Did Jesus fake his own death? page 7

214 posts

Flag Post
Originally posted by WiiHugger:
I haven’t read the entire thread, but if you are saying it is false due to no evidence of the ark, then I say that the wood probably rotted away long ago.

I’m talking about the sheer impracticality of it if the Bible is an accurate re-telling of how it went down, along with the distinct lack of evidence for the flood, if it indeed did cover the entire world as per Bible. If, however, if only coverred a large, but not global, area, then it would be in some realm of possibility in our world, but also make the Bible be regarded as something that has at least once been wrong.

 
Flag Post

Jesus is not and was never a liar. /thread

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Oh look, another “Christianity is wrong because” thread. I was feeling a little neglected, not having my beliefs shat on all day.

Originally posted by WiiHugger:

Last post then I need to go to bed.
I haven’t read the entire thread, but if you are saying it is false due to no evidence of the ark, then I say that the wood probably rotted away long ago.

I recall reading an article that mentioned that they may have found Noah’s Arc. What remained of it fit the dimensions in the Bible, and they found evidence of many species in it including hairs, droppings, etc. If you care to look at it, just search for it. Of course, it may be a hoax, or even false hope. I don’t know what to think of it.

 
Flag Post

*how to be fake jesus*
1. Have real jesus get crucified
2. Have beard similar to jesus while being skinny
3. have a bunch of stoners near jesus’s tomb
4. walk by
5.????
6. CREATE RELIGION

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by NewSlacks:

Jesus is not and was never a liar. /thread

You obviously haven’t read the title of this thread.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:

Oh look, another “Christianity is wrong because” thread. I was feeling a little neglected, not having my beliefs shat on all day.

And where did I do that? I was trying to be as even-handed as possible.

 
Flag Post

easy, 1st get a look a like to take his place on the cross, stell the body alowing him to make his reapearince,and considring the time the knolidge for medical ect they probly didt know when people were realy dead or not conidring eve in 1600 people were beaning burryed alive and + people back then would buy the stupidist of idias like some random person saling normal water as some cure for some thing and making big bucks.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:

I’m talking about the sheer impracticality of it if the Bible is an accurate re-telling of how it went down, along with the distinct lack of evidence for the flood, if it indeed did cover the entire world as per Bible. If, however, if only coverred a large, but not global, area, then it would be in some realm of possibility in our world, but also make the Bible be regarded as something that has at least once been wrong.

Genesis 7:19 – They rose greatly on the earth, and all the high mountains under the entire heavens were covered.

A local flood? Really?!? Really?!?

 
Flag Post

the flood idea smells of bs as if it was real we would find fish and over sea life fossils on every bloody mountain. and provably even in your own back yard ect

 
Flag Post
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.

 
Flag Post

judging by his other posts…he’s either frequently drunk, or not an english speaker. With 1100 posts at his belt, i’ll give him the benefit of the doubt.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by WiiHugger:
A local flood? Really?!? Really?!?

Yes, because that way the Bible’s just streching the truth but is not entirely wrong, if it turned out that there was actually no local flood like that, then that Bible story would utterly false, as in order to flood the entire world, you would need more water than is on the planet.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:as in order to flood the entire world, you would need more water than is on the planet.

That’s not true. If God used His omnipotence to flood the entire world, it wouldn’t take all the water that is on the world. I mean, if He is omnipotent, He could have just covered the entire Earth in a 1000 foot layer of water. He can force matter to not obey the laws of physics, so why is it that our arguments always try to contain Him within those laws? If He is contained in those laws, then He isn’t omnipotent, and He isn’t God. If that is the case, then argue that there is no God.

Arguments about how “a being not limited by Y (or anything else) couldn’t have done X because of the limitations of Y” always feel like a finger is poking me in the eye. God, not being limited by physics, couldn’t have flooded the Earth, because of physics. Arrrrrggghhhh! My eye!

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by tenco1:
Originally posted by WiiHugger:
A local flood? Really?!? Really?!?

Yes, because that way the Bible’s just streching the truth but is not entirely wrong, if it turned out that there was actually no local flood like that, then that Bible story would utterly false, as in order to flood the entire world, you would need more water than is on the planet.

