Did Jesus fake his own death? page 8

214 posts

Flag Post

I said educated Atheists, like Richard Dawkin’s, acknowledge the historic impact of the life of Jesus.
I obviously wasn’t referring to you.

I lol’d.

Quite possibly the first recorded instance of a Christian apologist using Dawkins as an appeal to authority…on Christianity.

 
Flag Post

Jan, Johnny,

I’m not a christian apologist. Read my original post instead of assuming a contrary position. Would you be so quick to challenge the existence of Siddhartha Gautama Buddah or Zoroaster? There is far less archeological evidence supporting their existence.

Your challenges aren’t informed, they are full of stereotyping and hate. You can’t simply reduce the status of Jesus’ impact on history to myth simply because it coddles your blind prejudices.

Christianity had spread so rampantly after Jesus’ death that in less than a hundred years they were being persecuted and put to death by the Roman government. Do you think people would be willing to die over a made up story which supposedly took place less than 100 years ago?

Roman documents of the historic persecution of Christians abound!
There were no Christians before Christ, and then there were Christians after Christ. Our calender, and up until recently, our common era 2012, is based on the birth and death of this man.

You don’t have to believe in the Bible, or miracles, to understand that Jesus was a radical who spoke out against the corruption of established religion, preached love and forgiveness, had no political affiliation, and got himself nailed to a tree for it.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

Do you think people would be willing to die over a made up story which supposedly took place less than 100 years ago?

Yes, because like with modern stories, it had the potential to ‘go viral’, and gave them something to believe in. At the time there was no mass media, or global network, so there was no way for the common person to trace the story’s origin or put it into context with local events. So, they believed. As time went on, newer generations used the belief of older generations to reinforce their own belief, and additional writings on the subject made by some of these elders, continually reinforced it.

It became a force in its own right, through these methods. Jesus as a deity as a meta-entity existing only in the minds of the followers, whereas the originating person never existed at all.

 
Flag Post

I’m not a christian apologist. Read my original post instead of assuming a contrary position. Would you be so quick to challenge the existence of Siddhartha Gautama Buddah or Zoroaster? There is far less archeological evidence supporting their existence.

Yes, you are. Not a very good one, though. Your OP presented the bible as literal evidence for Historical Jesus. Not even the scholars who believe in HJ use the bible as their only source, as both the gospels, and for that matter, the concept itself, is inherently contradictory (HJ being a secular invention). When Johnny pointed out the obvious flaws in the evidence you accused him of hate-mongering.

Also yes, I’m quite sure people would take as much issue with Buddha as Christ (nobody believes in Zoroastrianism anymore) but this thread isn’t about Buddha, is it?

You can’t simply reduce the status of Jesus’ impact on history to myth simply because it coddles your blind prejudices.

I believe it’s your prejudices that are at issue here, given no one’s attacking you or Jesus, just the evidence for HJ. Certainly no one’s attacking “Jesus’ impact on history”, that’s a whole other subject unrelated to whether Jesus existed or not. Hercules, to use Johnny’s example, had a large impact on history, irrespective of whether he existed or not.

Christianity had spread so rampantly after Jesus’ death that in less than a hundred years they were being persecuted and put to death by the Roman government. Do you think people would be willing to die over a made up story which supposedly took place less than 100 years ago?

Given how fanatical early Christianity was (in a way that isn’t even comparable to present Christians), definitely. Also given cult phenomena, especially the tendency to pick something up from the dustbin of history, patch it up, and reformulate it according to one’s current needs, I’d say there’s plenty of basis for an invented, or mostly invented Jesus that would fire people’s desires for religio-political change.

Roman documents of the historic persecution of Christians abound!

Christians, sure. Not Christ.

You don’t have to believe in the Bible, or miracles, to understand that Jesus was a radical who spoke out against the corruption of established religion, preached love and forgiveness, had no political affiliation, and got himself nailed to a tree for it.

Uh-huh, according to the gospel of Terry Eagleton. Meaning as long as you forgo applying reason to the historical accuracy of Jesus (essentially skipping that topic), and dumping out half of what Jesus actually says in the bible (which, oddly enough, owes more to OT fire and brimstone than to 20th century peace & love hippy culture), then yes, that generalization seems sound.

