accept existed in some version of what now is depicted,...actually died in the manner/duration, and then returned is also NOT fiction???

FAST

 

[blackrock13]

Just so I completely understand you,...are you saying that this dude, which I can accept existed in some version of what now is depicted,...actually died in the manner/duration, and then returned is also NOT fiction???

FAST

That's assuming he was really dead, not in a coma like state from the incredible pain an shock he was experiencing while being crucified?

 

[IM469]

A true gnostic are you with that that secret knowledge of yours. A shame that all those historians and theologians disagree with you.

Let's be real - theologians start with the premise that everything written n the bible is true and argue using it as the prime reference. It's like arguing that Paul Bunyon was real using the book as a reference. There are only a few wacko (as in God was a space alien) 'historians' that leap from the Bible to find proof that Jesus was the son of God, etc ..... they can suggests the times that he lived, suggest monasteries and religious sects that if he existed - might have come from but they do not reach conclusions which are the premise of the bible.

Look at the definition of faith: 1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. If you believe, you do not look for constant proof that you justify your beliefs.

 

[Aardvark154]

Tacitus got it wrong.

Nero was damned not because he persecuted Christians or allegedly set Rome ablaze, his devaluation of the coinage brought about his downfall. There was a historical Jesus but his followers no longer accepted his message of non-violence and love. They became zealots and set fire to Rome as a form of purification. Nero responded to this ancient 9/11 but he didn't specify Christians exclusively, Christians and Jews were persecuted and Judea was sacked.

The Christians bought it on themselves and dragged the Jews down with them.

Really? Modern scholars tend to agree with Tacitus and believe that the fire was Great Fire of Rome was accidental among other things the fire started just two days after a full moon, which is not the best time if you are an arsonist who doesn't wish to be observed and caught.

Christians were merely an easy group to blame things on, we've seen the same sort of thing repeatedly in the last century.

 

[blackrock13]

Let's be real - theologians start with the premise that everything written n the bible is true and argue using it as the prime reference. It's like arguing that Paul Bunyon was real using the book as a reference. There are only a few wacko (as in God was a space alien) 'historians' that leap from the Bible to find proof that Jesus was the son of God, etc ..... they can suggests the times that he lived, suggest monasteries and religious sects that if he existed - might have come from but they do not reach conclusions which are the premise of the bible.

Look at the definition of faith: 1.Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. If you believe, you do not look for constant proof you are justified in your beliefs.

You might want to check with the last few Archbishops in a place called Canterbury. Ever heard of a parable? The New Testament has quite a few of them within it's pages it's pages.

 

[Aardvark154]

Yep. We've been over this many times. There's so little from Jesus' alleged time that it's amazing so many people are hoodwinked.

Let's be real --

Arthur was taking the position that Jesus never lived, you can read the posts above this one refuting that viewpoint. "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink." The almost universal consensus of the Academic Community has been pointed out.

 

[Aardvark154]

Christmas is mostly a pagan tradition

That much of modern Christmas involves "baptised" traditions is important why? Mark, the earliest Gospel doesn't even mention the nativity.

the earliest gospel of Jesus was written 40 years after his death.

Which of course ignores oral tradition, Acts, the Epistles and "Q".

You'd think the greatest person to ever live. . . would at least have some writings of him earlier than 4 decades after his death. . . He was supposedly very well known, yet there are no writings about him from non-Christian sources. . .

May I suggest that you go talk with some Greco-Roman Historians if you believe that other people have much more contemporary written evidence of their lives.

You are of course correct that accepting that this man Jesus of Nazareth is the Christ is a matter of faith. Or as Saint Paul puts it in his Second Letter to the Corinthians (2 Corinthians 5:7) "We walk by faith, not by sight."

 

[canada-man]

You sure do love to sound like an expert, using words like hearsay over and over when it's been pointed the society at the time was one of most people not having reading an writing skills to relying on written words to record events. It had an oral tradition passing stories along by word of mouth. Oral traditions are found to be a valid form of recording and reporting. It's even accepted in the Canadian courts as valid evidence.

Then we have your claim that no contemporary records exist, when the truth is not have been found or that none survived. The dead sea scroll , arguably the most valuable documents ever to come out of the ancient world, supposedly didn't exist until 50 years ago.