Forget it. Don’t bother trying to use rules of physics against god…there’s always some impossible move to explain how how God pogs your pog…just don’t expect an explanation to it.

 
Flag Post

when they crucify you, they nail/tie you to a post and leave you there to hang and slowly die while ravens pick at you. it’s entirely doable for some of your friends to get you down from it while you’re still alive. mystery solved.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by MyTie:
If God used His omnipotence to flood the entire world,

And now every argument has become invalid.

You see the problem with assuming a diety of unlimited power and unknown intent exists?

 
Flag Post

The religious leaders who had Jesus crucified didn’t want his followers stealing the body and claiming he rose again. Even the Roman governor agreed to have the tomb guarded by centurions.
This was a time of political unrest, no one in political or religious power wanted the people having a martyr, let alone a risen savior who preached equality and a Heavenly Kingdom rather than an earthly one.

Somehow the guards fled, or fell unconscious, the stone was rolled away, and the body of Jesus was not to be found. Very little is written in the Gospels of his visits after death, his disciples didn’t even recognize him at first. He is said to have appeared among them to eat, and to teach of the arrival of the Holy Spirit after his departure to Heaven.

His life is written about in great detail up until his death. Accounts of his resurrection remain fragmented and unclear. One thing is sure. His followers kept his teachings, they are reported to have received the Holy Spirit, performing miracles, growing in numbers, and gaining a lot of attention from the Roman government.

The educated atheist acknowledges the person of Jesus.
The faithful Christian accepts the Deity of Christ.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

The religious leaders who had Jesus crucified didn’t want his followers stealing the body and claiming he rose again. Even the Roman governor agreed to have the tomb guarded by centurions.
This was a time of political unrest, no one in political or religious power wanted the people having a martyr, let alone a risen savior who preached equality and a Heavenly Kingdom rather than an earthly one.

Somehow the guards fled, or fell unconscious, the stone was rolled away, and the body of Jesus was not to be found. Very little is written in the Gospels of his visits after death, his disciples didn’t even recognize him at first. He is said to have appeared among them to eat, and to teach of the arrival of the Holy Spirit after his departure to Heaven.

His life is written about in great detail up until his death. Accounts of his resurrection remain fragmented and unclear. On thing is sure. His followers kept his teachings, they are reported to have received the Holy Spirit, performing miracles, growing in numbers, and gaining a lot of attention from the Roman government.

The educated atheist acknowledges the person of Jesus.
The faithful Christian accepts the Deity of Christ.

Sigh if you can´t tell how stupid most of your claims are then there is no helping you.

They supposedly posted guards prevent the body from being stolen? Seriously? Thats the most dumb shit excuse that was retro actively written into the Bible.
Why did they not do so with all rest of the deranged prophets they killed? If they cared about the Body being stolen enough to put guards on a grave why not publicly destroy the body themselves? Why when to them it would not even matter. They could of used almost any body/head for such a show or for parading the body after his followers claimed resurrection or what ever. But even if they did have the real body what use would that have been?
Parading the body around would not have made any sense. Most people would not even recognize the supposed Jesus (No Fotos, TV and Posters and certainly no wide know celebrity no matter what the Bible claims) especially since the body would not have been (or needed to be) in its best representable state. Add to that that even with a Body(his own or similar looking one) that would not stop deranged followers from claiming and believing in his resurrection, in body or spirit. If a body that could reasonably claimed to be Jesus was presented today Christians would sooner make it a relic than give up their belief in resurrection.
Ever heard of Elvis? They should have posted guards or wait let me guess they fled or fell unconscious.

One thing is sure about Jesus. If he existed, then he was not the celebrity the bible claims unless all writings that where written about him during his life or shortly after were magically destroyed. Because there aren´t any. No one cared. We have a hell of lot of correspondences that have survived from that time. So that we have several reverences to most of the most important events and comparably mundane stuff.
But no one, from the scribes(historical, political or otherwise) to the merchants(quite a number who corresponded regularly with friends, family and business partners aboard) or diplomats found it important enough to even mention a single line about Jesus.
Instead we have Christian writings. Written several decades if not more than hundred years (earliest fragments in existence being dated after 150 a.d.) after his supposed death. From anonymous authors that apparently never knew Jesus in person.