I don’t have to believe in the historical accuracy of King Arthur in order to admire the moral and political principles attributed to him by Malory or De Troyes, or to lament what a shame it was that he didn’t win the day. That is, I can appreciate the story without requiring that it be true. That also goes for the bible, and it certainly goes for HJ.

Yeah I still think it’s funny that you’re getting so worked up over some random snide comment johnny made, but Dawkins, who is infamous for vitriolic rants about Christianity, is an ok guy in comparison, an ‘educated atheist’ because he believes in HJ, purely to advance the cause of atheism (which was actually the point of HJ to begin with).

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Azolf:

Do you think people would be willing to die over a made up story which supposedly took place less than 100 years ago?

Yes, because like with modern stories, it had the potential to ‘go viral’, and gave them something to believe in. At the time there was no mass media, or global network, so there was no way for the common person to trace the story’s origin or put it into context with local events. So, they believed. As time went on, newer generations used the belief of older generations to reinforce their own belief, and additional writings on the subject made by some of these elders, continually reinforced it.

It became a force in its own right, through these methods. Jesus as a deity as a meta-entity existing only in the minds of the followers, whereas the originating person never existed at all.

Vika, it’s so much easier place Jesus in a historic context than a spiritual one. These first Christians were his family and friends. He was that “crazy Jesus guy” who went from town to town. His followers were being persecuted long before Christianity spread to Rome.

I don’t need to tell you that the Bible didn’t fall out of the sky one day. The New Testament was a collection of letters being sent among friends before they were grouped together and tacked onto the end of the Old Testament.

Those letters have been meticulously copied and translated for 2000 years. You don’t have to believe in the deity of Christ to see that Jesus is History.

 
Flag Post

I understand what you are saying, in that the belief in Jesus is historical. However, Jesus himself was no more real than Harry Potter or Tarl Cabot. The bible is an abridged collection of writings from a group of individual believers, nothing more. It’s abridged because not every book that was in the original, is in there.

Its a storybook with a moral core. There’s a message of a lifestyle it is trying to teach, the same as many other sets of books try to teach. That’s the historical context. As Johnny said, there’s no historical proof that Jesus ever existed. If he did exist, he was probably six or seven different people, each of whom did some of the acts, or inspired some of the acts taking place in the book, each.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I understand what you are saying, in that the belkief in Jesus is historical. However, Jesus himself was no more real than Harry Potter or Tarl Cabot. The bible is an abridged collection of writings from a group of individual believers, nothing more. It’s abridged because not every book that was in the original, is in there.

Its a storybook with a moral core. There’s a message of a lifestyle it is trying to teach, the same as many other sets of books try to teach. That’s the historical context. As Johnny said, there’s no historical proof that Jesus ever existed. If he did exist, he was probably six or seven different people, each of whom did some of the acts, or inspired some of the acts taking place in the book, each.

I personally believe that Jesus had to come in the flesh because we weren’t getting it right.

“The owner of a large estate hired some people to take care of it while he was away. On hearing that it was not being managed properly, he sent messengers to the estate to tell them how it should be run. The messengers were beaten and thrown off the property. After several tries, the landowner decided to send his son, saying, ‘Surely they will respect my son.’ But on seeing the son arrive, the riotous caretakers said among themselves, ’This is the owners son, lets kill him, then all he has will be ours." -Jesus
 
Flag Post

They weren’t thinking straight. If you kill the son of the landowner, the landowner’s possessions don’t revert to you – they stay with the landowner. That’s what the title landowner means – they are the ones who own the land.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

They weren’t thinking straight. If you kill the son of the landowner, the landowner’s possessions don’t revert to you – they stay with the landowner. That’s what the title landowner means – they are the ones who own the land.

Exactly.

“Therefore, when the owner of the estate comes, what will he do to those tenants?” -Jesus

 
Flag Post

Hopefully not take the law into his own hands. The results would be disasterous, and he could well end up dead himself.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by vikaTae:

Hopefully not take the law into his own hands. The results would be disasterous, and he could well end up dead himself.