When and by whom was the Book of Acts written?

yes i used hearsay because that's what the story of Jesus is based on hearsays which don't agree with each other.
yes I agree that most people don't have the writing skills during that time. Bart Erhman said the same thing. Illiteracy was high. he said the disciples and apostles where all illiterate.

the book of acts was written by unknown authors like the rest of the new testament and dated to the late 1st- 2nd century

 

[blackrock13]

yes i used hearsay because that's what the story of Jesus is based on hearsays which don't agree with each other.
yes I agree that most people don't have the writing skills during that time. Bart Erhman said the same thing. Illiteracy was high. he said the disciples and apostles where all illiterate.

the book of acts was written by unknown authors like the rest of the new testament and dated to the late 1st- 2nd century

You might want to recheck your source on the Book of Acts. It would appear they were wrong.

The disciples and apostles were literate, so what? I guess they couldn't dictate to scribes what they wanted to.

 

[canada-man]

You might want to recheck your source on the Book of Acts. It would appear they were wrong.

The disciples and apostles were literate, so what? I guess they couldn't dictate to scribes what they wanted to.

Bart Erhman and others in his field say the same thing

 

[oil&gas]

Let's be real - theologians start with the premise that everything written n the bible is true and argue using it as the prime reference. .............

This is not my impression from the noted theologians
I can think of. Alfred Loisy was excommunicated; Hans Kung rejected
the doctrine of papal infallibility and; Albert Schweitzer might even
be seen by orthodox christians as a heretic. The one prominent
theologian who believed in biblical inerrancy I know of is Clark
Pinnock. But apparently the late professor Pinnock changed
his mind in later years when he became a proponent of
'open theism'.

I wonder if the thelogians you have in mind were Christian
apologetics such as the ilk of Josh Mcdowell.

 

[blackrock13]

Bart Erhman and others in his field say the same thing

What 'thing'? Tough to write clearly when you have to use your own word?

 

[blackrock13]

Typical Blackrockian derpatude.

On type 1. If someone accepts the message in the bible and embraces it, they are not athiests. You sound like one of those gay dudes who think every straight guy just craves the cock.
On type 2: That is also complete bullshit. The only biblical things athiests are unconfortable with are the genocides, the psychotic jealous behavior of a supposed diety and other generally evil dick things the bible is in favor of. As well as things like the whole bipolor thing with the old testiment mein kampf with the new testiment hippy tree hugger thing. That and a supposed univerisal diety that ignores humanity for thousands of years then picks one tribe over all others for a long period of time before the story becomes that he loves everyone.
There is nothing for an athiest to deny here. Everything unconfortable in the bible is just more confirmation to the athiest that not only is having invisible friends silly but if you are going to have one, the bible isn't the place to find him. Unless your a dick.

No I don't berate others for their typos.

I berate YOU for your typos. I do this and make it clear that it is because you breate others for their typos which makes you a hypocritical dick. Much like how many people wouldn't dream of pointing out a grammar error unless they see a grammar national socialist do it first. There is a signifient difference which either you are too dense to grasp or that you ignore and choose to spread a falsehood. No wonder you are so down with jebus.

Accepting religious teachings in the Bible in whole or in part does not mean you're not an atheist as some religion are not based on deities. Some of the Bibles teaching are not unique to Christianity, being quite common to a number of religions. Your second point is so full of BS that it would take more time than you're worth to outline fully; 'the whole bipolor thing with the old testiment mein kampf with the new testiment hippy tree hugger thing'?

Religious or spiritual beliefs can be traced back almost a 300,000 years. It not a new thing that started only 5,000 years ago in the middle east with this one god. Some Christians even believed in more than one god. Clearly you've made up your mind, painting all religions with the same tainted brush, but you are certainly light on the facts or a broad knowledge base.

I do not make a habit of berating others of spelling mistakes. Most of the time, i'll ask for clarification or make a comment along the lines of typos mistakes can be humorous, or simply hi light them. You, in you long history on TERB, or in you previous banned handle of FATONE, should be able to remember that, but you have a hard time remembering what was posted three day ago, let alone three months ago.

 

[canada-man]

In the tradition of Robert Eisenman, Elaine Pagels, and Harold Bloom, a startling inquiry into early Christianity.