No an educated atheist does not acknowledge the person of Jesus, just like he does no acknowledge the person of Hercules.

 
Flag Post

I feel like the reason so much stuff from the Bible sounds insane today is because people take everything literally, when a lot of it was meant to be symbolic.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Aikaaa:

I feel like the reason so much stuff from the Bible sounds insane today is because people take everything literally, when a lot of it was meant to be symbolic.

What of it is meant to be symbolic?

 
Flag Post

Since this is a post on religion and how you have realized your old religion was untruthful, see this site for information on a actually believable religion (I know it’s a rarity but i have finally found one which doesn’t have any disagreeing but agreeing information). http://www.wikihow.com/Become-a-Pastafarian Don’t know how to make this a link

 
Flag Post

JohnnyBeGood, you can’t simply refute 2000 years of established history by saying, “Nah-Ah, you’re an idiot.”
I said educated Atheists, like Richard Dawkin’s, acknowledge the historic impact of the life of Jesus.
I obviously wasn’t referring to you.

Do a little research. The question isn’t whether or not Jesus existed. The question is whether or not he was the Son of God.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

The question isn’t whether or not Jesus existed. The question is whether or not he was the Son of God.

Well, if that is the question, then the answer to it is really simple. In order to prove Jesus being a fake you don’t have to prove the New Testement wrong. All you have to do is debunk the Old Testement. After all Jesus proclaimed to be the Son of the God of Abraham so the son of the God of the Old Testement. If the God of the Old Testement is a fake, then Jesus is a con man by default.

Now, as far as the Old Testement goes. When you read it do you see in it the existence of an all logical, all powerful, all knowing, all wise being that put together the Universe itself? I don’t.

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

Do a little research. The question isn’t whether or not Jesus existed. The question is whether or not he was the Son of God.

I agree that Jesus did not exist, and agree he is the son of god. Does that clear things up?

 
Flag Post
Originally posted by Azolf:

JohnnyBeGood, you can’t simply refute 2000 years of established history by saying, “Nah-Ah, you’re an idiot.”

Sigh. Which i did not even if you are. Actual historical research is something new. It does not rely on wide spread legends on myths but on hard factual data. Which means archaeological evidence. There is absolutely zero hard evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Nothing written by himself or about him during his supposed life time, even the earliest exciting fragments of the NT are Dated to be no older than from 150 A.D.. And the Authors of NT very obviously did not know Jesus in Person. Many of the stories in the N.T. are obviously false. Like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleansing_of_the_Temple
If you don´t understand why its bullshit then i suggest you go try pull of that stunt in the Vatican or Mecca. See how far you get.

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

Do a little research. The question isn’t whether or not Jesus existed. The question is whether or not he was the Son of God.

I did lots of research on the subject. Thats why i have made actual arguments and not your false appeals to authority and ad populous. Richard Dawkins is not a historian. He fallows in the same fallacy that many fall into when regarding Jesus and that was especially apparent during the early 20th century. Not looking if the proclaimed evidence is factual but trying to see the person behind the Jesus in the Bible. Since thats been done a lot of times already we can even sum up the expected results. There is not enough substance/individual consistent personalty (too many Authors) for those who try to look at the person behind the book for them to even get to something of a similar result. Instead its just a reflection of what the person wants to see.
No wonder Darwkins believes that Jesus as person would be an Atheist if he was born now or then if he knew what we knew now. Others have seen for example as a communist.
As said Dawkins is not exactly educated on the subject of Jesus existence(His forte is natural Science, especially Biology and Evolution that don´t have to do with the subject). But then you don´t mean educated Atheist like me, who have studied the topic, but people who were educated like yourself and left basically ignorant on the subject and feed with false data(we have 2000 years of established history lol, refuting Jesus does not refute actual history just your unproven and false version of the first 100 years).