Hee Hee :-D

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:
Originally posted by vikaTae:

I understand what you are saying, in that the belkief in Jesus is historical. However, Jesus himself was no more real than Harry Potter or Tarl Cabot. The bible is an abridged collection of writings from a group of individual believers, nothing more. It’s abridged because not every book that was in the original, is in there.

Its a storybook with a moral core. There’s a message of a lifestyle it is trying to teach, the same as many other sets of books try to teach. That’s the historical context. As Johnny said, there’s no historical proof that Jesus ever existed. If he did exist, he was probably six or seven different people, each of whom did some of the acts, or inspired some of the acts taking place in the book, each.

I personally believe that Jesus had to come in the flesh because we weren’t getting it right.

“The owner of a large estate hired some people to take care of it while he was away. On hearing that it was not being managed properly, he sent messengers to the estate to tell them how it should be run. The messengers were beaten and thrown off the property.
After several tries, the landowner decided to send his son, saying, ‘Surely they will respect my son.’ But on seeing the son arrive, the riotous caretakers said among themselves, ’This is the owners son, lets kill him, then all he has will be ours." -Jesus

I didn’t sign any contract.
Also, I would like to see the guy’s property deed.

 
Flag Post

Geez people, you put too much effort into it. Really, it’s a very simple process.

Let’s forget about whether Jesus existed or not. Let’s assume he did exist. What did her claim? He claimed to be the Son of the God of Moses and Abraham etc, in sort the God of the Old Testement. Put your New Testements aside, open your Old ones and also open up a science and mathematics book.
What do we see in the Old book? We see a god creator who made the Universe. As any science book will tell you the Earth and the planets and stars are spherical. Not perfect spheres all the time but spherical in general. They are not flat. What does Isaiah say? It calles the earth a circle . Last time i checked the circle was a flat object. Seems like Old Testement’s God forgot basic geometry. Still not convinced? God made a set of ten rules, 4 out of which were used to satisfy his/her/it insecurity with being worshipped along side other god(s)/idols. He even ordered the killing of a man for not following the Sabbath. Also, one would think that the one and true god/creator of the cosmos would know that slavery is morally wrong. Nowhere in the OT is that mentioned. In fact Moses’ God encouraged Israelites to conquer other nations and either wipe them out or take them as slaves. Or both. And of course God would be expected to love women too. But the OT is very VERY misogynist.

Do you need more? How long before you understand that the God Jesus claimed to be the Son of cannot be the god creator of the cosmos? Whether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant, story ends from the Old Testement. If Jesus existed, he was a con man. A con man with a good moral code but a con man nonetheless.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Yuipon:
Originally posted by doomteen17:

the flood idia smells of bs as if it was real wec would find fish and over sea life foshols on every bloody montin. and probly in your own back yard ect

Please tell me that either A) your hands suffer from uncontrollable spasm syndrome or B) your primary language is something other than English.

i speak English just am a realy bad speller. and do make typos to which i don’t notice

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by doomteen17:
Originally posted by Yuipon:
Originally posted by doomteen17:

the flood idia smells of bs as if it was real wec would find fish and over sea life foshols on every bloody montin. and probly in your own back yard ect

Please tell me that either A) your hands suffer from uncontrollable spasm syndrome or B) your primary language is something other than English.

i speak English just am a realy bad speller. and do make typos to which i don’t notice

Suggest using a spell checker, as I do. Does not only make it easier to read for others, but you even learn a little on the way. For most Browsers its a simple zero cost add-on.

 
Flag Post

Doesn’t help you much though, Johnny. I mean, you still sound like a non-english speaker. I mean…smart, but still a foreigner.

 
Flag Post

Johnny’s issue isn’t with spelling. Its misunderstanding words. Using the wrong one in context is what gives him away. That’ll change with experience. Feed instead of fed; fallows instead of falls. Its these errors that a spell checker won’t catch that trip him up, not the spelling itself.

It’s understandable though, which is what matters most in the end. Doomteen’s posts often lack that one essential quality, because of their spelling problem.