It is commonly believed that the story of Jesus as told in the Gospels contains some elements of fiction as well as of myth. But it is Professor Ellegard's view that the basic facts about the life of Jesus are fictional: Jesus was not born in the time of Augustus Caesar (27 B.C.-A.D. 14). He was not baptized by John. He was not sentenced to death by Pilate. And he never roamed Palestine as a wandering preacher and miracle worker. In fact, none of Jesus' supposed contemporaries ever saw him in the flesh but only through visions, as the Christ raised by God to heaven.

After leading readers through the earliest Christian writings, including Paul's Letters and a dozen other biblical and non-biblical texts, Professor Ellegard declares that none of these writers had seen Jesus in the flesh, nor did they refer to anybody who had. To them, Jesus was someone who had lived and died much earlier.

This thoroughly researched, closely argued book is the result of a modern scholar's purely historical, non-theological approach to Christianity's origins. Readers will certainly find its groundbreaking, controversial insights fascinating.

 

[Aardvark154]

If I find someone who wrote a book asserting that the all of the moon missions have been part of a vast fraud, and that the moon is actually made of Green Cheese, would you say that that author was an idiot or hail him/her as a visionary.

 

[canada-man]

If I find someone who wrote a book asserting that the all of the moon missions have been part of a vast fraud, and that the moon is actually made of Green Cheese, would you say that that author was an idiot or hail him/her as a visionary.

non-fiction books have bibliography and citations and foot notes which you can look up for further research. the claims that moon missions are frauds and the 911 fascist crackpots mostly exist on the internet and overnight radio shows like coast to coast am and crackpot internet radio like alex jones where you can claim conspiracies and don't have anybody to ask for evidence that require citations, bibliography, etc

 

[whitewaterguy]

If I find someone who wrote a book asserting that the all of the moon missions have been part of a vast fraud, and that the moon is actually made of Green Cheese, would you say that that author was an idiot or hail him/her as a visionary.

Comparing apples to oranges. Silly you

 

[blackrock13]

In the tradition of Robert Eisenman, Elaine Pagels, and Harold Bloom, a startling inquiry into early Christianity.

It is commonly believed that the story of Jesus as told in the Gospels contains some elements of fiction as well as of myth. But it is Professor Ellegard's view that the basic facts about the life of Jesus are fictional: Jesus was not born in the time of Augustus Caesar (27 B.C.-A.D. 14). He was not baptized by John. He was not sentenced to death by Pilate. And he never roamed Palestine as a wandering preacher and miracle worker. In fact, none of Jesus' supposed contemporaries ever saw him in the flesh but only through visions, as the Christ raised by God to heaven.

After leading readers through the earliest Christian writings, including Paul's Letters and a dozen other biblical and non-biblical texts, Professor Ellegard declares that none of these writers had seen Jesus in the flesh, nor did they refer to anybody who had. To them, Jesus was someone who had lived and died much earlier.

This thoroughly researched, closely argued book is the result of a modern scholar's purely historical, non-theological approach to Christianity's origins. Readers will certainly find its groundbreaking, controversial insights fascinating.

So is this just another one of many books you haven't read? Even your description is not yours.

http://www.atheist-community.org/library/catalog/detail.php?id=328

In the tradition of Robert Eisenman, Elaine Pagels, and Harold Bloom, a startling inquiry into early Christianity. It is commonly believed that the story of Jesus as told in the Gospels contains some elements of fiction as well as of myth. But it is Professor Ellegard's view that the basic facts about the life of Jesus are fictional: Jesus was not born in the time of Augustus Caesar (27 B.C.-A.D. 14). He was not baptized by John. He was not sentenced to death by Pilate. And he never roamed Palestine as a wandering preacher and miracle worker. In fact, none of Jesus' supposed contemporaries ever saw him in the flesh but only through visions, as the Christ raised by God to heaven. After leading readers through the earliest Christian writings, including Paul's Letters and a dozen other biblical and non-biblical texts, Professor Ellegard declares that none of these writers had seen Jesus in the flesh, nor did they refer to anybody who had. To them, Jesus was someone who had lived and died much earlier. This thoroughly researched, closely argued book is the result of a modern scholar's purely historical, non-theological approach to Christianity's origins. Readers will certainly find its groundbreaking, controversial insights fascinating.

You're such a puddle.