 
Flag Post

Doomteen? Do you mean omega_doom? I always thought the one essential quality he lacked was a proper understanding of how reality works. Otherwise he sounds perfectly english.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Doesn’t help you much though, Johnny. I mean, you still sound like a non-english speaker. I mean…smart, but still a foreigner.

It helps me a lot. I have dyslexia. Writing English or German (the two languages i can write) without the spell checker would make reading stuff i write hell. Sadly the browser spell checker is no good with grammar.
The dyslexia also inhibits my ability to write as i speak. I grew up dual-language (lived in the USA from 4-11 years) and people don´t notice my dyslexia much when i talk (less in English than in German). But my written stuff sounds like its from another person. (Someone who can´t make simple sentences).


back to topic

Originally posted by Azolf:
Would you be so quick to challenge the existence of Siddhartha Gautama Buddah or Zoroaster?
There is far less archeological evidence supporting their existence.

You mean there is also no evidence. Fine if thats the case yes i would question their existence to the same degree. (I am not exactly gonna take you word on it, since i have seen this claim been made in Discussions like this before about historical figures such as Alexander the Great and Louis XVI).
I also do question a bit about the historical life of Muhammed, even though the evidence is better in his case. With some of the earliest outer Islamic sources being dated 634-636, 1-3 years after his Death.

Your challenges aren’t informed, they are full of stereotyping and hate.

So far you have not disproved a single one. All you do is keep claiming they are wrong. Feel free to quote and disprove(or at least try) any claim i made.

You can’t simply reduce the status of Jesus’ impact on history to myth simply because it coddles your blind prejudices.

Christianity had spread so rampantly after Jesus’ death that in less than a hundred years they were being persecuted and put to death by the Roman government. Do you think people would be willing to die over a made up story which supposedly took place less than 100 years ago?

1. Christianity was not the only religion prosecuted and it was not prosecuted more than any other. It was common for minorities especially religious ones to be discriminated against. They where made responsible for everything bad that happened.
Especially when communities and states which generally had the state religion of the current leader asked people to donate to the state sponsored gods for victory or better harvest, the fanatics that refused where commonly but to the sword, so as not to offend same said gods.
2. As others have already pointed out the Idea of Jesus and Jesus the Historical Person are too different things. I can deny the 2nd if there is no evidence for his existence and still accept the impact of the other, quite easily since histroy is full of that shit. Someone pointed to Hercules already how about a Christian Saint? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Ursula Many people in my city of cologne in which Saint Ursula is the holy saint still believe her to be a historical person.
Or try this one for size: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Tell#Historicity_debate

Roman documents of the historic persecution of Christians abound!

And a third of that is actually authentic and the 2/3 obvious additions of later Christian scribes. But again even the third that can be considered to be true do not prove a historical Jesus. Just the existence of Christianity in the very late 1 century(at least 40 years after his death) and the early 2nd.

Our calender, and up until recently, our common era 2012, is based on the birth and death of this man.

Actually are calender is based on Roman one made 45 BC. As BC points out, thats before his supposed birth. Later Christian. Anno Domini and Before Christ were only devised in 525 c.e., but was not widely used until 800 c.e.. It was adopted because of its practicality and not its truthfulness which is contested even by theologians that believe in the truth of the bible.

You don’t have to believe in the Bible, or miracles, to understand that Jesus was a radical who spoke out against the corruption of established religion, preached love and forgiveness, had no political affiliation, and got himself nailed to a tree for it.

And where outside of the Bible or source that use the Bible as base is all that written?

Its like me taking a Story out of Grimm’s Fairy Tales and saying you don´t have to believe that the old woman in the forest was witch or that her house was made of Candy and Cakes, but that the rest was true. Hansel and Gretel are actually left in the forest to die. Meet a old woman who invites them into her normal house and gives them to eat. Which does not cost her much since she intends to eat them any way. But they kill the bitch who is not a witch. Find treasure and make it back to live ever happily.

 
Flag Post

Johnny, that’s the second time you’ve responded to the same post. Did I not provide you with enough material to denigrate?

You’ve got the whole concept of the New Testament backwards. Within 100 years after Jesus’ death the Christian religion spread by word of mouth alone. There was no “New Testament” at the beginning of Christianity!

You obviously don’t know anything about Biblical archeology or the history of Christian theology. You’re happy to just browbeat so called Christians because in the past they’ve generally been an easy target for your intellectual superiority. That doesn’t make you informed on the subject. It just makes you a bully.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

Johnny, that’s the second time you’ve responded to the same post. Did I not provide you with enough material to denigrate?

You’ve got the whole concept of the New Testament backwards. Within 100 years after Jesus’ death the Christian religion spread by word of mouth alone. There was no “New Testament” at the beginning of Christianity!

You obviously don’t know anything about Biblical archeology or the history of Christian theology. You’re happy to just browbeat so called Christians because in the past they’ve generally been an easy target for your intellectual superiority. That doesn’t make you informed on the subject. It just makes you a bully.

You don’t need the New Testement to prove Jesus to be a fake god. In case no one has been paying attention i already said (twice) that all you need is the Old Testement to do that..

Originally posted by Dante_Dreiman:

Geez people, you put too much effort into it. Really, it’s a very simple process.

Let’s forget about whether Jesus existed or not. Let’s assume he did exist. What did her claim? He claimed to be the Son of the God of Moses and Abraham etc, in sort the God of the Old Testement. Put your New Testements aside, open your Old ones and also open up a science and mathematics book.
What do we see in the Old book? We see a god creator who made the Universe. As any science book will tell you the Earth and the planets and stars are spherical. Not perfect spheres all the time but spherical in general. They are not flat. What does Isaiah say? It calles the earth a circle . Last time i checked the circle was a flat object. Seems like Old Testement’s God forgot basic geometry. Still not convinced? God made a set of ten rules, 4 out of which were used to satisfy his/her/it insecurity with being worshipped along side other god(s)/idols. He even ordered the killing of a man for not following the Sabbath. Also, one would think that the one and true god/creator of the cosmos would know that slavery is morally wrong. Nowhere in the OT is that mentioned. In fact Moses’ God encouraged Israelites to conquer other nations and either wipe them out or take them as slaves. Or both. And of course God would be expected to love women too. But the OT is very VERY misogynist.

Do you need more? How long before you understand that the God Jesus claimed to be the Son of cannot be the god creator of the cosmos? Whether Jesus existed or not is irrelevant, story ends from the Old Testement. If Jesus existed, he was a con man. A con man with a good moral code but a con man nonetheless.

 
Flag Post

Dante_Dreiman, maybe Jesus came to set the record straight. If you were a loving father, wouldn’t you do something drastic to amend a biography, that in some instances, painted you as a monster and tyrant?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

Dante_Dreiman, maybe Jesus came to set the record straight. If you were a loving father, wouldn’t you do something drastic to amend a biography that in some instances painted you as a monster and tyrant?

What part of my post pointing out that the God of Abraham was a fake as much as Zeus or Odin or Thor or >Insert god here< was a fake didn’t you get Azolf?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by 422537:

If I am not mistaken, the Hebrew language lacked the term for sphere. The use of the word circle in the bible, cannot be used as evidence for the bible referring to the earth as flat.

So, the one true God who made the universe prefered to let them write ‘circle’ down instead of teaching them what sphere means….Reasonable, i had no idea that the God who made the universe was so lazy and enjoyed misinformation.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

Doomteen? Do you mean omega_doom? I always thought the one essential quality he lacked was a proper understanding of how reality works. Otherwise he sounds perfectly english.

Doomteen wrote this garbage:

the flood idia smells of bs as if it was real wec would find fish and over sea life foshols on every bloody montin. and probly in your own back yard ect

So that is what I was referring to.

We agree on our assessments of OmegaDoom, however. Still, he is far better than a FlyPH or Winnabago posting all over the board. I’d rather deal with him, than either of those. If he left, the board might well attract another like them, to fill in the void.

Besides, often you need someone to ask the idiot-questions to flesh an idea out properly.